natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den 13. januar 2012 gjorde de irske myndigheder rede for deres holdning til Ryanairs bemærkninger: For det første er de uenige i Ryanairs beskrivelse af afgiften, da denne efter deres mening grundlæggende er en forbrugerafgift, og den lavere afgift begunstigede ikke luftfartsselskaberne.
On 13 January 2012, the Irish authorities provided their views on Ryanair's comments: First, they disagree with Ryanair's description of the tax, since the tax in their view is a consumer tax in essence and the lower tax rate did not confer an advantage on the airlines.
For det andet kan de ikke se, hvordan Ryanair kunne være den part, der blev mest direkte og negativt påvirket af den lavere sats, eftersom selskabet tegner sig for [56-63] (*) % af de passagerer, der blev befordret med fly, som var omfattet af den lavere sats.
Second, they fail to see how Ryanair could be the party most directly and negatively affected by the lower rate, in particular since it accounts for [56-63] (*) % of the passengers carried on flights subject to the lower rate.
For det tredje er der ikke noget belæg for påstanden om, at sigtet med den lavere sats var at støtte Aer Arann.
Third, there is no basis for the claim that the lower tax rate was designed to support Aer Arann.
De irske myndigheder havde ikke en specifik operatør i tankerne, da de udviklede flybilletafgiften.
The Irish authorities did not have any particular operator in mind when designing the air travel tax.
For det fjerde er der ikke logik i Ryanair's argument om, at den højere sats på 10 EUR ikke skal betragtes som den almindelige sats for flybilletafgiften.
Fourth, there is no logic in Ryanair's argument that the higher rate of EUR 10 is not to be considered as the normal rate of the air travel tax.
I henhold til systemet med to forskellige afgiftssatser fandt den højere sats anvendelse på mellem 85 og 90 % af alle afgange.
Under the two-tier tax system, the higher rate applied to between 85 and 90 % of all departures.
De irske myndigheder gentog, at de havde tilladt en undtagelse fra standardsatsen på 10 EUR for at indføre et element af proportionalitet i den afstandsrelaterede afgift.
The Irish authorities reiterated that they had allowed for a derogation from the standard rate of EUR 10 in order to introduce an element of proportionality in the level of the tax relating to the distance.
Støtte i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1
Existence of State aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty
I henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, er "statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med det indre marked, i det omfang den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne."
By virtue of Article 107(1) of the Treaty “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.”
For at være omfattet af traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, skal en foranstaltning være selektiv [13].
In order to be caught by Article 107(1) of the Treaty, a measure must thus be selective [13].
Når Kommissionen skal fastslå, om en foranstaltning er selektiv, skal den vurdere, om den begunstiger "visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner" sammenholdt med andre, som befinder sig i en retlig og faktisk sammenlignelig situation, for så vidt angår det tilsigtede formål med foranstaltningen.
In establishing whether a measure is selective, the Commission needs to assess whether the measure favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation [14].
Ifølge etableret retspraksis [15] er en afgiftsforanstaltning a priori selektiv, hvis den udgør en undtagelse fra den almindelige anvendelse af de overordnede afgiftsmæssige rammer.
According to established case-law [15], a fiscal measure is prima facie selective if it constitutes a departure from the normal application of the general tax framework.
Kommissionen skal derfor først identificere det relevante referenceafgiftssystem.
First, the Commission therefore has to identify the relevant tax system of reference.
Med hensyn til beskatning bemærker Kommissionen, at udformningen af et afgiftssystem i princippet henhører under medlemsstaternes kompetenceområde.
As regards taxation, the Commission notes that, in principle, the definition of the system of taxation falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States.
De irske myndigheder har i udviklingen af deres beskatningssystem valgt at definere tidspunktet for indtrædelsen af pligten til at betale afgift som en passagers afrejse med et fly fra en lufthavn beliggende i Irland.
In designing their taxation system, the Irish authorities chose to define the taxable event of the air travel tax as the departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport situated in Ireland.
Referencesystemet er derfor beskatning af flypassagerer, der afrejser med et fly fra en lufthavn i Irland.
The system of reference is therefore the taxation of air passengers departing on an aircraft from an airport in Ireland.
