# L_2022318EN.01011601.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/116 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/116

---

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2022/2423

of 5 December 2022

on the consistency of the performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan submitted by Sweden pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period

(notified under document C(2022) 8716)

(Only the Swedish text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3), point (c) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (2), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,

Whereas:

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 10 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, Member States are to draw up performance plans, either at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks (‘FABs’) which have to include binding performance targets for each reference period of the performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions. Those performance targets have to be consistent with the Union-wide targets adopted by the Commission for the reference period concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, Member States are to draw up performance plans, either at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks (‘FABs’) which have to include binding performance targets for each reference period of the performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions. Those performance targets have to be consistent with the Union-wide targets adopted by the Commission for the reference period concerned.

| (2) | Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period (‘RP3’) were originally set out in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903 (3). Since those Union-wide performance targets and the draft RP3 performance plans subsequently submitted in October 2019 by Member States were drawn up before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, they did not take account of the considerable reduction in air traffic due to the measures taken by the Member States and third countries to contain the pandemic. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period (‘RP3’) were originally set out in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903 (3). Since those Union-wide performance targets and the draft RP3 performance plans subsequently submitted in October 2019 by Member States were drawn up before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, they did not take account of the considerable reduction in air traffic due to the measures taken by the Member States and third countries to contain the pandemic.

3

| (3) | In response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of air navigation services, exceptional measures for RP3, which derogate from the provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, were set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1627 (4). The Commission adopted, on 2 June 2021, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891 (5) setting revised Union-wide performance targets for RP3. On that basis, in October 2021, Member States submitted to the Commission draft performance plans containing revised local performance targets for RP3. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of air navigation services, exceptional measures for RP3, which derogate from the provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, were set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1627 (4). The Commission adopted, on 2 June 2021, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891 (5) setting revised Union-wide performance targets for RP3. On that basis, in October 2021, Member States submitted to the Commission draft performance plans containing revised local performance targets for RP3.

4

5

| (4) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 (6) was addressed to Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, and Sweden. In that Decision, the Commission found that the en route cost-efficiency performance targets included in the draft performance plan for RP3 of Sweden are not consistent with the Union-wide performance targets, and issued recommendations for the revision of those targets. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 (6) was addressed to Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, and Sweden. In that Decision, the Commission found that the en route cost-efficiency performance targets included in the draft performance plan for RP3 of Sweden are not consistent with the Union-wide performance targets, and issued recommendations for the revision of those targets.

6

en route

| (5) | In response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which started on 24 February 2022, the Union has imposed restrictive measures which prohibit Russian air carriers, any Russian-registered aircraft and any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, from landing in and taking off from, or overflying the territory of the Union. Those restrictive measures and the counter-measures adopted by Russia have led to changes in air traffic in European airspace. Certain Member States, including Sweden, have been severely affected by a significant reduction in the number of overflights in the airspace under their responsibility. However, at Union-wide level, the observed impact on the number of flights has been limited in contrast with the sharp reduction of air traffic across Europe which resulted from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which started on 24 February 2022, the Union has imposed restrictive measures which prohibit Russian air carriers, any Russian-registered aircraft and any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, from landing in and taking off from, or overflying the territory of the Union. Those restrictive measures and the counter-measures adopted by Russia have led to changes in air traffic in European airspace. Certain Member States, including Sweden, have been severely affected by a significant reduction in the number of overflights in the airspace under their responsibility. However, at Union-wide level, the observed impact on the number of flights has been limited in contrast with the sharp reduction of air traffic across Europe which resulted from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

| (6) | On 13 July 2022, Sweden submitted a revised draft performance plan for RP3 (the ‘revised draft performance plan’) for assessment to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 13 July 2022, Sweden submitted a revised draft performance plan for RP3 (the ‘revised draft performance plan’) for assessment to the Commission.

| (7) | The performance review body, assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, has submitted to the Commission a report containing its advice on the assessment of the revised draft performance plan. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The performance review body, assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, has submitted to the Commission a report containing its advice on the assessment of the revised draft performance plan.

| (8) | In accordance with Article 15(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the local performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan on the basis of the assessment criteria laid down in point 1 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation, and taking account of local circumstances. In respect of each key performance area and the related performance targets, the Commission has complemented its assessment by reviewing the elements set out in point 2 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In accordance with Article 15(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the local performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan on the basis of the assessment criteria laid down in point 1 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation, and taking account of local circumstances. In respect of each key performance area and the related performance targets, the Commission has complemented its assessment by reviewing the elements set out in point 2 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation.

| (9) | The Eurocontrol Statistics and Forecast Service (‘STATFOR’) base traffic forecast, published in June 2022, takes account of the change in circumstances referred to in recital 5. On the basis of that forecast, the Commission notes that Sweden continues to face a significantly deteriorated traffic outlook for the remainder of RP3 as a consequence of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. As those changes in circumstances considerably impact the performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan, they should be taken into account in the assessment of the local performance targets included therein. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Eurocontrol Statistics and Forecast Service (‘STATFOR’) base traffic forecast, published in June 2022, takes account of the change in circumstances referred to in recital 5. On the basis of that forecast, the Commission notes that Sweden continues to face a significantly deteriorated traffic outlook for the remainder of RP3 as a consequence of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. As those changes in circumstances considerably impact the performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan, they should be taken into account in the assessment of the local performance targets included therein.

