“Someone is already responsible for those losses, someone has to cover them. How do you think they just have to be forgotten? I think it’s important to remember – the customer is the Road Transport Directorate. ATD asks us, we execute and they compensate us for all these losses. or compensation in accordance with these regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers. These regulations have been fulfilled, we have been paid in accordance with these regulations, “said Grigulis.
–
Both current and previous Passenger Train Boards believe that they have done everything possible to prevent the damage. In the company’s view, the initiator of the litigation should have been the Road Transport Directorate and should be liable for failure to notice the deadline. The Directorate takes the opposite view.
–
“In this case, the party that has not generated any unearned income can turn to the party that did not have this income. In this case, it could and was done by the Passenger Train,” said Kristians Godins, Chairman of the Board of the Road Transport Directorate.
–
The Road Transport Directorate insisted that the claim must be approved by the Public Transport Council. The Council has addressed the issue four to five times in four years.
–
“Don’t you feel any responsibility, as a boardholder or a shareholder, for making up that 560,000 have actually blown up? Are you asking me provocative questions now? The shareholder doesn’t have to make decisions on this. It’s the first And the second part of the answer is that the Public Transport Council, in my opinion, has always made it clear when the parties have asked the council how this issue should be addressed in our minds, “said Merirands.
–
“In the conversations that you have to talk all the time? It has been said for so long that you can’t get anything anymore? One has to turn to the Riga City Council, which has been done several times, and the other is to sue this third party in court,” Merirands said.
–
He justifies that no real damage has been done at all. This is a loss of income and does not affect the company’s operations or the amount of the state grant at all. This contradicts the Passenger Train’s explanation that this amount would reduce public expenditure on the grant if it were credited to the company’s account.
–
“As a shareholder, you are the owner, or you as an owner do not find it interesting what really happened there,” Merirands said.
–
“I do not find it interesting, I am convinced, following the situation in recent years, that the agreement she has concluded was that it clearly does not follow that the Riga City Council is obliged to pay this amount here, it was said that it is possible “Secondly, what could have been done is to terminate this agreement sooner, as soon as the amount paid by the Riga City Council has been exhausted and not to rely on the Riga City Council to pay it sometime in the future,” he noted.
— .
