# L_2022318EN.01014701.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/147

---

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2022/2426

of 5 December 2022

on the consistency of the performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan submitted by Latvia 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) 8718)

(Only the Latvian 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, either at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks (‘FABs’), 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, either at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks (‘FABs’), 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). As 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). As 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 this basis, Member States submitted to the Commission, in October 2021, 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 this basis, Member States submitted to the Commission, in October 2021, 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 Latvia 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 Latvia 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 Latvia, 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 Latvia, 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, Latvia submitted a revised draft performance plan for RP3 (the ‘revised draft performance plan’). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 13 July 2022, Latvia submitted a revised draft performance plan for RP3 (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 of Latvia. |
| --- | --- |

(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 of Latvia.

| (8) | In accordance with Article 15(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the local performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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 contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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 with respect to air traffic in European airspace. Based on that forecast, the Commission notes that Latvia 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 changed circumstances considerably impact the performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia, they should be taken into account in the assessment of the local performance targets contained therein. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Eurocontrol Statistics and Forecast Service (‘STATFOR’) base traffic forecast, published in June 2022, takes account of the change in circumstances with respect to air traffic in European airspace. Based on that forecast, the Commission notes that Latvia 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 changed circumstances considerably impact the performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia, they should be taken into account in the assessment of the local performance targets contained 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 Latvia 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 Latvia 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 Latvia in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:











  Latvia | 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 | Union-wide targets




  (2024) |
| LGS | Safety policy and objectives | C | D | D | C |
| Safety risk management | C | D | D | D |
| Safety assurance | C | D | D | C |
| Safety promotion | C | D | D | C |
| Safety culture | C | D | D | C |

(11)

The local safety performance targets proposed by Latvia in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:

Latvia

Latvia

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

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

Air navigation service provider concerned

Safety management objective

Safety management objective

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

Union-wide targets

Union-wide targets

(2024)

(2024)

LGS

LGS

Safety policy and objectives

C

D

D

D

C

C

Safety risk management

C

D

D

D

D

D

Safety assurance

C

D

D

D

C

C

Safety promotion

C

D

D

D

C

C

Safety culture

C

D

D

D

C

C

| (12) | The safety targets proposed by Latvia for LGS are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets and even outperform, for 2023 and 2024, the Union-wide performance targets in the areas of ‘safety policy and objectives’, ‘safety assurance’, ‘safety promotion’, and ‘safety culture’. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The safety targets proposed by Latvia for LGS are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets and even outperform, for 2023 and 2024, the Union-wide performance targets in the areas of ‘safety policy and objectives’, ‘safety assurance’, ‘safety promotion’, and ‘safety culture’.

| (13) | The Commission notes that the revised draft performance plan submitted by Latvia sets out measures for LGS for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as regular staff training, the revision of the safety management system procedures, evaluations of safety processes and just culture, simulated exercises, dissemination of safety data, and integration of safety management principles in business planning and decision-making. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Commission notes that the revised draft performance plan submitted by Latvia sets out measures for LGS for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as regular staff training, the revision of the safety management system procedures, evaluations of safety processes and just culture, simulated exercises, dissemination of safety data, and integration of safety management principles in business planning and decision-making.

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

(14)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 11 to 13, and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/891 are to be achieved by the final year of RP3, namely 2024, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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

| (15) | Concerning the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets submitted by Latvia 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 contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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, on 2 June 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Concerning the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets submitted by Latvia 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 contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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, on 2 June 2021.

en route

en route

| (16) | Concerning the year 2020, 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 the year 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in the 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 years 2022, 2023 and 2024. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Concerning the year 2020, 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 the year 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in the 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 years 2022, 2023 and 2024.

| (17) | The performance targets in the key performance area of environment proposed by Latvia 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:









  Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory | 1,25  % | 1,25  % | 1,25  % |
| Reference values | 1,25  % | 1,25  % | 1,25  % |

(17)

The performance targets in the key performance area of environment proposed by Latvia 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

Latvia

Latvia

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

1,25  %

1,25  %

1,25  %

1,25  %

1,25  %

1,25  %

Reference values

1,25  %

1,25  %

1,25  %

| (18) | The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Latvia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each year from 2022 to 2024. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Latvia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each year from 2022 to 2024.