COMMISSION ASSESSMENT

COMMISSION ASSESSMENT

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of safety

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of safety

| (10) | Concerning the key performance area of safety, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the targets submitted by Sweden regarding the effectiveness of safety management of air navigation service providers (‘ANSPs’) based on the criterion laid down in point 1.1 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Concerning the key performance area of safety, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the targets submitted by Sweden regarding the effectiveness of safety management of air navigation service providers (‘ANSPs’) based on the criterion laid down in point 1.1 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

| (11) | The local safety performance targets proposed by Sweden for the main air navigation service provider, namely LFV, in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:











  Sweden | Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Union Aviation Safety Agency level A to D |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Air navigation service provider concerned | Safety management objective | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Union-wide targets (2024) |
| LFV | Safety policy and objectives | C | C | C | C |
| Safety risk management | D | D | D | D |
| Safety assurance | C | C | C | C |
| Safety promotion | C | C | C | C |
| Safety culture | C | C | C | C |

(11)

The local safety performance targets proposed by Sweden for the main air navigation service provider, namely LFV, in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:

Sweden

Sweden

Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Union Aviation Safety Agency level A to D

Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation

Air navigation service provider concerned

Air navigation service provider concerned

Safety management objective

Safety management objective

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Union-wide targets (2024)

Union-wide targets (2024)

LFV

LFV

Safety policy and objectives

C

C

C

C

C

C

Safety risk management

D

D

D

D

D

D

Safety assurance

C

C

C

C

C

C

Safety promotion

C

C

C

C

C

C

Safety culture

C

C

C

C

C

C

| (12) | The safety performance targets proposed by Sweden for LFV are in line with the Union-wide performance targets. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The safety performance targets proposed by Sweden for LFV are in line with the Union-wide performance targets.

| (13) | The Commission notes that the revised draft performance plan does not set out specific measures for LFV for the achievement of the local safety targets. However, the plan presents general measures such as the monitoring and application of mitigating measures to manage specific risks, and the assessment via the safety management system of changes made to the functional system. Having regard to the assessment of the performance review body, the Commission notes that LFV is reported to have already achieved the level of the Union-wide targets and therefore Sweden has not set out additional measures for LFV for the achievement of those targets. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Commission notes that the revised draft performance plan does not set out specific measures for LFV for the achievement of the local safety targets. However, the plan presents general measures such as the monitoring and application of mitigating measures to manage specific risks, and the assessment via the safety management system of changes made to the functional system. Having regard to the assessment of the performance review body, the Commission notes that LFV is reported to have already achieved the level of the Union-wide targets and therefore Sweden has not set out additional measures for LFV for the achievement of those targets.

| (14) | The safety targets proposed by Sweden for the providers of terminal air navigation services in the scope of the revised draft performance plan, namely ACR, SDATS, and AFAB, are also in line with the Union-wide performance targets. The Commission further notes that Sweden has set out measures for those ANSPs for the achievement of their safety performance targets. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The safety targets proposed by Sweden for the providers of terminal air navigation services in the scope of the revised draft performance plan, namely ACR, SDATS, and AFAB, are also in line with the Union-wide performance targets. The Commission further notes that Sweden has set out measures for those ANSPs for the achievement of their safety performance targets.

| (15) | On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 11, 12, 13 and 14, and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891 must be achieved by the final year of RP3, namely 2024, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of safety. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 11, 12, 13 and 14, and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891 must be achieved by the final year of RP3, namely 2024, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of safety.

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of environment

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of environment

| (16) | Concerning the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets submitted by Sweden regarding the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory has been assessed based on the criterion laid down in point 1.2 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the proposed targets included in the revised draft performance plan have been compared with the relevant en route horizontal flight efficiency reference values set out in the European Route Network Improvement Plan (‘ERNIP’) available at the time of adopting the revised Union-wide performance targets for RP3, that is on 2 June 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Concerning the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets submitted by Sweden regarding the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory has been assessed based on the criterion laid down in point 1.2 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the proposed targets included in the revised draft performance plan have been compared with the relevant en route horizontal flight efficiency reference values set out in the European Route Network Improvement Plan (‘ERNIP’) available at the time of adopting the revised Union-wide performance targets for RP3, that is on 2 June 2021.

