natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Latvia also notes that the Agreement provides for a number of contingency measures aimed at protecting the financial interests of the State in case BAS would fail not fulfil its obligations: (i) the right for the State to acquire the shares from BAS in exchange of LVL 1, (ii) the obligation for the private investors that granted syndicated loan 2 to airBaltic to attribute their claims against airBaltic to the State under certain circumstances, and (iii) the obligation for the investors to compensate airBaltic for certain off-balance sheets liabilities amounting to approximately EUR […] million [24].
Predvideva tudi tri vrste ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, in sicer: (i) optimizacijo prihodkov in stroškov za obstoječe poslovanje, (ii) preoblikovanje omrežja, s čimer se bodo prilagodili namembni kraji, pogostost in časovna razporeditev, ter (iii) optimizacijo omrežja in flote.
The fact that BAS and the investors accepted these contingency measures is, in Latvia's opinion, proof that the investors were confident that BAS would fulfil its obligations.
Načrt za prestrukturiranje vključuje 26 pobud, ki se nanašajo na prihodke in stroške, ter dodatne pobude na področju preoblikovanja omrežja in obnove flote.
On this basis, Latvia considers that measures 1, 2 and 3 were concomitant and MEIP-rational.
Načrt določa tudi več izravnalnih ukrepov: (i) 27-odstotno zmanjšanje flote, (ii) predajo 14 donosnih prog in (iii) predajo […] parov slotov na koordiniranih letališčih.
In addition, since measure 6 was a corollary of the contingency measures, Latvia claims that this measure does not entail aid either.
Družba airBaltic bo svoje zmogljivosti od leta 2011 do leta 2016 zmanjšala za [17–20] % v smislu ponujenih sedežev oziroma kilometrov [26] ([7–10] %, če se upoštevajo samo donosne proge).
In addition, as regards measure 1, Latvia adds that the interest rate was in line with the MEIP and the Reference Rate Communication [25] and argues that the lowering of the interest rate from [11 — 13] % to [2 — 4] % was economically rational for the State in order to reduce the funding costs of airBaltic (which at time it already owned at 99,8 %).
Latvija meni, da bi bilo tako zmanjšanje zmogljivosti v skladu s preteklimi primeri.
Concerning measure 2, Latvia is of the opinion that the interest rate was in line with the MEIP.
Poleg tega načrt za prestrukturiranje vključuje sprostitev […] parov slotov kot posledico zaprtja več prog.
Since this transaction was agreed by BAS and the State in full concomitance, Latvia excludes the presence of aid.
Komisija je med formalnim postopkom preiskave prejela pripombe družb Ryanair in airBaltic ter treh posameznikov, ki so pripombe predložili v imenu upnikov družbe airBaltic.
Latvia further argues that the fact that BAS did not fulfil its commitment within the maximum deadline (i.e. 30 January 2012) is irrelevant and that the State had no option but to convert the first State loan and the first tranche of the second State loan into capital — it did so on 29 December 2011.
Družba Ryanair se strinja s predhodnima ugotovitvama Komisije, da so obravnavani ukrepi neskladni z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu in nezdružljivi z notranjim trgom.
Moreover, Latvia explains that the State took all possible steps towards forcing BAS to fulfil its commitment.
Vendar trdi, da ocena Komisije glede skladnosti z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu v sklepu o začetku postopka ni popolna, saj bi morala Komisija proučiti, ali bi se zasebni vlagatelj takoj odločil za likvidacijo družbe airBaltic, namesto da bi ji zagotovil dodaten kapital [27].
According to Latvia, this ensures that the entire Agreement is pari passu, since the assignment of the claim to airBaltic guarantee that the private investors make a proportionate contribution to the financial injection into airBaltic.
Čeprav družba Ryanair meni, da ni imela dovolj informacij za pripombe o načrtu reShape, dvomi, da bo lahko družba airBaltic ponovno vzpostavila donosnost, in meni, da bi bilo treba družbo likvidirati.