| (19) | The Commission notes that Latvia has presented in the revised draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which mainly fulfil already existing legal requirements under Union law and include the deployment of airport collaborative decision making, the adoption of performance-based navigation flight procedures, as well as the implementation of free route airspace. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Commission notes that Latvia has presented in the revised draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which mainly fulfil already existing legal requirements under Union law and include the deployment of airport collaborative decision making, the adoption of performance-based navigation flight procedures, as well as the implementation of free route airspace.

| (20) | On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 17 to 19, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of environment. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 17 to 19, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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

| (21) | Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets submitted by Latvia 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 contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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, on 2 June 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets submitted by Latvia 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 contained in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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, on 2 June 2021.

en route

| (22) | Concerning the year 2020, 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 the year 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in the 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 years 2022, 2023 and 2024. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Concerning the year 2020, 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 the year 2021 set by Member States in the draft performance plans submitted in October 2021 could not be retroactively modified in the 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 years 2022, 2023 and 2024.

| (23) | The en route capacity targets proposed by Latvia 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:









  Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight | 0,03 | 0,03 | 0,03 |
| Reference values | 0,03 | 0,03 | 0,03 |

(23)

The en route capacity targets proposed by Latvia 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

Latvia

Latvia

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

0,03

0,03

0,03

0,03

0,03

0,03

Reference values

0,03

0,03

0,03

| (24) | The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Latvia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each year from 2022 to 2024. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Latvia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each year from 2022 to 2024.

| (25) | The Commission observes that Latvia has presented in the revised draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets. Those measures relate to air traffic controllers and include a new training programme as well as improved staffing in different sectorization scenarios. The Commission notes that in respect of the draft performance plan of Latvia submitted in 2021, the air navigation service provider LGS has reduced the planned number of air traffic controller full-time equivalents in operations for the years 2022 to 2024, due to the change in circumstances outlined in recitals 5 and 9. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission observes that Latvia has presented in the revised draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets. Those measures relate to air traffic controllers and include a new training programme as well as improved staffing in different sectorization scenarios. The Commission notes that in respect of the draft performance plan of Latvia submitted in 2021, the air navigation service provider LGS has reduced the planned number of air traffic controller full-time equivalents in operations for the years 2022 to 2024, due to the change in circumstances outlined in recitals 5 and 9.

en route

| (26) | On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 23 to 25, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of capacity. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals 23 to 25, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia 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

| (27) | 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 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Those targets were not found to raise any concerns in respect of Latvia. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

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 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Those targets were not found to raise any concerns in respect of Latvia.

en route

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

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

| (28) | With reference to in recital 4, the Commission concluded in Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 that the proposed en route cost-efficiency targets included in the draft performance plan of Latvia submitted in 2021 were inconsistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Latvia has proposed revised en route cost-efficiency targets in its revised draft performance plan. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

With reference to in recital 4, the Commission concluded in Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/728 that the proposed en route cost-efficiency targets included in the draft performance plan of Latvia submitted in 2021 were inconsistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Latvia has proposed revised en route cost-efficiency targets in its revised draft performance plan.

en route

en route

| (29) | The table below shows the initial RP3 en route cost-efficiency performance targets for the charging zone of Latvia, as contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, and the corresponding revised performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan submitted in 2022.













  En route charging zone of Latvia | 2014 baseline value | 2019 baseline value | 2020-2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial en route cost-efficiency targets (contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices) | 27,90 EUR | 23,61 EUR | 40,07 EUR | 31,28 EUR | 29,14 EUR | 26,83 EUR |
| Revised en route cost-efficiency targets (contained in the revised draft performance plan), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices) | 27,90 EUR | 23,61 EUR | 40,07 EUR | 38,04 EUR | 35,62 EUR | 33,59 EUR |

(29)

The table below shows the initial RP3 en route cost-efficiency performance targets for the charging zone of Latvia, as contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, and the corresponding revised performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan submitted in 2022.

en route

En route charging zone of Latvia

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 (contained 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 (contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed as determined en route unit cost (in real terms in 2017 prices)