en route

en route

| (17) | In respect of the 2020 calendar year, the Union-wide performance target for RP3 in the key performance area of environment, which was initially set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not revised by Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891, considering that the period for the application of that target had expired and that its implementation had thus become definitive leaving no possibility for retroactive adjustments. Similarly, the local environment performance targets for 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in their revised draft performance plans. Therefore, the consistency of the local environment performance targets with the corresponding Union-wide performance targets should be assessed with regard to the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

In respect of the 2020 calendar year, the Union-wide performance target for RP3 in the key performance area of environment, which was initially set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not revised by Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891, considering that the period for the application of that target had expired and that its implementation had thus become definitive leaving no possibility for retroactive adjustments. Similarly, the local environment performance targets for 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in their revised draft performance plans. Therefore, the consistency of the local environment performance targets with the corresponding Union-wide performance targets should be assessed with regard to the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years.

| (18) | The performance targets in the key performance area of environment proposed by Sweden and the corresponding national reference values for RP3 from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:









  Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory | 1,05  % | 1,05  % | 1,05  % |
| Reference values | 1,05  % | 1,05  % | 1,05  % |

(18)

The performance targets in the key performance area of environment proposed by Sweden and the corresponding national reference values for RP3 from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:

en route

Sweden

Sweden

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory

Targets in the key performance area of environment,

en route

1,05  %

1,05  %

1,05  %

1,05  %

1,05  %

1,05  %

Reference values

1,05  %

1,05  %

1,05  %

| (19) | The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Sweden are equal to the corresponding national reference values for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Sweden are equal to the corresponding national reference values for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years.

| (20) | The Commission notes that Sweden has presented in the revised draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment performance targets, which include the planned implementation of cross-border free route airspace with Poland. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The Commission notes that Sweden has presented in the revised draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment performance targets, which include the planned implementation of cross-border free route airspace with Poland.

| (21) | On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 18, 19 and 20, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of environment. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 18, 19 and 20, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of environment.

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of capacity

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of capacity

| (22) | Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets submitted by Sweden regarding the average en route air traffic flow management (‘ATFM’) delay per flight has been assessed based on the criterion laid down in point 1.3 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the proposed targets included in the revised draft performance plan have been compared with the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan available at the time of adopting the revised Union-wide performance targets for RP3, that is on 2 June 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets submitted by Sweden regarding the average en route air traffic flow management (‘ATFM’) delay per flight has been assessed based on the criterion laid down in point 1.3 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the proposed targets included in the revised draft performance plan have been compared with the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan available at the time of adopting the revised Union-wide performance targets for RP3, that is on 2 June 2021.

en route

| (23) | In respect of the 2020 calendar year, the Union-wide performance target for RP3 in the key performance area of capacity, which was initially set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not revised by Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891, considering that the period for the application of that target had expired and that its implementation had thus become definitive leaving no possibility for retroactive adjustments. Similarly, the local capacity performance targets for 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in their revised draft performance plans. Therefore, the consistency of the local capacity performance targets with the corresponding Union-wide performance targets should be assessed with regard to the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

In respect of the 2020 calendar year, the Union-wide performance target for RP3 in the key performance area of capacity, which was initially set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not revised by Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891, considering that the period for the application of that target had expired and that its implementation had thus become definitive leaving no possibility for retroactive adjustments. Similarly, the local capacity performance targets for 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in their revised draft performance plans. Therefore, the consistency of the local capacity performance targets with the corresponding Union-wide performance targets should be assessed with regard to the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years.

| (24) | The en route capacity targets proposed by Sweden for RP3, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, as well as the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:









  Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight | 0,07 | 0,08 | 0,08 |
| Reference values | 0,07 | 0,08 | 0,08 |

(24)

The en route capacity targets proposed by Sweden for RP3, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, as well as the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:

en route

Sweden

Sweden

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight

Targets in the key performance area of capacity

0,07

0,07

0,08

0,08

0,08

0,08

Reference values

0,07

0,08

0,08

| (25) | The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Sweden are equal to the corresponding national reference values for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Sweden are equal to the corresponding national reference values for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years.

| (26) | The Commission notes that Sweden has presented, in the revised draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets. Those measures include the implementation of the Swedish Airspace Project (‘SWEA’) and an increase in air traffic controller (‘ATCO’) full-time equivalents in RP3 and beyond to accommodate future traffic demand, including for the purpose of anticipating planned ATCO retirements. The Commission notes that, in comparison with the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, the planned number of ATCO full-time equivalents in operations in the area control centres of Stockholm and Malmö has been revised downwards due to the change in circumstances outlined in recitals 5 and 9. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The Commission notes that Sweden has presented, in the revised draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets. Those measures include the implementation of the Swedish Airspace Project (‘SWEA’) and an increase in air traffic controller (‘ATCO’) full-time equivalents in RP3 and beyond to accommodate future traffic demand, including for the purpose of anticipating planned ATCO retirements. The Commission notes that, in comparison with the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, the planned number of ATCO full-time equivalents in operations in the area control centres of Stockholm and Malmö has been revised downwards due to the change in circumstances outlined in recitals 5 and 9.

en route

| (27) | On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 24, 25 and 26, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of capacity. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 24, 25 and 26, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of capacity.