Concerning measure 4, Latvia is of the opinion that the issuance of 0 %-coupon bonds was carried out concomitantly by the State and BAS under identical conditions and thereby excludes the presence of state aid.
Družba Ryanair trdi tudi, da bi kakršna koli pomoč družbi airBaltic škodljivo vplivala na njen položaj na trgu, saj Ryanair opravlja prevoze na 13 progah iz Rige in na več kot polovici teh prog neposredno konkurira družbi airBaltic.
Latvia also explains that the decision to issue bonds was taken at the initiative of BAS.
Družba airBaltic v svojih pripombah poudarja, da razlogi za njene težave izvirajo iz ravnanja prejšnjega vodstva in nesrečnih odločitev Bertolta Flicka pred oktobrom 2011, ki so bile po navedbah družbe airBaltic osredotočene na poslovno strategijo, ki je temeljila izključno na širjenju in ne na donosnosti.
As regards the fact that these bonds offered no profit, Latvia claims that the Commission should take into account the so-called ‘owner effect’ and consider that the State, as shareholder of airBaltic, had different incentives than an outsider investor.
Poleg tega pojasnjuje, da je prejšnje vodstvo družbe poleg vzpostavitve nepregledne strukture družbe in organizacijske strukture sklenilo veliko neugodnih pogodb in sklepalo posle brez poslovne logike.
Finally, as regards measure 5, Latvia is of the opinion that no State resources were involved and that in any event the actions of the FCMC would not be imputable to the State.
Družba airBaltic trdi tudi, da je Latvija s sprejetjem odločitve, da bo sodelovala in izpolnila obveznosti iz sporazuma, ravnala kot razumen zasebni vlagatelj.
However, during the course of the formal investigation procedure, Latvia provided arguments in this respect and noted that if state aid was present, it would be compatible restructuring aid under the R&R Guidelines.
Poleg tega je sporazum vključeval zadostne zaščitne ukrepe za zagotovitev popolne zaščite interesov Latvije pred družbo BAS in uporaba teh zaščitnih ukrepov je bila po mnenju družbe airBaltic za Latvijo bolj smiselna kot kršitev njenih naložbenih zavez, s katero bi Latvija povzročila stečaj družbe, uničila vrednost deležev obstoječih delničarjev in se izpostavila odškodninskim zahtevkom zasebnih vlagateljev.
On this basis, Latvia submitted in December 2013 a restructuring plan according to which the restructuring of airBaltic started in April 2011, when a first version of the plan was submitted to the company's management.
Na tej podlagi družba airBaltic ugotavlja, da odločitev Latvije za sklenitev sporazuma ne vsebuje elementov državne pomoči.
This document identified some of the weaknesses of airBaltic and established that EUR [175 — 185] million in capital were needed.
Družba airBaltic meni, da je bila pridobitev brezkuponskih obveznic, ki jih je država aprila 2010 pridobila od družbe (ukrep 4), gospodarsko razumna in povsem sočasna naložba države in družbe BAS, zato ugotavlja, da ni bila državna pomoč.
This first version of the plan evolved into the reShape plan of March 2012, which according to Latvia was a preliminary step to the restructuring plan submitted in December 2013.
Družba airBaltic v zvezi s plačilom v višini 2,8 milijona EUR, ki ga je prejela 21. in 22. novembra 2011 od banke Latvijas Krājbanka (ukrep 5), meni, da gre za odločitve, sprejete v okviru njenega poslovanja, in da se te odločitve nanašajo na zasebna finančna sredstva, kar izključuje prisotnost državnih sredstev.
The restructuring plan foresees a 5-year restructuring period from April 2011 to April 2016 and total restructuring costs of LVL [150 — 170] million (EUR [214 — 242] million).
Poleg tega je družba airBaltic poudarila svojo vlogo pri ohranjanju povezanosti Latvije z ostalimi državami EU in zagotovila nekatere informacije o izvajanju načrta reShape s strani novega vodstva družbe.