Formålet med systemet er at skabe indtægter til statsbudgettet.
The objective of that system is to raise revenue for the State budget.
Den konklusion, at referencesystemet er beskatning af passagerer, der afrejser fra en lufthavn i Irland, blev bekræftet af de irske myndigheder i deres svar på interesserede parters bemærkninger.
The conclusion that the system of reference is the taxation of air passengers departing from an airport situated in Ireland was confirmed by the Irish authorities in their reply to the observations of the third party.
I overensstemmelse med etableret retspraksis [16] skal Kommissionen fastslå, om den pågældende skatteforanstaltning udgør en undtagelse fra det identificerede referencesystem.
Second, in line with established case-law [16], the Commission has to determine whether the tax measure in question constitutes a derogation from the identified reference system.
Ryanair fremfører, at den lavere sats på 2 EUR eller alternativt enhedssatsen på 3 EUR, der blev indført pr. 1. marts 2011, bør betragtes som den almindelige sats i flybilletafgiftssystemet.
Ryanair argues that the lower rate of EUR 2, or alternatively the single rate of EUR 3 which was introduced on 1 March 2011, should be regarded as the normal rate of the air travel tax system.
Ud over visse destinationer i den vestlige del af Det Forenede Kongerige fandt den lavere sats dog kun anvendelse på indenrigsdestinationer og ifølge de irske myndigheder kun på omkring 10-15 % af alle flyvninger, der var omfattet af afgiften.
However, apart from certain destinations in the western United Kingdom, the lower rate only applied to domestic destinations and, according to the Irish authorities, only to some 10-15 % of all flights which were subject to the tax.
Den kan således ikke betragtes som den almindelige afgiftssats.
It can thus not be regarded as the normal tax rate.
Med hensyn til satsen på 3 EUR var den ikke gældende på det tidspunkt, som denne afgørelse vedrører, og kan derfor ikke betragtes som den almindelige sats for flybilletafgiftssystemet på det tidspunkt.
As for the rate of EUR 3, it was not in force at the time to which this Decision relates and can therefore not be regarded as the normal rate of the air travel tax system at that time.
Kommissionen mener derfor, at den højere sats på 10 EUR var den almindelige sats i referencesystemet, mens den reducerede sats på 2 EUR, der gjaldt for en klart afgrænset kategori af flyvninger, var en undtagelse fra referencesystemet.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the higher rate of EUR 10 was the normal rate of the reference system, while the reduced rate of EUR 2, which was applicable to a well delimited category of flights, was an exception from the reference system.
For det tredje skal Kommissionen undersøge, om sådanne undtagelser er berettiget af hensyn til "systemets karakter eller forvaltning" [17] i medlemsstaten.
Third, the Commission must examine whether such exceptions are justified by "the nature or general scheme of the system" [17] in the Member State.
Hvis det er tilfældet, anses det ikke, at foranstaltningen giver en selektiv fordel, og den udgør således ikke statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
If that is the case, the measure is not considered to confer a selective advantage and does thus not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
I den sammenhæng bør det bemærkes, at det i henhold til retspraksis [18] er referencesystemets grundlæggende, ledende principper, der er relevante, ikke principperne bag den pågældende foranstaltning.
In that context, it should be noted that, according to case-law [18], it is the basic and guiding principles of the reference system which are relevant, not those of the particular measure in question.
I henhold til de irske myndigheder blev den lavere sats indført for at tilføre et element af proportionalitet i den afstandsrelaterede afgift.
According to the Irish authorities the lower rate was introduced in order to add an element of proportionality in the level of the tax relating to the distance of the flight.
Kommissionen finder ikke, at denne argumentation vedrører referencesystemets grundlæggende, ledende principper, men snarere principperne bag selve undtagelsen.
The Commission finds that reasoning is not related to the basic and guiding principles of the tax system itself, but rather to those of the derogation itself.
Afgiftens karakter og formål var ikke relateret til flyvningens afstand, men til det forhold, at den blev indledt fra en irsk lufthavn.
The structure and objective nature of the tax was not related to the distance of the flight, but to the fact of departing from an Irish airport.