Review of capacity targets for terminal air navigation services

Review of capacity targets for terminal air navigation services

| (28) | With regard to airports which fall within the scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 as set out in Article 1(3) and (4) of that Implementing Regulation, the Commission has complemented its assessment of en route capacity targets by reviewing the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services in accordance with point 2.1(b) of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation. Those targets were not found to raise concerns in respect of Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

With regard to airports which fall within the scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 as set out in Article 1(3) and (4) of that Implementing Regulation, the Commission has complemented its assessment of en route capacity targets by reviewing the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services in accordance with point 2.1(b) of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation. Those targets were not found to raise concerns in respect of Sweden.

en route

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency

Assessment of performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency

| (29) | The Commission concluded in Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 that the proposed en route cost-efficiency targets included in the draft performance plan of Sweden submitted in 2021 were inconsistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Sweden has proposed revised en route cost-efficiency targets in its revised draft performance plan. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The Commission concluded in Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 that the proposed en route cost-efficiency targets included in the draft performance plan of Sweden submitted in 2021 were inconsistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Sweden has proposed revised en route cost-efficiency targets in its revised draft performance plan.

en route

en route

| (30) | The table below sets out the initial RP3 en route cost-efficiency performance targets for the charging zone of Sweden, as included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, and the corresponding revised draft performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan.













  En route charging zone of Sweden | 2014 baseline value | 2019 baseline value | 2020 -2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial en route cost-efficiency targets (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices) | 522,30 SEK | 567,11 SEK | 1 361,88 SEK | 676,24 SEK | 605,51 SEK | 570,87 SEK |
| 54,22 EUR | 58,87 EUR | 141,38 EUR | 70,20 EUR | 62,86 EUR | 59,26 EUR |
| Revised en route cost-efficiency targets (included in the revised draft performance plan), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices) | 604,02 SEK | 537,87 SEK | 1 361,88 SEK | 774,65 SEK | 650,98 SEK | 587,62 SEK |
| 62,70 EUR | 55,84 EUR | 141,38 EUR | 80,42 EUR | 67,58 EUR | 61,00 EUR |

(30)

The table below sets out the initial RP3 en route cost-efficiency performance targets for the charging zone of Sweden, as included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, and the corresponding revised draft performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan.

en route

En route charging zone of Sweden

En route

2014 baseline value

2014 baseline value

2019 baseline value

2019 baseline value

2020 -2021

2020 -2021

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Initial en route cost-efficiency targets (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices)

Initial en route cost-efficiency targets (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices)

522,30 SEK

522,30 SEK

567,11 SEK

567,11 SEK

1 361,88 SEK

1 361,88 SEK

676,24 SEK

676,24 SEK

605,51 SEK

605,51 SEK

570,87 SEK

570,87 SEK

54,22 EUR

54,22 EUR

58,87 EUR

58,87 EUR

141,38 EUR

141,38 EUR

70,20 EUR

70,20 EUR

62,86 EUR

62,86 EUR

59,26 EUR

59,26 EUR

Revised en route cost-efficiency targets (included in the revised draft performance plan), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices)

Revised en route

en route

604,02 SEK

604,02 SEK

537,87 SEK

537,87 SEK

1 361,88 SEK

1 361,88 SEK

774,65 SEK

774,65 SEK

650,98 SEK

650,98 SEK

587,62 SEK

587,62 SEK

62,70 EUR

55,84 EUR

141,38 EUR

80,42 EUR

67,58 EUR

61,00 EUR

| (31) | The Commission observes that Sweden has revised its local cost-efficiency targets for 2022, 2023 and 2024, which results, in comparison with the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, in an overall determined unit cost (‘DUC’) higher by 8,2 % over those calendar years and higher by 7,1 % over RP3 as a whole. Those DUC increases result from the significant deterioration in the traffic forecast, which has been caused by the reduction of air traffic in Sweden’s airspace as a consequence of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as referred to in recitals 5 and 9. The lower number of forecasted service units for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years has however been partly offset by Sweden through a reduction of determined costs. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

The Commission observes that Sweden has revised its local cost-efficiency targets for 2022, 2023 and 2024, which results, in comparison with the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, in an overall determined unit cost (‘DUC’) higher by 8,2 % over those calendar years and higher by 7,1 % over RP3 as a whole. Those DUC increases result from the significant deterioration in the traffic forecast, which has been caused by the reduction of air traffic in Sweden’s airspace as a consequence of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as referred to in recitals 5 and 9. The lower number of forecasted service units for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years has however been partly offset by Sweden through a reduction of determined costs.