The restructuring plan foresees three types of restructuring measures: (i) optimisation of revenues and costs for the existing operations; (ii) network reconfiguration, resulting in adjustment of destinations, frequencies and timing; and (iii) network and fleet optimisation.
Pripombe, ki so jih predložili trije posamezniki v imenu upnikov družbe airBaltic, so imele podobno strukturo.
The restructuring plan includes a total of 26 initiatives addressing revenue and costs, coupled with additional initiatives in the area of network reconfiguration and fleet renewal.
Upniki se na splošno pritožujejo zaradi ukrepov, obravnavanih v sklepu o začetku postopka, zlasti zaradi ukrepa 6.
As regards the restoration of airBaltic's viability, the plan expects that with these initiatives the company will break-even in 2014 and remain profitable thereafter, with EBIT reaching LVL [1 — 3] million (EUR [1,4 — 4,2] million) in 2014 and LVL [9 — 12] million (EUR [12,8 — 17] million) in 2016.
Poleg tega so se sklicevali na nekatere neodplačane dolgove družbe airBaltic, ki očitno izvirajo iz sporazuma in so domnevno povzročili plačilno nesposobnost nekaterih upnikov.
The restructuring plan also includes revised financial forecasts on the basis of realistic, pessimistic and optimistic scenarios, which are subject to a sensitivity analysis in order to assess the risks and their possible impact.
STALIŠČA LATVIJE GLEDE PRIPOMB ZAINTERESIRANIH TRETJIH STRANI
The plan also puts forward a number of compensatory measures: (i) fleet reduction by 27 %; (ii) the surrender of 14 profitable routes; and (iii) the surrender of […] slot pairs in coordinated airports.
Latvija se je v svojih stališčih glede pripomb tretjih strani strinjala z mnenjem družbe airBaltic, da obravnavani ukrepi niso državna pomoč.
Between 2011 and 2016, airBaltic will reduce its capacity by [17 — 20] % in terms of ASK [26] ([7 — 10] % when considering profitable routes only).
Latvija v zvezi s pripombami družbe Ryanair trdi, da sodna praksa, ki jo je izpostavila družba in s tem pokazala, da bi morala država družbo airBaltic likvidirati, namesto da ji je zagotovila sredstva, ne velja za obravnavani primer, saj je bila država takrat samo delničar družbe airBaltic in ne njen večji upnik.
According to Latvia, such capacity reduction would be in line with past cases.
Latvija meni, da merilo zasebnega upnika v tem primeru ne zadostuje za oceno razumnosti naložbenih odločitev države.
In addition, the restructuring plan includes the release of […] slot pairs as the result of the closure of several routes.
Poleg tega trdi, da je z odločitvijo za sklenitev sporazuma sprejela, da bo trpela kratkoročne izgube, da bi dolgoročno ponovno vzpostavila donosnost, in da so bile te naložbene odločitve sprejete na pobudo družbe BAS.
The restructuring plan estimates the restructuring costs at LVL [150 — 170] million (EUR [214 — 242] million), which will be used for repayment of third-party loans, to compensate losses resulting from the phase-out and disposal of certain aircraft, redundancy payments the purchase of new aircraft, etc.
Poudarja tudi, da so se izgube družbe airBaltic zmanjšale, in zavrača argumente družbe Ryanair kot neutemeljene.
In view of total restructuring costs, the proposed own contribution of airBaltic according to the restructuring plan amounts to LVL [100 — 110] million (EUR [141 — 155] million), i.e. [60 — 70] % of the total restructuring costs.
Nazadnje, Latvija v zvezi s pripombami posameznikov v imenu upnikov družbe airBaltic meni, da niso povezane z ukrepi, navedenimi v sklepu o začetku postopka, in da se zdi, da je njihov cilj izboljšati položaj upnikov v njihovih gospodarskih sporih z družbo airBaltic.
According to the restructuring plan, the own contribution would results from several injections from private parties (including a liquidity facility and advance payments), private loans, a lease agreement for new aircraft and a partial write-off of debt with two banks.
