natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
TMP lufthavn, bortset fra T2, ejes og drives af Finavia Oyj [5] (»Finavia«).
TMP airport, with the exception of T2, is owned and operated by Finavia Oyj [5] (‘Finavia’).
T2 udlejes af Finavia til datterselskabet Airpro Oy [6] (»Airpro«).
T2 is rented out by Finavia to its subsidiary Airpro Oy [6] (‘Airpro’).
Airpro driver terminalen og leverer groundhandlingydelser i terminalen.
Airpro operates the terminal and provides ground handling services there.
Airpro indgik desuden en aftale med Ryanair […] [7] den 3. april 2003.
Furthermore, Airpro entered into an agreement with Ryanair […] [7] starting from 3 April 2003.
Passagertrafikken i lufthavnen steg fra 304025 passagerer i 2003 til 617397 passagerer i 2010 som følge af udviklingen i passagertallet i T2.
Passenger traffic at the airport increased from 304025 in 2003 to 617397 in 2010. This is due to the development of passenger numbers at T2.
I 2010 var Ryanairs andel af passagerer i TMP lufthavn ca. […].
In 2010, Ryanair’s passenger share at TMP airport amounted to approximately […].
Nedenstående tabel viser udviklingen i antallet af passagerer i TMP lufthavn fra 2003 til 2010:
The following table summarises the development of passenger numbers at TMP airport from 2003 to 2010:
Antal passagerer, T1
Number of passengers, T1
Antal passagerer, T2
Number of passengers, T2
Samlet antal passagerer i TMP lufthavn
Total number of passengers at TMP airport
De undersøgte foranstaltninger og Kommissionens indledende vurdering
The measures under investigation and the initial assessment by the Commission
Følgende spørgsmål blev rejst i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren:
The opening decision raised the following questions:
For det første om Finavia handlede som markedsøkonomisk investor, da selskabet besluttede at omdanne en fragthangar til T2, en lavpristerminal, og denne investeringsbeslutning i så fald ikke udgør statsstøtte til Airpro, og i modsat fald, om denne støtte kan anses for at være forenelig med det indre marked.
firstly, whether Finavia acted as a market economy investor when it decided to convert a cargo hangar into T2, a low-cost terminal, in which case this investment decision does not involve State aid in favour of Airpro; and if not, whether such aid could be considered compatible with the internal market; and
For det andet, om en markedsøkonomisk investor ville have indgået en lignende aftale som Airpros aftale med Ryanair, og i modsat fald om den støtte, der blev ydet i henhold til aftalen, kunne anses for at være forenelig med det indre marked.
secondly, whether a market economy operator would have entered into an agreement similar to Airpro’s agreement with Ryanair; and if not, whether the aid contained in the agreement could be deemed compatible with the internal market.
Med hensyn til det første spørgsmål udtrykte Kommissionen tvivl om, hvorvidt Finavia handlede ud fra et langsigtet rentabilitetssynspunkt, da selskabet besluttede at omdanne fragthangaren til en lavpristerminal.
As regards the first question, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether Finavia was guided by prospects of long-term profitability when it decided to transform the cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal.
Kommissionen var desuden i tvivl om, hvorvidt Finavias investeringer i omdannelsen af denne tidligere fragthangar til en lavpristerminal også kunne betragtes som en selektiv fordel for Airpro, som selskabet ikke ville have opnået under normale markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
Furthermore, the Commission had doubts as to whether the investments made by Finavia to transform this former cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal could also be considered a selective advantage in favour of Airpro that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Med hensyn til det andet spørgsmål skulle Kommissionen undersøge, om Airpro i dette tilfælde handlede ud fra et langsigtet rentabilitetssynspunkt, og om den fordel, Ryanair angiveligt har, er en fordel, som selskabet ikke ville have opnået under normale markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
As regards the second question, the Commission had to examine whether, in this particular case, the behaviour of Airpro had been guided by prospects of long-term profitability and whether the advantage allegedly conferred on Ryanair was an advantage it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Kommissionen udtrykte navnlig tvivl om, hvorvidt den »alt inkluderet«-afgift, som Ryanair betalte, var baseret på omkostningerne ved de tjenester, som Airpro ydede luftfartsselskabet.