| (32) | Furthermore, Sweden has applied an upward adjustment to the baseline value for 2014, whilst the baseline value for 2019 has been adjusted downwards. Sweden explains in the revised draft performance plan that the baseline values for 2014 and 2019 have been adjusted mainly in order to account for the impact of significant one-off amounts related to the actual pension costs recorded for those calendar years and which affect comparability with the determined costs of RP3. Furthermore, Sweden has applied two further adjustments to the baseline value for 2019, which have been justified by changes in the scope of the en route charging zone between the second reference period (‘RP2’) and RP3 and by a change in the method applied by Sweden for deducting public funding received by the ANSP from the route charges paid by users. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Furthermore, Sweden has applied an upward adjustment to the baseline value for 2014, whilst the baseline value for 2019 has been adjusted downwards. Sweden explains in the revised draft performance plan that the baseline values for 2014 and 2019 have been adjusted mainly in order to account for the impact of significant one-off amounts related to the actual pension costs recorded for those calendar years and which affect comparability with the determined costs of RP3. Furthermore, Sweden has applied two further adjustments to the baseline value for 2019, which have been justified by changes in the scope of the en route charging zone between the second reference period (‘RP2’) and RP3 and by a change in the method applied by Sweden for deducting public funding received by the ANSP from the route charges paid by users.

en route

| (33) | The Commission notes that the traffic assumptions used in the revised draft performance plan are based on the Eurocontrol STATFOR June 2022 base traffic forecast. The en route service units forecasted for the charging zone for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, in comparison with the figures included in the draft performance plan, are presented in the table below.










  En route charging zone of Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial traffic forecast (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of en route service units | 3 173 | 3 637 | 3 906 |
| Updated traffic forecast (included in the revised draft performance plan), expressed in thousands of en route service units | 2 724 | 3 248 | 3 367 |
| Difference | -14,2  % | -10,7  % | -13,8  % |

(33)

The Commission notes that the traffic assumptions used in the revised draft performance plan are based on the Eurocontrol STATFOR June 2022 base traffic forecast. The en route service units forecasted for the charging zone for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, in comparison with the figures included in the draft performance plan, are presented in the table below.

en route

En route charging zone of Sweden

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Initial traffic forecast (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of en route service units

Initial traffic forecast (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of en route service units

3 173

3 173

3 637

3 637

3 906

3 906

Updated traffic forecast (included in the revised draft performance plan), expressed in thousands of en route service units

Updated traffic forecast

en route

2 724

2 724

3 248

3 248

3 367

3 367

Difference

Difference

-14,2  %

-14,2  %

-10,7  %

-10,7  %

-13,8  %

-13,8  %

| (34) | Compared to the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, the annual reductions in the number of service units for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years are in the approximate range of -11 % to -14 %. Accordingly, the en route service units for Sweden are expected to remain, in 2024, 11,1 % below their pre-pandemic level (calendar year 2019), whereas they were previously foreseen to exceed the pre-pandemic level by 3,1 % in the STATFOR base traffic forecast of October 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Compared to the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, the annual reductions in the number of service units for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years are in the approximate range of -11 % to -14 %. Accordingly, the en route service units for Sweden are expected to remain, in 2024, 11,1 % below their pre-pandemic level (calendar year 2019), whereas they were previously foreseen to exceed the pre-pandemic level by 3,1 % in the STATFOR base traffic forecast of October 2021.

en route

| (35) | However, as displayed in the table below, the flight movements in Swedish airspace operated under instrument flight rules (IFR) are not foreseen to decrease at the same rate as the en route service units. This discrepancy is due to the significant reduction of overflights, which on average generate proportionally higher numbers of en route service units than flights landing and departing from airports in Sweden.










  En route charging zone of Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial traffic forecast (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of IFR movements | 685 | 771 | 824 |
| Updated traffic forecast (included in the revised draft performance plan), expressed in thousands of IFR movements | 626 | 751 | 773 |
| Difference | -8,6  % | -2,6  % | -6,2  % |

(35)

However, as displayed in the table below, the flight movements in Swedish airspace operated under instrument flight rules (IFR) are not foreseen to decrease at the same rate as the en route service units. This discrepancy is due to the significant reduction of overflights, which on average generate proportionally higher numbers of en route service units than flights landing and departing from airports in Sweden.

en route

en route

En route charging zone of Sweden

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Initial traffic forecast (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of IFR movements

Initial traffic forecast (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of IFR movements

685

685

771

771

824

824

Updated traffic forecast (included in the revised draft performance plan), expressed in thousands of IFR movements

Updated traffic forecast

thousands of IFR movements

626

626

751

751

773

773

Difference

Difference

-8,6  %

-8,6  %

-2,6  %

-2,6  %

-6,2  %

-6,2  %

| (36) | The Commission hence notes that the workload of the ANSP, which is driven by the controlled flight movements, is not foreseen to diminish in correlation with the revenue reduction which stems from the lower number of en route service units. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The Commission hence notes that the workload of the ANSP, which is driven by the controlled flight movements, is not foreseen to diminish in correlation with the revenue reduction which stems from the lower number of en route service units.

en route

| (37) | The revised determined costs for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, expressed in real terms in 2017 prices, are shown in the table below. The Commission notes that Sweden has revised downwards the determined costs in real terms for each of those calendar years.










