# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 of 2 March 2015 concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in            the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament            and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period and setting out recommendations            for the revision of those targets (notified under document C(2015) 1263) (Only the Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, German, Greek,            French, Croatian, Italian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian texts are authentic) (Text            with EEA relevance)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347                     

# of 2 March 2015

# concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant                        to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the                        second reference period and setting out recommendations for the revision of those targets                     

# *(notified under document C(2015) 1263)*

# (Only the Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, German, Greek, French, Croatian, Italian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Portuguese, Romanian,                        Slovak and Slovenian texts are 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)(c) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, the Member States are to adopt national or functional airspace block (‘FAB’) plans,                              including binding national targets or targets at the level of FABs, ensuring consistency with the Union-wide performance targets.                              That Regulation also provides that the Commission is to assess the consistency of those targets on the basis of the assessment                              criteria referred to in point (d) of its Article 11(6) and that the Commission may decide to issue recommendations in case                              it identifies that those criteria have not been met. Detailed rules in this regard have been set out in Commission Implementing                              Regulation (EU) No 390/2013(2).

(2)Union-wide performance targets in the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency for the second                              reference period (2015-19) were adopted by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU(3).

(3)The Member States submitted to the Commission the performance plans, all at FAB level, by 1 July 2014. In a number of cases                              the initial submission was in a draft form only. Furthermore, a number of plans were subsequently modified by addenda or corrigenda,                              the latest one dated 9 January 2015. For its assessment, the Commission has based itself on the most recent information submitted.

(4)The Performance Review Body, which is charged with assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme                              pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, submitted an initial assessment report to the Commission                              on 7 October 2014 and an updated version of that report on 15 December 2014. The Commission further received from the Performance                              Review Body reports based on information from national supervisory authorities on the monitoring of the performance plans                              and targets submitted in accordance with Article 18(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

(5)Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets submitted by the Member States for *en route* Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delay has been assessed, in accordance with the principle laid down in point 4 of Annex                              IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by using the respective FAB reference values for capacity that, when applied,                              ensure at Union level that the Union-wide performance target is met, calculated by the Network Manager and set out in the                              Network Operations Plan (2014-2018/2019) in its most recent version of June 2014 (‘Network Operations Plan’). That assessment                              has demonstrated that the targets submitted by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands as regards FABEC,                              by the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia as regards FABCE, by Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Malta                              as regards Blue Med FAB, by Bulgaria and Romania as regards Danube FAB, and by Spain and Portugal as regards SW FAB, are not                              in conformity with the respective reference values and therefore not consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target.

(6)Concerning the key performance area of cost-efficiency, the targets expressed in *en route* determined unit costs submitted by the Member States have been assessed, in accordance with the principles laid down in point                              5, in conjunction with point 1, of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by taking account of the trend of                              *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period and the combined period of the first and the second reference period                              (2012-19), the number of service units (traffic forecast) and the level of *en route* determined unit costs in comparison to Member States having a similar operational and economic environment. That assessment                              has demonstrated that the targets submitted by Austria and Slovakia as regards FABCE, by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg                              and the Netherlands as regards FABEC and by Italy as regards Blue Med FAB are not consistent with the relevant Union-wide                              performance target, for the following reasons.

(7)As regard Austria, its targets are based on a planned reduction of its *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by 3,5 % per year on average. While this slightly exceeds the targeted                              reduction of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year), its planned reduction over the combined period                              of the first and the second reference period is below the trend on Union-wide level (– 1,1 % per year, compared to – 1,7 %                              per year). Furthermore, the targets are based on planned *en route* determined costs at the start of the second reference period that are 8 % above the actual *en route* costs reported in the year 2013. As a result, the improvement in cost-efficiency realised in the first reference period has                              not been taken adequately into account when setting the targets for the second reference period. In addition, the target for                              2019 is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs that are substantially above (+ 20 %) the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Austria and                              around 19 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019.

(8)As regard Slovakia, its targets are based on a planned reduction of its *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by 2,6 % per year on average. This is below the targeted reduction                              of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). While the reduction in planned *en route* determined unit costs over the combined period of the first and the second reference period slightly exceeds the trend on                              Union-wide level (– 2,1 % per year, compared to – 1,7 % per year), the target for 2019 is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs that are substantially above (+ 18,6 %) the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Slovakia.

(9)Belgium and Luxembourg have a joint charging zone. Their targets are based on a planned reduction of the *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by only 0,2 % per year on average. This is significantly below the                              targeted reduction of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and                              the second reference period the planned *en route* determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,4 %, compared to – 1,7 %). Furthermore, the                              target for 2019 is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs that are above (+ 3,7 %) the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Belgium and                              Luxembourg and around 27 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019.

(10)As regard France, its targets are based on a planned reduction of its *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by only 0,7 % per year on average. This is significantly below the                              targeted reduction of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and                              the second reference period the planned *en route* determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,2 %, compared to – 1,7 %). In addition, the                              targets are based on planned *en route* determined costs at the start of the second reference period that are 6,2 % above the actual *en route* costs reported in the year 2013. As a result, the improvement in cost-efficiency realised in the first reference period has                              not been taken adequately into account when setting the targets for the second reference period. While the target for 2019                              is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs that are slightly below (– 2,8 %) the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of France, they                              are around 23 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019.