OCENA UKREPOV
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Ta sklep na prvem mestu obravnava vprašanje, ali je airBaltic podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje (oddelek 7.1).
During the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments from Ryanair and airBaltic, as well as three individuals on behalf of creditors of airBaltic.
Nato proučuje, ali so obravnavani ukrepi državna pomoč družbi airBaltic v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU (oddelek 7.2) ter ali je kakršna koli taka pomoč zakonita (oddelek 7.3) in združljiva z notranjim trgom (oddelek 7.4).
Ryanair agrees with the Commission's preliminary findings that the measures under assessment are inconsistent with the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) and incompatible with the internal market.
TEŽAVE DRUŽBE AIRBALTIC
Ryanair however argues that the Commission's assessment of the MEIP was not complete in the opening decision, since the Commission should have considered whether a private investor would have opted for liquidating airBaltic upfront instead of providing it with additional capital [27].
Kot je bilo navedeno že v sklepu o začetku postopka, so latvijski organi sami pojasnili, da so se težave družbe airBaltic začele leta 2008 zaradi svetovne gospodarske recesije in velikega zvišanja cen nafte.
Ryanair also argues that the Commission should have assessed in its opening decisions whether the liquidation of airBaltic was more profitable for the State than the provision of additional funds.
Zato je družba airBaltic leta 2008 ustvarila izgubo v višini 28 milijonov LVL (39,64 milijona EUR).
Although Ryanair considers that it had no sufficient information to comment on the reShape plan, it notes its doubts that airBaltic would return to profitability and considered that the company should have been liquidated.
Leta 2009 je ustvarila dobiček v višini 6 milijonov LVL (8,49 milijona EUR).
Ryanair also argues that any aid to airBaltic would harm its market position since Ryanair operates 13 routes from Riga, of which more than half in direct competition with airBaltic.
Revidirani letni računovodski izkazi družbe airBaltic kažejo, da je imela družba v obdobju 2009–2012 negativen lastniški kapital, katerega negativna vrednost se je vsako leto še povečala.
airBaltic highlights in its comments that the reasons for the difficulties of the company were due to the conduct of the previous management and the unfortunate decisions of Mr Flick before October 2011, who — according to airBaltic — focused on a commercial strategy based solely on expansion and not on profitability.
Dejansko je imela družba airBaltic leta 2009 negativen lastniški kapital v višini 19,2 milijona LVL (27,18 milijona EUR), ki se je leta 2010 povečal na 23,3 milijona LVL (32,99 milijona EUR), leta 2011 na 105,6 milijona LVL (149,51 milijona EUR) in leta 2012 na 125,1 milijona LVL (177,12 milijona EUR).
Also, airBaltic explains that the previous management of the company entered into many disadvantageous contracts and concluded transaction without business rationale, besides setting up an opaque corporate and organisational structure.
Preglednica
Also according to airBaltic, when Latvia decided to participate and to execute the Agreement, it acted as a rational private investor. airBaltic notes that Latvia's investment was concomitant to that of BAS and that it had required severe sacrifices from BAS and other private investors.
Ključni finančni podatki družbe airBaltic za obdobje 2007–junij 2011 (v tisoč LVL)
In addition, the Agreement included sufficient safeguards to ensure that Latvia's interest were fully protected against BAS; using these safeguards was — according to airBaltic — more rational for Latvia than to breach its investment commitments, thereby causing the company to go bankrupt, destroying the value of the existing shareholders and exposing itself to damage claims by the private investors.
Čisti izid
On this basis, airBaltic concludes that the decision of Latvia to enter into the Agreement does not contain elements of state aid.
Operativni stroški
As regards the acquisition by the State of 0 %-coupon bonds from airBaltic in April 2010 (measure 4), airBaltic is of the opinion that it was economically rational and a fully concomitant investment of the State and BAS and thereby concludes that it did not entail state aid.