  En route charging zone of Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021) | 2 146 M SEK | 2 202 M SEK | 2 230 M SEK |
| Revised determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (included in the revised draft performance plan) | 2 110 M SEK | 2 114 M SEK | 1 979 M SEK |
| Difference | -1,7  % | -4,0  % | -11,3  % |

(37)

The revised determined costs for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, expressed in real terms in 2017 prices, are shown in the table below. The Commission notes that Sweden has revised downwards the determined costs in real terms for each of those calendar years.

En route charging zone of Sweden

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Initial determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021)

Initial determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021)

2 146 M SEK

2 146 M SEK

2 202 M SEK

2 202 M SEK

2 230 M SEK

2 230 M SEK

Revised determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (included in the revised draft performance plan)

Revised determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices

2 110 M SEK

2 110 M SEK

2 114 M SEK

2 114 M SEK

1 979 M SEK

1 979 M SEK

Difference

Difference

-1,7  %

-1,7  %

-4,0  %

-4,0  %

-11,3  %

-11,3  %

| (38) | The revised draft performance plan comprises an updated inflation forecast for Sweden for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, as outlined in the following table.










  En route charging zone of Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial inflation index, with forecasted year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021) | 107,4


  (1,3  %) | 109,1


  (1,6  %) | 111,1


  (1,8  %) |
| Revised inflation index, with year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data included in the revised draft performance plan) | 112,4


  (4,8  %) | 114,9


  (2,2  %) | 116,9


  (1,7  %) |

(38)

The revised draft performance plan comprises an updated inflation forecast for Sweden for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, as outlined in the following table.

En route charging zone of Sweden

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Initial inflation index, with forecasted year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021)

Initial inflation index, with forecasted year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021)

107,4

107,4

(1,3  %)

(1,3  %)

109,1

109,1

(1,6  %)

(1,6  %)

111,1

111,1

(1,8  %)

(1,8  %)

Revised inflation index, with year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data included in the revised draft performance plan)

Revised inflation index

112,4

112,4

(4,8  %)

(4,8  %)

114,9

114,9

(2,2  %)

(2,2  %)

116,9

116,9

(1,7  %)

(1,7  %)

| (39) | Due to the update of the inflation forecast, the revised determined costs in nominal terms for the 2022 calendar year have increased while those for 2023 have remained unchanged. For the 2024 calendar year, the nominal determined costs are lower than in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021.










  En route charging zone of Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial determined costs in nominal terms (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021) | 2 269 M SEK | 2 359 M SEK | 2 424 M SEK |
| Revised determined costs in nominal terms (included in the revised draft performance plan) | 2 310 M SEK | 2 359 M SEK | 2 234 M SEK |
| Difference | +1,8  % | 0,0  % | -7,8  % |

(39)

Due to the update of the inflation forecast, the revised determined costs in nominal terms for the 2022 calendar year have increased while those for 2023 have remained unchanged. For the 2024 calendar year, the nominal determined costs are lower than in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021.

En route charging zone of Sweden

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Initial determined costs in nominal terms (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021)

Initial determined costs in nominal terms (included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021)

2 269 M SEK

2 269 M SEK

2 359 M SEK

2 359 M SEK

2 424 M SEK

2 424 M SEK

Revised determined costs in nominal terms (included in the revised draft performance plan)

Revised determined costs in nominal terms

2 310 M SEK

2 310 M SEK

2 359 M SEK

2 359 M SEK

2 234 M SEK

2 234 M SEK

Difference

Difference

+1,8  %

+1,8  %

0,0  %

0,0  %

-7,8  %

-7,8  %

| (40) | The Commission has assessed the consistency of the revised cost-efficiency targets proposed by Sweden based on the criteria laid down in points 1.4(a), (b) and (c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

The Commission has assessed the consistency of the revised cost-efficiency targets proposed by Sweden based on the criteria laid down in points 1.4(a), (b) and (c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

| (41) | Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the en route DUC trend at charging zone level of +2,2 % over RP3 underperforms the Union-wide trend of +1,0 % over the same period. The adjusted baseline value for 2019 set by Sweden, referred to in recital 32, impacts negatively the calculated DUC trend. The DUC trend of Sweden has deteriorated compared with the DUC trend of +0,2 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the en route DUC trend at charging zone level of +2,2 % over RP3 underperforms the Union-wide trend of +1,0 % over the same period. The adjusted baseline value for 2019 set by Sweden, referred to in recital 32, impacts negatively the calculated DUC trend. The DUC trend of Sweden has deteriorated compared with the DUC trend of +0,2 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021.