Forbindelsen mellem skattemyndigheden, afgiftspligtens indtræden (afgang fra en irsk lufthavn) og de negative eksterne følger for det irske samfund af, at passagerer afrejser fra en irsk lufthavn (støj og luftforurening) var nøjagtig de samme, uanset flyets destination og den tilbagelagte afstand.
The connection with the fiscal authority, the taxable event (departure from an Irish airport) and the negative externalities for the Irish society of passengers departing from an Irish airport (for example, noise and pollution) was precisely the same regardless of the destination of the flight and the distance travelled.
De berørte luftfartsoperatører var derfor i samme juridiske og faktiske situation med hensyn til dette formål.
The concerned airline operators were therefore in the same as each other legal and factual situation with regard to that objective.
Desuden var afgiftssystemet ikke karakteriseret ved, at differentieringen var baseret på afgiftsniveauet i relation til flyvningernes afstand.
Furthermore, the tax system is not characterised by an articulated differentiation in the tax level in relation to the actual length of the flights.
For det første blev afgiftssatsen ikke beregnet på grundlag af rejsens faktiske længde, men på grundlag af afstanden mellem Dublin lufthavn og destinationen, uanset det faktiske afrejsested.
First, the tax rate was not applicable on the basis of the actual length of the flight, but on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination, regardless of where the actual departure took place.
For det andet omfattede afgiftssystemet kun to satser: en for meget korte flyvninger fra Dublin lufthavn og den anden for alle andre flyvninger.
Second, the tax system fixes only two rates: one for very short distance flights from Dublin airport and the other for all other flights.
Og selv hvis undtagelsen var begrundet i selve afgiftssystemets karakter og logikken bag det, har Domstolen fastslået, at en begunstigelse ikke kun skal være i overensstemmelse med det pågældende afgiftssystems iboende karakteristika, men også med hensyn til den måde, det gennemføres på [19].
Moreover, even if the reason for the derogation was in the nature and logic of the principles of the air travel tax system, the Court has stated that a benefit must be consistent not only with the inherent characteristics of the tax system in question but also as regards the manner in which it is implemented [19].
Som nævnt i betragtning 47 sikrede afgiftssystemet i praksis ikke forholdsmæssige satser relateret til flyvningernes faktiske længde, eftersom den gældende sats var fastlagt på grundlag af afstanden mellem Dublin lufthavn og destinationen, uanset det faktiske afrejsested, og at der kun blev anvendt to satser, nemlig en for meget korte flyvninger fra Dublin lufthavn og den anden for alle andre flyvninger.
As mentioned in recital 47, the tax system did not de facto ensure proportionate rates in relation to the actual length of the flights, since the applicable rate was fixed on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination, regardless of where the actual departure took place and since only two rates were applicable: one for very short distance flights from Dublin airport and the other for all other flights.
Prisen på flybilletter til indenrigsdestinationer er ikke nødvendigvis lavere end på billetter til andre destinationer i EU.
The price of tickets to domestic destinations is not necessarily lower than that of flights to other destinations in the Union.
Foranstaltningen kunne således ikke opfylde sit formål, nemlig at sikre proportionalitet i afgiften i relation til flyvningens afstand.
The measure could thus not achieve its objective of ensuring proportionality of taxation in relation to the flight distance.
Hverken de irske myndigheder eller interesserede parter har anført, at følgen af undtagelsen var, at afgiftsniveauet rent faktisk stod i forhold til afstanden.
In this case, neither the Irish authorities nor any third party has argued that the effect of the derogation was that the tax level de facto was proportional to distance.
Tværtimod erkender de irske myndigheder, at der ikke bestod en perfekt sammenhæng mellem afstand og afgiftssats.
On the contrary, the Irish authorities recognise that there was no perfect correlation between distance and rate of the tax.
Kommissionen ser derfor ingen grund til at ændre sin indledende holdning, nemlig at den lavere sats ikke var begrundet i flybilletafgiftssystemets karakter eller logik.
Therefore, the Commission sees no reason for changing its preliminary view that the lower rate was not in the logic and general scheme of the air travel tax system.
Følgelig finder Kommissionen, at støtteforanstaltningen er selektiv og ikke begrundet i afgiftssystemets karakter eller logik.