Finančni odhodki
In relation to the payment of EUR 2,8 million by Latvijas Krājbanka to airBaltic on 21 and 22 November 2011 (measure 5), airBaltic considers that these were decisions taken in the course of airBaltic's business and that they concern private funds, thereby excluding the presence of State resources.
Lastniški kapital delničarjev
Finally, airBaltic highlights the role of airBaltic in keeping Latvia connected with the rest of the EU and provides some information on the implementation of the reShape plan by the new management of the company.
V skladu s točko 10(c) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje za podjetje velja, da je v težavah, če „po domači zakonodaji izpolnjuje kriterije za uvedbo kolektivnih postopkov insolventnosti“.
As regards the comments provided by three individuals on behalf of creditors of airBaltic, they had a similar structure.
To je očitno veljalo za družbo airBaltic vsaj od 21. septembra 2011 – če ne prej – ko je vložila prošnjo za pravno varstvo pred terjatvami svojih upnikov.
In addition, they made reference to certain unpaid debts of airBaltic which apparently had their origin in the Agreement and which allegedly had led some of the creditors into insolvency.
Ne glede na to Komisija meni, da bi se v vsakem primeru zdelo, da je airBaltic podjetje v težavah v smislu točke 11 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
OBSERVATIONS FROM LATVIA ON THE COMMENTS OF INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
Vendar se zdi, da je lahko leta 2009 ustvarila dobiček samo zaradi izrednega padca cen goriva.
In its observations on the comments of third parties, Latvia agreed with airBaltic's views that the measures under assessment did not entail state aid.
Kot je navedeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, se zdi, da je bila ponovna vzpostavitev donosnosti leta 2009 enkraten dogodek, ki je bil posledica izrednih okoliščin in ne strukturni trend.
In relation to Ryanair's comments, Latvia observes that the case-law highlighted by Ryanair — suggesting that the State should have liquidated airBaltic instead of providing it with funds — is not applicable, since at the time the State was not a major creditor of airBaltic but merely a shareholder.
Dolg družbe in njeni finančni odhodki so se v obdobju 2008–2009 močno povečali, še bolj pa v obdobju 2009–2010, ko so se stroški financiranja zvišali s 3,8 milijona LVL (5,38 milijona EUR) na 17,4 milijona LVL (24,64 milijona EUR) [30].
According to Latvia, the private creditor test is not adequate to assess the rationality of the State's investment decisions in this case.
Iz tega izhaja tudi, da so se spremenljivke družbe airBaltic, povezane s stroški, povečevale za [5–10] % na leto, to je hitreje kot spremenljivke, povezane s prihodki, ki so se povečevale za [2–7] % na leto.
In addition, Latvia argues that when it decided to enter into the Agreement it chose to suffer losses in the short-term with a view to return to profitability in the long-term and these investment decisions were taken at the initiative of BAS.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je bila družba airBaltic vsaj od leta 2011 podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
Latvia also notes that the losses of airBaltic had been reduced and dismisses the arguments of Ryanair as groundless.
OBSTOJ DRŽAVNE POMOČI
Finally, in what relates to the comments of the individuals on behalf of creditors of airBaltic, Latvia considers that they are unrelated to the measures set out in the opening decision and that they seemed to be aimed at improving the creditors' position in their commercial litigations with airBaltic.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli pomoč iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
Za ugotovitev, ali gre za državno pomoč, mora Komisija oceniti, ali so izpolnjena kumulativna merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU (tj. prenos državnih sredstev, selektivna prednost, možno izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino znotraj EU) za vsakega izmed šestih obravnavanih ukrepov.
This decision addresses as a preliminary point the issue of whether airBaltic is a firm in difficulty in the meaning of the R&R Guidelines (section 7.1 below).
Ukrepi 1, 2, 3 in 6 kot ena transakcija
It then analyses whether the measures under examination entail state aid to airBaltic within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (section 7.2 below) and whether any such aid is lawful (section 7.3 below) and compatible with the internal market (section 7.4 below).