The Commission expressed, in particular, doubts as to whether the ‘all-inclusive charge’ paid by Ryanair was based on costs for the provision of services to the airline by Airpro.
Finland oplyste desuden ikke Kommissionen om betingelserne i aftalen med Ryanair eller om forretningsplanen med analysen af aftalens rentabilitet for Airpro.
Furthermore, Finland did not provide the Commission either with the terms of the agreement with Ryanair or with the business plan evaluating the profitability of the agreement for Airpro.
Kommissionen udtrykte derfor i sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren tvivl om, hvorvidt Airpro havde handlet ud fra et langsigtet rentabilitetssynspunkt.
Hence in its opening decision the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the behaviour of Airpro had been guided by prospects of long-term profitability.
Det kunne således ikke udelukkes, at indgåelsen af aftalen gav Ryanair en fordel, som selskabet ikke ville have opnået under normale markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
Accordingly, it could not be excluded that the agreement provided Ryanair with an advantage it would not have benefited from under normal market conditions.
Kommissionen udtrykte tvivl om, hvorvidt betingelserne vedrørende forenelighed i henhold til EF-retningslinjerne om finansiering af lufthavne og statslig startstøtte til luftfartsselskaber, som opererer fra regionale lufthavne [8] (»retningslinjerne for luftfart fra 2005«) var opfyldt i nærværende sag, og om statsstøtteforanstaltningerne kunne anses for at være forenelige med det indre marked, jf. artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), i TEUF.
The Commission expressed doubts as to whether the conditions for compatibility as set out in the Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports [8] (‘the 2005 Aviation Guidelines’) had been satisfied in the present case, and whether the State aid measures could be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.
Finavias og Airpros lavprisstrategi i TMP lufthavn
The low-cost strategy of Finavia and Airpro at TMP airport
Finland indledte sine bemærkninger med at redegøre for baggrunden for Finavias og Airpros lavprisstrategi i TMP lufthavn.
Finland began its observations by providing background information on Finavia’s and Airpro’s low-cost strategy at TMP airport.
Finland forklarede, at T2 blev bygget i 1979 til midlertidig anvendelse som lufthavnsbygning.
Finland explained that T2 was built in 1979 for temporary use as an airport building.
I 1995 blev bygningen omdannet til en fragthangar til fragtoperationer og blev anvendt af DHL.
In 1995 it was converted into a cargo hangar suitable for freight operations and was used by DHL.
I 2002 opsagde DHL lejeaftalen, og terminalen blev ledig.
In 2002 DHL terminated the lease agreement and the terminal became vacant.
Finland anførte, at da det ikke var muligt for Finavia at tiltrække en ny fragtoperatør til Tampere eller at udleje hangaren, blev det besluttet at omdanne hangaren til en lavpristerminal med basale groundhandlingydelser.
Finland indicated that, as Finavia was not able to attract any other cargo operator to Tampere or to rent out the hangar, it decided to convert the hangar into a low-cost terminal suitable for basic ground handling services.
De oprindelige omkostninger ved bygning af T2 var på daværende tidspunkt allerede afskrevet, og renoveringen af terminalen krævede kun mindre renoveringsarbejder [9].
The initial construction costs of T2 had by that time already been depreciated and the refurbishment of the terminal required only minor renovations [9].
I følgende tabel anføres de enkelte investeringsomkostninger i forbindelse med renoveringen af T2, der beløber sig til 760612 EUR.
The following table details the investment costs of the refurbishment of T2, amounting to EUR 760612.
Renoveringsarbejder
Refurbishment works
Investeringsomkostninger i EUR
Investment costs in EUR
Udskrifter, tilladelser, rejseaktivitet
Copies, permits, travel
Bygge- og anlægskonstruktioner
Construction engineering
Varme/rør/klimaanlæg
Heating/pipes/air conditioning
Lavspændingsinstallationer
Low-voltage installations
Transportbånd
Conveyors
Sikkerhedsscreeningsudstyr
Security screening equipment
På baggrund af ovennævnte beregning påpegede Finland, at selv om det var lykkedes Finavia at finde en anden forpagter, der kunne anvende T2 som fragthangar, ville det have været nødvendigt at udføre en række bygge- og anlægsarbejder for ca. 100000 EUR. Det var desuden altid muligt at bruge transportbåndene i Finavias andre lufthavne.