Accordingly the Commission considers that the measure is selective and not justified by the nature and the logic of the system.
Begunstigelse
Advantage
Afgifter er omkostninger, der normalt afholdes af en virksomhed.
Expenditure for taxes constitutes costs which are normally borne by an undertaking.
Indførelsen af en flybilletafgift kan påvirke luftfartsselskabernes indtægter, idet de skal betale afgiften og enten kan hæve prisen på de billetter, de tilbyder deres kunder, eller mindske overskuddet på hver solgt billet, hvis de beslutter ikke at vælte afgiften over på kunderne.
The application of the air travel tax can affect the revenues of the airlines which have to pay that tax, by increasing the prices of the tickets they are capable of offering to their customers or reducing the margin on each ticket they sell, where the airlines decide not to pass the tax on to the customers.
I den henseende har Domstolen fastslået følgende: "Lufthavnsskatter påvirker derfor rejsens pris direkte og mekanisk, hvorfor en forskel i de skatter, passagerne skal bære, overvæltes automatisk på transportomkostningen, hvilket i sagen begunstiger adgangen til indenrigsflyvninger på bekostning af andre flyvninger" [20].
In this respect, the Court has stated that "since airport taxes directly and automatically influence the price of the journey, differences in the taxes to be paid by passengers will automatically be reflected in the transport costs, and thus, […], access to domestic flights will be favoured over access to intra-Community flights" [20].
En reduceret sats for bestemte typer af flyvninger har derfor mindre indvirkning end den almindelige sats for de luftfartsoperatører, der tilbyder den type flyvninger.
A reduced rate for a certain type of flights therefore has a smaller effect than the normal rate on the airline operators offering that type of flights.
Disse luftfartsoperatører fritages fra en omkostning, de normalt skulle have afholdt, og skal derfor enten vælte en mindre omkostning over på deres kunder eller selv betale denne.
Those airline operators are relieved from a cost they would normally have to bear, and therefore have a smaller cost to pass on to their customers or to assume themselves.
Følgelig mener Kommissionen, at den lavere sats begunstigede luftfartsoperatører, der befløj de ruter, som satsen fandt anvendelse på.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the lower tax rate provided an advantage to airline operators serving the routes to which that rate applied.
Den lavere omkostning, som de skulle vælte over på deres kunder eller selv påtage sig, udgjorde finansielle ressourcer, som disse luftfartsoperatører kunne spare, og forbedrede derfor deres økonomiske situation i forhold til andre luftfartsoperatører, som konkurrerede på markedet for lufttransport.
The lower cost that they had to pass on to their customers or to assume directly represented financial resources that those airline operators could economise and therefore improved their economic situation vis-à-vis other airline operators competing in the air transport market.
Den reducerede sats begunstigede derfor i praksis irske luftfartsoperatører i forhold til andre EU-operatører.
Therefore, de facto the reduced rate provided an advantage to Irish airline operators compared to other Union operators.
Ryanair anfører videre, at selskabet har fået mindre ud af den lavere sats end f.eks. Aer Arann, eftersom størstedelen af selskabets flyvninger er til destinationer, som er omfattet af den højere afgift.
Ryanair furthermore argues that it has benefitted less from the lower tax rate than, for example, Aer Arann, since the majority of its flights are for destinations to which the higher rate applied.
Begunstigelsen ved at anvende den lavere sats på 2 EUR er imidlertid forskellen mellem denne sats og standardsatsen på 10 EUR. Ved at anvende den lavere sats for bestemte flyvninger har Ryanair som alle andre luftfartsselskaber, der foretager flyvninger, som denne sats finder anvendelse på, haft en fordel, der svarer til forskellen mellem de to satser.
However, the advantage stemming from the application of the lower tax rate of EUR 2 is the difference between that rate and the standard rate of EUR 10. In applying the lower rate to certain flights, Ryanair has, like all other airlines operating flights to which that rate applied, enjoyed an advantage corresponding to the difference between the two rates.
De irske myndigheder anfører, at hensigten var, at afgiften skulle væltes over på passagererne, og at luftfartsoperatørerne derfor ikke blev begunstiget.