Latvija trdi, da je treba ukrep 1 oceniti skupaj z ukrepi 2, 3 in 6, saj so bili dogovorjeni na isti dan, tj. 3. oktobra 2011, ko sta bili Latvija in družba BAS večinska delničarja družbe airBaltic.
DIFFICULTIES OF AIRBALTIC
Komisija se strinja z mnenjem latvijskih organov, da se prvo državno posojilo (ukrep 1) in posojilo družbe BAS ne smeta oceniti ločeno in da ju je zato treba obravnavati kot del celotnega okvira sporazuma, na podlagi katerega sta bili posojili odobreni.
As a result, in 2008 airBaltic made losses of LVL 28 million (EUR 39,64 million).
Komisija meni, da sta se družba BAS in država 3. oktobra 2011, ko je bil sklenjen sporazum, zagotovo zavezali, da bosta odobrili prvo državno posojilo (ukrep 1) in posojilo države BAS.
In 2009 the company made profits of LVL 6 million (EUR 8,49 million).
Zato je mogoče reči, da sta bila navedena ukrepa odobrena na navedeni datum.
However, in 2010, airBaltic once again incurred losses, of LVL 34,2 million (EUR 48,42 million), which increased to LVL 84,7 million (EUR 119,2 million) in 2011.
Vendar na podlagi informacij iz sporazuma ni mogoče z gotovostjo ugotoviti točnih zneskov drugega državnega posojila (ukrep 2) in povečanja kapitala (ukrep 3).
The Commission recalls that the Latvian Minister of Economy stated in June 2011 that airBaltic was close to bankruptcy [28], while the press reported that the company filed for legal protection from its creditors on 21 September 2011 [29].
V sporazumu je zlasti v zvezi z ukrepom 2 navedeno le, da bo Latvija odobrila posojilo v sorazmerju s svojim deležem, vendar znesek posojila ni naveden.
Indeed, airBaltic had negative equity of LVL 19,2 million (EUR 27,18 million) in 2009, which increased to LVL 23,3 million (EUR 32,99 million) in 2010, to LVL 105,6 million (EUR 149,51 million) in 2011 and to LVL 125,1 million (EUR 177,12 million) in 2012.
Podatek 100 milijonov LVL je bil le napoved ali ocena zneska, ki bi se morda zahteval ali pričakoval v smislu povečanja lastniškega kapitala do konca leta, znesek tega povečanja pa v sporazumu ni bil jasno določen.
Table
Dejanski znesek povečanja lastniškega kapitala, dogovorjen decembra 2011, je v resnici znašal 110 milijonov LVL (glej uvodno izjavo 33), torej je presegal znesek, predviden v sporazumu.
AirBaltic's key financial data 2007 — June 2011 (LVL thousands)
Komisija meni, da 3. oktobra 2011 zneska ukrepov 2 in 3 nista bila določena ali preverljiva.
Net result
Podobno Komisija v zvezi z ukrepom 6 ugotavlja, da država 3. oktobra 2011, ko je bil sklenjen sporazum, ni vedela, ali bo morala uporabiti člen 7.4 sporazuma in prevzeti terjatve zasebnih vlagateljev.
Operating costs
Poleg tega država ni bila zavezana k odstopu terjatev, ki izhajajo iz sindiciranega posojila 2, družbi airBaltic.
Financial expenses
Poleg tega Latvija trdi, da terjatve zasebnih vlagateljev, ki naj bi se prenovile z dvema sindiciranima posojiloma, večinoma niso bile zavarovane in da bi zasebni vlagatelji v primeru, da država ne bi preprečila stečaja družbe, državo tožili za škodo, kar bi jo stalo več kot odobritev ostalih ukrepov družbi airBaltic.
Shareholders' equity
Trditev, da bi zasebni vlagatelji tožili državo in od nje zahtevali odškodnino, je po mnenju Komisije zgolj hipotetična in ni podprta z nobenimi dokazi.