In view of the above calculation Finland indicated that even if Finavia had been able to find another tenant to use T2 as a cargo hangar, it would have been necessary to carry out certain construction engineering works amounting to approximately EUR 100000. Furthermore, the conveyors could always be used at Finavia’s other airports.
Finland påpegede endvidere, at det var Finavias hensigt at give alle luftfartsselskaber, der var villige til at acceptere den lavere servicekvalitet, adgang til den nye lavpristerminal.
Finland explained further that Finavia’s intention was to make the new low-cost terminal available to all airlines willing to accept the lower quality of service.
I følgende tabel sammenlignes serviceniveauet og servicefaciliteterne i T1 og T2 i TMP lufthavn.
The following table provides a comparison of the level of service and of facilities at T1 and T2 at TMP airport:
Driftsmodel
Operational model
Traditionel model: Indtjekning, sikkerhedskontrol, transport, sortering og på- og aflæsning af bagage foretages af forskellige faggrupper og virksomheder.
Traditional model: check-in operations, security checks, transportation, sorting, loading and unloading of luggage are carried out by different professional groups and companies.
Lavprismodel: Den samme person varetager alle de forskellige faggruppers opgaver i T1 såsom indtjekning, sikkerhedskontrol og på- og aflæsning af bagage.
Low-cost model: the same persons perform all the tasks of the different professional groups at T1, such as check-in, security checks, loading and unloading of luggage.
Funktionerne udføres i et afgrænset område i terminalen, hvilket kræver et minimalt personale og fremskynder gennemstrømningen af passagerer.
The functions are located in a restricted area of the terminal, which requires only minimum staff and speeds up passenger flows.
Groundhandling-kapacitet
Ground handling capacity
Fra tre til fem (afhængigt af flytypen) samtidige starter eller landinger
Three to five (depending on the type of aeroplane) simultaneous take-offs or landings.
Ét afgående fly i timen
One outbound aeroplane an hour
Faciliteter med god betjening, herunder et sofistikeret bagagetransportsystem, behagelige venteværelser med tilknyttede tjenester, faciliteter til at varetage betjeningen af flere groundhandlingleverandører osv.
Facilities providing good service including a sophisticated luggage transportation system, pleasant waiting rooms with associated services, facilities to accommodate the needs of several ground handling providers, etc.
Grundlæggende faciliteter, der primært opfylder standarder for lagerbygninger (f.eks. betongulve) med kun få vinduer.
Basic facilities that correspond mainly to warehouse standards (e. g. concrete floors), with only few windows.
Finland anførte, at da T2 kun kunne levere groundhandlingydelser til ét afgående fly i timen, var terminalen kun egnet for luftfartsselskaber, der tilbyder direkte flyvninger med store fly.
Finland indicated that as T2 could provide ground handling services for only one outbound aeroplane an hour, it was suitable only for point-to-point carriers using large aircraft.
For at optimere anvendelsen af personalet krævede terminaloperatøren, at luftfartsselskaberne indgik langsigtede aftaler, herunder om fartplaner, og i modsætning til i T1 var det f.eks. ikke altid muligt at få afgange på de tidspunkter, som luftfartsselskaberne ønskede.
At the same time, in order to optimise the use of its staff, the operator of the terminal required airlines to enter into long-term agreements and also agreements on timetables; for instance flights could not always be operated at the times requested by the airlines, as was the case in T1.
Ifølge Finland gjorde optimeringen af personaleomkostningerne og serviceniveauet det muligt at opnå omkostningsbesparelser på ca. […] sammenholdt med T1.
According to Finland, the optimisation of staff expenses and the service levels provided allowed cost savings of approximately […] compared to T1.
Finland fremførte, at man inden påbegyndelsen af renoveringen af T2 og vedtagelsen af en lavprisstrategi havde drøftet spørgsmålet flere gange på Finavias bestyrelsesmøder.
Finland indicated that before starting the refurbishment of T2 and adopting a low-cost strategy there, the issue was discussed several times at the meetings of Finavia’s board of directors.
Der blev i denne forbindelse ligeledes udarbejdet en forretningsplan.
A business plan was also prepared for this purpose.