27,90 EUR

27,90 EUR

23,61 EUR

23,61 EUR

40,07 EUR

40,07 EUR

31,28 EUR

31,28 EUR

29,14 EUR

29,14 EUR

26,83 EUR

26,83 EUR

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

Revised en route

en route

27,90 EUR

27,90 EUR

23,61 EUR

23,61 EUR

40,07 EUR

40,07 EUR

38,04 EUR

38,04 EUR

35,62 EUR

35,62 EUR

33,59 EUR

33,59 EUR

| (30) | The Commission observes that Latvia has revised its local cost-efficiency targets for the time period from 2022 to 2024, which results, in comparison with the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, in an overall determined unit cost (‘DUC’) higher by 23,0 % over those three years and higher by 16,4 % 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 Latvia’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 each year from 2022 to 2024 has however been partly offset by Latvia through a reduction of determined costs. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The Commission observes that Latvia has revised its local cost-efficiency targets for the time period from 2022 to 2024, which results, in comparison with the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, in an overall determined unit cost (‘DUC’) higher by 23,0 % over those three years and higher by 16,4 % 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 Latvia’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 each year from 2022 to 2024 has however been partly offset by Latvia through a reduction of determined costs.

| (31) | 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 each year from 2022 to 2024, in comparison with the figures contained in the draft performance plan, are presented in the table below.










  En route charging zone of Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial traffic forecast (contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of en route service units | 736 | 842 | 906 |
| Updated traffic forecast (contained in the revised draft performance plan), expressed in thousands of en route service units | 466 | 548 | 570 |
| Difference | -36,7  % | -34,9  % | -37,1  % |

(31)

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 each year from 2022 to 2024, in comparison with the figures contained in the draft performance plan, are presented in the table below.

en route

En route charging zone of Latvia

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

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

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

736

736

842

842

906

906

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

Updated traffic forecast (contained in the revised draft performance plan)

en route

466

466

548

548

570

570

Difference

Difference

-36,7  %

-36,7  %

-34,9  %

-34,9  %

-37,1  %

-37,1  %

| (32) | Compared to the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, the annual reductions in the number of service units for each year from 2022 to 2024 are in the approximate range of -35 % to -37 %. Accordingly, the en route service units for Latvia are expected to remain, in 2024, 40,1 % below their pre-pandemic level (year 2019), whereas they were previously foreseen to exceed the pre-pandemic level by 11,4 % in the STATFOR base traffic forecast of October 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Compared to the draft performance plan submitted in 2021, the annual reductions in the number of service units for each year from 2022 to 2024 are in the approximate range of -35 % to -37 %. Accordingly, the en route service units for Latvia are expected to remain, in 2024, 40,1 % below their pre-pandemic level (year 2019), whereas they were previously foreseen to exceed the pre-pandemic level by 11,4 % in the STATFOR base traffic forecast of October 2021.

en route

| (33) | However, as shown in the table below, the flight movements in Latvian 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 generates proportionally higher numbers of en route service units than flights landing and departing from airports in Latvia.










  En route charging zone of Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial traffic forecast (contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021), expressed in thousands of IFR movements | 229 | 262 | 282 |
| Updated traffic forecast (contained in the revised draft performance plan), expressed in thousands of IFR movements | 177 | 213 | 221 |
| Difference | -22,8  % | -18,8  % | -21,7  % |

(33)

However, as shown in the table below, the flight movements in Latvian 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 generates proportionally higher numbers of en route service units than flights landing and departing from airports in Latvia.

en route

en route

En route charging zone of Latvia

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

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

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

229

229

262

262

282

282

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

Updated traffic forecast (contained in the revised draft performance plan)

thousands of IFR movements

177

177

213

213

221

221

Difference

Difference

-22,8  %

-22,8  %

-18,8  %

-18,8  %

-21,7  %

-21,7  %

| (34) | 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. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

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

| (35) | The revised determined costs for years 2022 to 2024, expressed in real terms in 2017 prices, are shown in the table below. The Commission notes that Latvia has revised downwards the determined costs in real terms for each of those years.










  En route charging zone of Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021) | 23 M EUR | 24,5 M EUR | 24,3 M EUR |
| Revised determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices (contained in the revised draft performance plan) | 18 M EUR | 20 M EUR | 19 M EUR |
| Difference | -23,0  % | -20,4  % | -21,3  % |

(35)

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

En route charging zone of Latvia

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

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

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

23 M EUR

23 M EUR

24,5 M EUR

24,5 M EUR

24,3 M EUR

24,3 M EUR

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

Revised determined costs in real terms in 2017 prices

18 M EUR

20 M EUR

20 M EUR

19 M EUR

19 M EUR

Difference

Difference

-23,0  %

-23,0  %

-20,4  %

-20,4  %

-21,3  %

-21,3  %

| (36) | The revised draft performance plan comprises an updated inflation forecast for Latvia for each year from 2022 to 2024, as outlined in the following table.