en route

| (42) | Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the long-term en route DUC trend at charging zone level over RP2 and RP3 of -0,3 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,3 % over the same period. The adjusted baseline value for 2014 set by Sweden, referred to in recital 32, impacts positively the calculated long-term DUC trend. The long-term DUC trend of Sweden has improved compared with the long-term DUC trend of +1,0 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the long-term en route DUC trend at charging zone level over RP2 and RP3 of -0,3 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,3 % over the same period. The adjusted baseline value for 2014 set by Sweden, referred to in recital 32, impacts positively the calculated long-term DUC trend. The long-term DUC trend of Sweden has improved compared with the long-term DUC trend of +1,0 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021.

en route

| (43) | As noted in recitals 33 and 34, the Commission recalls that Sweden’s service unit forecast for RP3 has been revised significantly downwards as a consequence of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. It is therefore necessary and appropriate to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criteria examined in recitals 41 and 42, whether Sweden would meet the Union-wide cost-efficiency trends in the absence of the severe traffic reduction for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years which is due to the changed circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

As noted in recitals 33 and 34, the Commission recalls that Sweden’s service unit forecast for RP3 has been revised significantly downwards as a consequence of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. It is therefore necessary and appropriate to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criteria examined in recitals 41 and 42, whether Sweden would meet the Union-wide cost-efficiency trends in the absence of the severe traffic reduction for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years which is due to the changed circumstances.

| (44) | The Commission has therefore recalculated Sweden’s DUC trend over RP3 and Sweden’s long-term DUC trend over RP2 and RP3 by making use of the Eurocontrol STATFOR base traffic forecast of October 2021. This recalculation results, for the en route charging zone of Sweden, in an adjusted DUC trend of -1,5 % over RP3 and in an adjusted long-term DUC trend of -1,9 %. Both of these adjusted trends are below the corresponding Union-wide DUC trends of +1,0 % and -1,3 % respectively. Hence, the Commission concludes that Sweden fulfils the assessment criteria examined in recitals 41 and 42 in the absence of the changes in traffic caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

The Commission has therefore recalculated Sweden’s DUC trend over RP3 and Sweden’s long-term DUC trend over RP2 and RP3 by making use of the Eurocontrol STATFOR base traffic forecast of October 2021. This recalculation results, for the en route charging zone of Sweden, in an adjusted DUC trend of -1,5 % over RP3 and in an adjusted long-term DUC trend of -1,9 %. Both of these adjusted trends are below the corresponding Union-wide DUC trends of +1,0 % and -1,3 % respectively. Hence, the Commission concludes that Sweden fulfils the assessment criteria examined in recitals 41 and 42 in the absence of the changes in traffic caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

en route

| (45) | Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the baseline value for the DUC at the level of the charging zone of Sweden of EUR 55,84 (expressed in 2017 prices) is 24,8 % higher than the average baseline value of 44,74 EUR2017 of the relevant comparator group. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the baseline value for the DUC at the level of the charging zone of Sweden of EUR 55,84 (expressed in 2017 prices) is 24,8 % higher than the average baseline value of 44,74 EUR2017 of the relevant comparator group.

| (46) | The Commission acknowledges that the revised cost-efficiency targets for the charging zone of Sweden are higher than the initial targets included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021. However, this deterioration is entirely due to the significantly lower traffic assumptions. When excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is clear that Sweden meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The Commission acknowledges that the revised cost-efficiency targets for the charging zone of Sweden are higher than the initial targets included in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021. However, this deterioration is entirely due to the significantly lower traffic assumptions. When excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is clear that Sweden meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and the Union-wide long-term DUC trend.

| (47) | Furthermore, as noted in recital 37, the Commission recalls that Sweden has reduced its determined costs in real terms for the remainder of RP3 in response to the deteriorated traffic assumptions. The Commission observes that those cost containment measures are, overall, commensurate with the lower number of IFR movements forecasted for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, as presented in recital 35. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

Furthermore, as noted in recital 37, the Commission recalls that Sweden has reduced its determined costs in real terms for the remainder of RP3 in response to the deteriorated traffic assumptions. The Commission observes that those cost containment measures are, overall, commensurate with the lower number of IFR movements forecasted for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years, as presented in recital 35.

| (48) | On balance, the Commission therefore considers that Sweden has adequately addressed the recommendations set out in Article 3 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 with regard to the revision of its local cost-efficiency performance targets. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

On balance, the Commission therefore considers that Sweden has adequately addressed the recommendations set out in Article 3 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 with regard to the revision of its local cost-efficiency performance targets.

| (49) | On the basis of the findings in recitals 30 to 48, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

On the basis of the findings in recitals 30 to 48, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency.