I følgende tabel sammenfattes forretningsplanen (det værst tænkelige scenario) for renoveringen af T2 og gennemførelsen af en lavprisstrategi: […]
The following table summarises the business plan (worst-case scenario) for the refurbishment of T2 and the implementation of a low-cost strategy: […]
Finland påpegede, at den på forhånd udarbejdede forretningsplan var baseret på forsigtige skøn, hvilket havde resulteret i en undervurdering af de forventede indtægter og en overvurdering af de forventede omkostninger i de sidste tre år af den pågældende periode.
Finland indicated that the ex ante business plan was based on prudent assumptions, leading to an underestimation of the revenues and an overestimation of the costs expected in the last years of the period under consideration.
I de øvrige scenarier blev det forudsat, at lavprisstrategien var endnu mere rentabel.
Under the other scenarios the low-cost strategy was expected to be even more profitable.
De »alt inkluderet«-afgifter, der blev betalt af de luftfartsselskaber, som anvender T2, varierede i de forskellige scenarier mellem […] pr. flyekspedition (turnaround).
The all-inclusive charges paid by the airlines using T2 varied in the different scenarios between […] per aircraft turnaround.
Da beslutningen om lavprisstrategien blev truffet af Finavias bestyrelse på grundlag af beregninger og undersøgelser, kunne den ikke tilregnes staten.
As the decision on the low-cost strategy was made by Finavia’s board of directors on the basis of calculations and studies, it was not imputable to the State.
Foranstaltningerne var ikke foranlediget af krav eller ordrer fra myndigheder, og myndighederne var heller ikke inddraget i vedtagelsen af foranstaltningerne.
The measures were not the result of requirements or orders by authorities, nor were the authorities involved in the adoption of the measures.
Finland anførte, at Finavia og Airpro opererede i overensstemmelse med forretningsprincipper og finansierede deres aktiviteter gennem serviceafgifter og indtægter fra kunder og andre forretningsaktiviteter.
Finland indicated that Finavia and Airpro operated in compliance with business principles and financed their operations from the service charges and revenues collected from customers and from other business operations.
Det blev understreget, at hverken Finavia eller Airpro modtog statsstøttemidler, idet de var overskudsgivende og indbetalte en del af deres overskud til staten i overensstemmelse med pålagte indtjeningskrav.
In particular, neither Finavia nor Airpro received funding from the State budget: they operated profitably and annually distributed part of their profit to the State in accordance with the profit requirements imposed on them.
Finland anførte, at det var det finske ministerium for transport og kommunikation, der fastlagde Finavias resultatmål.
Finland indicated that the Ministry of Transport and Communications decided on Finavia’s performance targets.
Disse resultatmål blev imidlertid fastlagt for hele koncernen, og Finavia traf selv individuelle forretningsbeslutninger.
These performance targets, however, concern the group as a whole and individual business decisions were taken at Finavia’s own discretion.
I de seneste år (2003-2005) var Finavias indtjeningskrav fastsat til ca. 4 % af den investerede kapital.
In the past few years (2003 to 2005) Finavia’s profit requirement had been approximately 4 % of the invested capital.
Finavias resultater sammenfattes i følgende tabel:
The following table summarises Finavia’s performance:
Økonomiske nøgletal for Finavia i mio. EUR (faktiske tal)
Key financial data of Finavia in million EUR (actual figures)
Udbetalt udbytte til staten
Dividends paid to the State
Finland oplyste, at Finavia ikke udarbejdede lufthavnsspecifikke regnskaber, da alle lufthavnene indgik i den samme juridiske enhed.
Finland indicated that Finavia did not prepare airport-specific financial statements, as all its airports were part of the same legal entity.
Siden 2000 har Finland dog ikke desto mindre indsamlet lufthavnsspecifikke oplysninger baseret på sine egne beregninger (faktiske data).
However, since 2000 Finavia had nevertheless collected airport-specific information based on its own internal calculations (actual data).
Disse oplysninger var baseret på udviklingen i lufthavnenes trafikvolumen og de hermed forbundne indtægter og på lufthavnenes ressourceomkostninger, dvs. omkostninger til personale, kontraherede tjenester og afskrivning af anlægsaktiver.
This information was based on airports’ volume trends and associated revenue and on the costs of the resources used at airports, namely personnel, contracted services and the depreciation of fixed assets.