  En route charging zone of Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial inflation index, with forecasted year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021) | 110,0


  (2,2  %) | 112,1


  (1,9  %) | 114,5


  (2,1  %) |
| Revised inflation index, with year-on-year change in inflation in parenthesis (data contained in the revised draft performance plan) | 119,7

  (10,0  %) | 124,3

  (3,9  %) | 128,1

  (3,1  %) |

(36)

The revised draft performance plan comprises an updated inflation forecast for Latvia for each year from 2022 to 2024, as outlined in the following table.

En route charging zone of Latvia

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

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

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

110,0

110,0

(2,2  %)

(2,2  %)

112,1

112,1

(1,9  %)

(1,9  %)

114,5

114,5

(2,1  %)

(2,1  %)

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

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

119,7

119,7

(10,0  %)

10,0  %

124,3

124,3

(3,9  %)

3,9  %

128,1

128,1

(3,1  %)

3,1  %

| (37) | The table below displays the determined costs in nominal terms for each year from 2022 to 2024. The Commission observes that Latvia revised downwards the nominal determined costs for years 2023 and 2024, despite the upward revision of the inflation forecast.










  En route charging zone of Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial determined costs in nominal terms (contained in the draft performance plan submitted in 2021) | 24,7 M EUR | 26,7 M EUR | 26,9 M EUR |
| Revised determined costs in nominal terms (contained in the revised draft performance plan) | 20 M EUR | 23 M EUR | 23 M EUR |
| Difference | -18,9  % | -14,9  % | -15,2  % |

(37)

The table below displays the determined costs in nominal terms for each year from 2022 to 2024. The Commission observes that Latvia revised downwards the nominal determined costs for years 2023 and 2024, despite the upward revision of the inflation forecast.

En route charging zone of Latvia

En route

2022

2022

2023

2023

2024

2024

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

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

24,7 M EUR

24,7 M EUR

26,7 M EUR

26,7 M EUR

26,9 M EUR

26,9 M EUR

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

Revised determined costs in nominal terms

20 M EUR

20 M EUR

23 M EUR

23 M EUR

23 M EUR

23 M EUR

Difference

Difference

-18,9  %

-18,9  %

-14,9  %

-14,9  %

-15,2  %

-15,2  %

| (38) | The Commission has assessed the consistency of the revised cost-efficiency targets proposed by Latvia based on the criteria laid down in points 1.4(a), (b) and (c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

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

| (39) | 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 +9,2 % over RP3 underperforms the Union-wide trend of +1,0 % over the same period. The Commission notes that this constitutes a deterioration from the DUC trend of +3,3 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

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 +9,2 % over RP3 underperforms the Union-wide trend of +1,0 % over the same period. The Commission notes that this constitutes a deterioration from the DUC trend of +3,3 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021.

en route

| (40) | 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 the second reference period (‘RP2’) and RP3 of +2,1 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,3 % over the same period. The Commission notes that this constitutes a deterioration from the long-term DUC trend of -0,4 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

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 the second reference period (‘RP2’) and RP3 of +2,1 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,3 % over the same period. The Commission notes that this constitutes a deterioration from the long-term DUC trend of -0,4 % calculated on the basis of the draft performance plan submitted in 2021.

en route

| (41) | With reference to recitals 31 and 32, the Commission recalls that Latvia’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 39 and 40, whether Latvia would meet the Union-wide cost-efficiency trends in the absence of the severe traffic reduction for each year from 2022 to 2024 which is due to the changed circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

With reference to recitals 31 and 32, the Commission recalls that Latvia’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 39 and 40, whether Latvia would meet the Union-wide cost-efficiency trends in the absence of the severe traffic reduction for each year from 2022 to 2024 which is due to the changed circumstances.

| (42) | To this end, the Commission has recalculated Latvia’s DUC trend over RP3 and Latvia’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 in an adjusted DUC trend for Latvia of -6,5 % over RP3 and in an adjusted long-term en route DUC trend for Latvia of -4,7 % over RP2 and RP3. Both of those adjusted trends are significantly below the corresponding Union-wide DUC trends of +1,0 % and -1,3 % respectively. Hence, Latvia fulfils the assessment criteria examined in recitals 39 and 40 in the absence of the changes in traffic caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