The Irish authorities argue that the tax was intended to be passed on to the passengers and, therefore, no advantage existed at the level of the airline operators.
I den sammenhæng bemærker Kommissionen, at en reduktion i forhold til en bestemt afgifts almindelige sats kan udgøre en selektiv fordel for en luftfartsoperatør, som skal betale den reducerede sats, selv i situationer, hvor der består et juridisk krav om at vælte den pågældende afgift over på kunderne [21]. Kommissionen bemærker, at der i denne sag ikke var nogen mekanisme, som sikrede, at afgiften rent faktisk blev overvæltet på billetprisen, men at det var op til luftfartsoperatørerne at beslutte, om og hvordan de ville vælte den over på passagerne.
In that context, the Commission notes that a reduction from the normal rate of a given tax can confer a selective advantage on the airline operator which is liable to pay the reduced rate even in situations where there is a legal requirement to pass the tax in question on to the customers [21] The Commission further notes that, in the case at hand, there was no mechanism which ensured that the tax was actually passed on, but it was left to the airline operator to decide on whether and how the tax would be passed on to the passengers.
Klageren fremførte faktisk det modsatte i sin klage, nemlig at man ikke kunne vælte afgiften over på kunderne, da dette ville have en uforholdsmæssig virkning på billetpriserne.
In its complaint, the complainant actually argued the contrary, namely that it could not pass the cost of the tax on to its customers since doing that would have had a disproportionate effect on its ticket prices.
Kommissionen er derfor ikke enig med de irske myndigheder i, at der ikke forelå nogen fordel for luftfartsoperatørerne, eftersom de, der kunne anvende den lavere sats for bestemte flyvninger, skulle vælte en lavere omkostning over på deres kunder end de andre operatører.
The Commission therefore does not agree with the Irish authorities that there was no advantage at the level of the airline operators: those which could use the lower tax rate for certain flights had a lower cost to pass on to their customers than others.
Dette er også i tråd med Kommissionens praksis med hensyn til støtteforanstaltninger, der er baseret på en punktafgift [22], ifølge hvilken fritagelse fra sådanne afgifter begunstiger den luftfartsoperatør, som har pligt til at betale afgiften, uanset at den pågældende enhed kan vælge at vælte omkostningen over på sine kunder.
It is also in line with the Commission's practice with respect to aid measures stemming from an excise duty [22], according to which reliefs from such duties have been found to provide an advantage to the airline operator which is obliged to pay the tax, regardless of the fact that that entity may choose to pass the cost on to its customers.
Følgelig finder Kommissionen, at den lavere sats begunstigede bestemte luftfartsoperatører.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the lower tax rate provided an advantage to certain airline operators.
Den reducerede sats begunstigede derfor irske luftfartsoperatører i forhold til andre EU-operatører.
Therefore, the reduced rate provided an advantage to Irish airline operators compared to other Union operators.
Det forhold, at de irske myndigheder tillod en lavere sats end den almindelige, påførte staten et tab i afgiftsindtægter og blev dermed finansieret via statsmidler.
The fact that the Irish authorities allowed a lower tax rate than the normal one to be applied resulted in a loss of tax revenue for the State and was thus financed from State resources.
Eftersom den lavere sats var blevet vedtaget af de nationale myndigheder, skal støtteforanstaltningen henregnes til staten.
Since the lower rate had been decided upon by the national authorities, the measure is imputable to the State.
Påvirkning af konkurrencen og samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne
Effect on competition and trade between Member States
Sammenlignet med konkurrenterne blev de luftfartsoperatører, som anvendte den lavere sats, fritaget fra omkostninger, som de ellers skulle have afholdt eller væltet over på deres kunder.
In comparison with their competitors, the airline operators benefiting from the lower rate were relieved from costs which they should otherwise have borne or passed on to their customers.
Den lavere afgiftssats forbedrede derfor deres økonomiske situation i forhold til andre virksomheder, der konkurrerer på markedet for lufttransport, og fordrejer eller risikerer således at fordreje konkurrencen.
Therefore, the lower rate of the air travel tax improved their economic situation vis-à-vis other undertakings competing in the air transport market thereby distorting or risking to distort competition.