(11)As regard Germany, its targets are based on a planned reduction of its *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by 1,1 % per year on average. This is significantly below the targeted                              reduction of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and                              the second reference period the *en route* determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend, but they are rather increasing (+ 0,7 %, compared                              to – 1,7 %). In addition, the target for 2019 is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs in 2019 that are substantially above (+ 26,6 %) the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Germany and                              around 52 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019.

(12)As regard the Netherlands, its targets are based on a planned reduction of its *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by only 0,3 % per year on average. This is significantly below the                              targeted reduction of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and                              the second reference period the planned *en route* determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,3 %, compared to – 1,7 %). While the target                              for 2019 is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs that are slightly lower than the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of the Netherlands                              (– 3,7 %), they are around 18 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019.

(13)As regard Italy, its target are based on a planned reduction of its *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period by 2,8 % per year on average. This is not in line with the targeted                              reduction of the average Union-wide *en route* determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and                              the second reference period the planned *en route* determined unit costs of Italy do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 1,4 %, compared to – 1,7 %). In addition,                              the target for 2019 is based on planned *en route* determined unit costs that are substantially above (+ 16,6 %) the average *en route* determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Italy and                              around 25 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019.

(14)It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to issue recommendations concerning the necessary measures to be taken by the                              Member States concerned to ensure that their national supervisory authorities propose revised performance targets, which address                              the inconsistencies identified in this Decision. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 390/2013, it is then for the Member States concerned to adopt the revised performance targets and to notify them to the                              Commission within four months of the notification of this Decision.

(15)In order to address the inconsistencies in relation to the key performance area of capacity, it should be ensured that the                              revised performance targets are, as a minimum, in conformity with the FAB reference values for capacity set out in the Network                              Operations Plan. Where the Network Operations Plan specifies remediation or mitigation measures designed to ensure that the                              relevant FAB reference values are respected, for the Member States concerned the revision of the performance targets should                              take account of those measures.

(16)In order to address the inconsistencies in relation to the key performance area of cost-efficiency, as regards Belgium, Germany,                              France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Slovakia, the cost-efficiency performance targets expressed in *en route* determined unit costs should be revised downwards, so as to be in line with the reduction of the average *en route* determined unit costs on Union level over the second reference period and over the combined period of the first and the second                              reference period.

(17)In addition, when revising the cost-efficiency performance targets, the relevant traffic forecasts on which those targets                              are based should also be revised. For Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands the forecasted service units                              over the second reference period should be increased, in light of the increase in traffic observed in 2014. In contrast, Italy                              should reduce its forecasted service units over the second reference period, given the actual traffic numbers.

(18)The Commission has consulted the Member States concerned on the recommendations set out in this Decision, in accordance with                              Article 14(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

(19)The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The targets included in the performance plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, listed in the Annex, are                     inconsistent with the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period set out in Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU.                  

# Article 2U.K.

The Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia as regards FABCE, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg                     and the Netherlands as regards FABEC, Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Malta as regards Blue Med FAB, Bulgaria and Romania as regards                     Danube FAB, and Spain and Portugal as regards SW FAB, should take the necessary measures to ensure that their national supervisory                     authorities propose revised performance targets, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4.                  

# Article 3U.K.

The performance targets in the key performance area of capacity submitted by the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Austria,                     Slovenia and Slovakia as regards FABCE, by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands as regards FABEC, by Greece,                     Italy, Cyprus and Malta as regards Blue Med FAB, by Bulgaria and Romania as regards Danube FAB and by Spain and Portugal as                     regards SW FAB should be revised downwards. As a minimum, those targets should be in accordance with the respective FAB reference                     values set out in the Network Operations Plan. Where the Network Operations Plan specifies remediation or mitigation measures,                     account should be taken of those measures when revising the performance targets.                  

# Article 4U.K.

The performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency expressed in *en route* determined unit costs submitted by Austria and Slovakia as regards FABCE, by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the                     Netherlands as regards FABEC and by Italy as regards Blue Med FAB should be revised downwards, to a level that is in line                     with the reduction of the average *en route* determined unit costs on Union level over the second reference period and, where that is not yet the case, over the combined                     period of the first and the second reference period. Those downwards revisions should include a reduction in *en route* determined costs over the second reference period and, for Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands,                     a revision of the forecasted traffic expressed in service units.                  

# Article 5U.K.

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of                     Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Italian Republic,                     the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the                     Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.                  

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2015.

*For the Commission*                            

Violeta Bulc                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.**Performance targets in the key performance areas of capacity and cost-efficiency included in the national or functional airspace                           block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 found to be inconsistent with the Union-wide performance targets                           for the second reference period**

### **KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY**U.K.

#### *En route* Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delay in min/flightU.K.

### **KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY**U.K.

#### LegendU.K.

### BLUE MED FABU.K.

#### **Charging Zone: Italy — Currency: EUR**

### FAB CEU.K.

#### **Charging Zone: Austria — Currency: EUR**

#### **Charging Zone: Slovakia — Currency: EUR**

### FAB ECU.K.

#### **Charging Zone: Belgium-Luxembourg — Currency: EUR**

#### **Charging Zone: France — Currency: EUR**

#### **Charging Zone: Germany — Currency: EUR**

#### **Charging Zone: Netherlands — Currency: EUR**

1

OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1.                           

2

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services                              and network functions (OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 1).                           

3

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU of 11 March 2014 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic                              management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19 (OJ L 71, 12.3.2014, p. 20).