To this end, the Commission has recalculated Latvia’s DUC trend over RP3 and Latvia’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 in an adjusted DUC trend for Latvia of -6,5 % over RP3 and in an adjusted long-term en route DUC trend for Latvia of -4,7 % over RP2 and RP3. Both of those adjusted trends are significantly below the corresponding Union-wide DUC trends of +1,0 % and -1,3 % respectively. Hence, Latvia fulfils the assessment criteria examined in recitals 39 and 40 in the absence of the changes in traffic caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

en route

| (43) | 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 of EUR 23,61 of Latvia in EUR2017 is 17,2 % lower than the average baseline value of 28,51 EUR2017 of the relevant comparator group. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

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 of EUR 23,61 of Latvia in EUR2017 is 17,2 % lower than the average baseline value of 28,51 EUR2017 of the relevant comparator group.

| (44) | The Commission acknowledges that the revised cost-efficiency targets for the charging zone of Latvia 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 Latvia meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. In addition, Latvia’s baseline value for 2019 is lower by a notable margin than the corresponding average value of its comparator group, which indicates that it has maintained a historically good level of cost-efficiency in relative terms. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

The Commission acknowledges that the revised cost-efficiency targets for the charging zone of Latvia 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 Latvia meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. In addition, Latvia’s baseline value for 2019 is lower by a notable margin than the corresponding average value of its comparator group, which indicates that it has maintained a historically good level of cost-efficiency in relative terms.

| (45) | Furthermore, with reference to recital 35, the Commission notes that Latvia has taken measures to mitigate the exceptional traffic circumstances by considerably reducing its determined costs for the remainder of RP3. The Commission observes that those cost containment measures are, overall, commensurate with the lower number of IFR movements forecasted for each year from 2022 to 2024, as presented in recital 32. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

Furthermore, with reference to recital 35, the Commission notes that Latvia has taken measures to mitigate the exceptional traffic circumstances by considerably reducing its determined costs for the remainder of RP3. The Commission observes that those cost containment measures are, overall, commensurate with the lower number of IFR movements forecasted for each year from 2022 to 2024, as presented in recital 32.

| (46) | On balance, the Commission therefore considers that Latvia 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. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

On balance, the Commission therefore considers that Latvia 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.

| (47) | On the basis of the findings in recitals 29 to 46, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

On the basis of the findings in recitals 29 to 46, the targets included in the revised draft performance plan of Latvia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency.

Review of cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services

Review of cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services

| (48) | With regard to airports which fall within the scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 as set out in Articles 1(3) and (4) of that 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Those targets were not found to raise any concerns in respect of Latvia. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

With regard to airports which fall within the scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 as set out in Articles 1(3) and (4) of that 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Those targets were not found to raise any concerns in respect of Latvia.

en route

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

| (49) | In the light of all the foregoing, the Commission has found that the performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan submitted by Latvia are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets, |
| --- | --- |

(49)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The performance targets contained in the revised draft performance plan submitted by Latvia, 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 Republic of Latvia.

Done at Brussels, 5 December 2022.

For the Commission

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  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 (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 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 Latvia 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

| Latvia | 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 |
| LGS | Safety policy and objectives | C | D | D |
| Safety risk management | C | D | D |
| Safety assurance | C | D | D |
| Safety promotion | C | D | D |
| Safety culture | C | D | D |

Latvia

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

LGS

Safety policy and objectives

C

D

D

Safety risk management

C

D

D

Safety assurance

C

D

D

Safety promotion

C

D

D

Safety culture

C

D

D

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory

| Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory | 1,25  % | 1,25  % | 1,25  % |

Latvia

2022

2023

2024

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

1,25  %

1,25  %

1,25  %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Average en route ATFM delay in minutes per flight

| Latvia | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight | 0,03 | 0,03 | 0,03 |

Latvia

2022

2023

2024

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

0,03

0,03

0,03

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

Determined unit cost for en route air navigation services

| En route charging zone of Latvia | 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) | 27,90 EUR | 23,61 EUR | 40,07 EUR | 38,04 EUR | 35,62 EUR | 33,59 EUR |

En route charging zone of Latvia

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)

27,90 EUR

23,61 EUR

40,07 EUR

38,04 EUR

35,62 EUR

33,59 EUR

---