Review of revised cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services

Review of revised cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services

| (50) | With regard to airports which fall within the scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 as set out in Article 1(3) and (4) of that Implementing Regulation, the Commission has complemented its assessment of en route cost-efficiency targets by reviewing the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services in accordance with point 2.1(c) of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

With regard to airports which fall within the scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 as set out in Article 1(3) and (4) of that Implementing Regulation, the Commission has complemented its assessment of en route cost-efficiency targets by reviewing the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services in accordance with point 2.1(c) of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation.

en route

| (51) | In of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728, the Commission raised concerns regarding the terminal cost-efficiency targets proposed by Sweden in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, and considered that Sweden should further justify those targets or revise them downwards. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

In of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728, the Commission raised concerns regarding the terminal cost-efficiency targets proposed by Sweden in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, and considered that Sweden should further justify those targets or revise them downwards.

| (52) | The Commission notes that Sweden has duly justified and substantiated, in the revised draft performance plan, its terminal cost efficiency targets, including by referring to the reduced number of flights in the terminal charging zone as compared to RP2 and the strong impact of air traffic controller retirements on the terminal cost base during RP3. The Commission does not have any further observations on the terminal cost-efficiency targets included in the revised draft performance plan. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

The Commission notes that Sweden has duly justified and substantiated, in the revised draft performance plan, its terminal cost efficiency targets, including by referring to the reduced number of flights in the terminal charging zone as compared to RP2 and the strong impact of air traffic controller retirements on the terminal cost base during RP3. The Commission does not have any further observations on the terminal cost-efficiency targets included in the revised draft performance plan.

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

| (53) | In the light of all the foregoing, the Commission has found that the performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets, |
| --- | --- |

(53)

In the light of all the foregoing, the Commission has found that the performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The performance targets, included in the revised draft performance plan submitted by Sweden pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, and listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 5 December 2022.

For the Commission

Adina VĂLEAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2019, p. 1.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903 of 29 May 2019 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network for the third reference period starting on 1 January 2020 and ending on 31 December 2024 (OJ L 144, 3.6.2019, p. 49).

3

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1627 of 3 November 2020 on exceptional measures for the third reference period (2020-2024) of the single European sky performance and charging scheme due to the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ L 366, 4.11.2020, p. 7).

4

(5)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891 of 2 June 2021 setting revised Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network for the third reference period (2020-2024) and repealing Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/903 (OJ L 195, 3.6.2021, p. 3).

5

(6)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 of 13 April 2022 on the inconsistency of certain performance targets contained in the draft national and functional airspace block performance plans submitted by Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, and Sweden pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period and setting out recommendations for the revision of those targets (OJ L 135, 12.5.2022, p. 4).

6

---

ANNEX

Performance targets included in the revised draft performance plan submitted by Sweden pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, found to be consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Effectiveness of safety management

| Sweden | Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D |
| --- | --- |
| Air navigation service provider concerned | Safety management objective | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| LFV | Safety policy and objectives | C | C | C |
| Safety risk management | D | D | D |
| Safety assurance | C | C | C |
| Safety promotion | C | C | C |
| Safety culture | C | C | C |

Sweden

Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D

Air navigation service provider concerned

Safety management objective

2022

2023

2024

LFV

Safety policy and objectives

C

C

C

Safety risk management

D

D

D

Safety assurance

C

C

C

Safety promotion

C

C

C

Safety culture

C

C

C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory

| Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory | 1,05  % | 1,05  % | 1,05  % |

Sweden

2022

2023

2024

Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory

1,05  %

1,05  %

1,05  %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Average en route ATFM delay in minutes per flight

| Sweden | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight | 0,07 | 0,08 | 0,08 |

Sweden

2022

2023

2024

Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight

0,07

0,08

0,08

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

Determined unit cost for en route air navigation services

| En route charging zone of Sweden | 2014 baseline value | 2019 baseline value | 2020 -2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Revised en route cost-efficiency targets, expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices) | 604,02 SEK | 537,87 SEK | 1 361,88 SEK | 774,65 SEK | 650,98 SEK | 587,62 SEK |
| 62,70 EUR | 55,84 EUR | 141,38 EUR | 80,42 EUR | 67,58 EUR | 61,00 EUR |

En route charging zone of Sweden

2014 baseline value

2019 baseline value

2020 -2021

2022

2023

2024

Revised en route cost-efficiency targets, expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices)

604,02 SEK

537,87 SEK

1 361,88 SEK

774,65 SEK

650,98 SEK

587,62 SEK

62,70 EUR

55,84 EUR

141,38 EUR

80,42 EUR

67,58 EUR

61,00 EUR

---