Finavias overordnede resultater i TMP lufthavn (omfatter ikke Airpros tjenester) sammenfattes i følgende tabel: […]
The overall performance of Finavia at TMP airport (excluding services provided by Airpro) is summarised in the following table: […]
Ud over kommercielle aktiviteter inkluderede Finavias finansielle resultater i TMP lufthavn ligeledes aktiviteter, der falder ind under det offentliges politikker, såsom flyvekontrol og anvendelse af start- og landingsbanen i TMP lufthavn til militære formål.
Besides commercial operations, the financial results of Finavia at TMP airport also included operations falling within the public policy remit, such as air traffic control and use of the runway at TMP airport for military purposes.
Finland forklarede, at der skulle være adgang til start- og landingsbanen i TMP lufthavn til militære formål 24 timer i døgnet 365 dage om året.
Finland explained that the runway at TMP airport had to be available for military purposes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Landingsbanen blev rent faktisk anvendt til militære formål (mindst 30 % af de faktiske flybevægelser om året).
The runway was indeed used for military purposes (at least 30 % of the actual aircraft movements a year).
Omkostningerne ved flyvekontrol udgjorde ca. […].
The air traffic control cost amounted to approximately […].
I ovennævnte tal er indregnet den leje, som Airpro betaler til Finavia for anvendelsen af T2, og landingsafgifterne samt andre lufthavnsafgifter for de tjenester, der leveres til luftfartsselskaber, som anvender T2.
The above figures took into account the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia for the use of T2 and the landing charges as well as other airport charges for the services provided to airlines using T2.
Med hensyn til Airpro anførte Finland endvidere, at det var et aktieselskab, der var retligt adskilt fra Finavia.
As regards Airpro, Finland explained further that it was a limited company and legally distinct from Finavia.
I følgende tabel sammenfattes de faktiske finansielle resultater af Airpros aktiviteter i TMP lufthavn: […]
The following table summarises the actual financial results of Airpro’s operations at TMP airport: […]
Airpros finansielle resultater i TMP lufthavn omfattede omkostninger såsom leje af T2 i TMP lufthavn, Airpros egne omkostninger til personale og udstyr og omkostningerne til tjenester ydet af Finavia.
Airpro’s financial results at TMP airport included costs, such as the rent for T2 at TMP airport, Airpro’s own costs for personnel and equipment, and also the cost of services provided by Finavia.
Regnskaberne omfattede indtægter såsom den »alt-inkluderet«-afgift, der blev betalt af Ryanair, parkeringsafgifter og andre kommercielle indtægter.
The financial statements included revenues, such as the all-inclusive charge paid by Ryanair, parking fees and other commercial revenues.
Finland anførte derfor, at Finavia og Airpro handlede som markedsøkonomiske investorer, da de besluttede at gennemføre lavprisstrategien og omdanne fragthangaren til en lavpristerminal.
Consequently, Finland argued that Finavia and Airpro acted as market economy investors when they decided to implement the low-cost strategy and convert the cargo hangar into a low-cost passenger terminal.
Finland anførte endvidere, at selv om finansieringen af renoveringen af T2 blev anset for at være statsstøtte, ville den være forenelig i henhold til artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), i TEUF, da den var i overensstemmelse med betingelserne vedrørende forenelighed i retningslinjerne for luftfart fra 2005.
Finland argued that even if the financing of the refurbishment of T2 were considered State aid, it would be compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, as it complied with the compatibility criteria set out in the 2005 Aviation Guidelines.
Finland anførte endvidere, at foranstaltningerne kunne anses for at opfylde mål af almen interesse, ikke kun på grund af lufthavnsdriftens almene interesse, men også på grund af diversificeringen af trafikforbindelser i regionen, der imødegår borgernes og samfundets behov.
Finland argued further that the measures could be considered to meet objectives of general interest, which in its view related not only to the general-interest nature of airport operations, but also to the diversification of traffic connections in the region in a manner that met the needs of the residents and society.
Ifølge Finland stod ændringerne af T2 derfor i forhold til målet og det opnåede resultat.
According to Finland, therefore, the alterations to T2 were proportional to their purpose and to the result achieved.
Finland anførte endvidere, at lufthavnsaktiviteterne havde særlige karakteristika, som der skulle tages hensyn til.
In addition, Finland stated that the operations of airports had special characteristics that needed to be taken into account.
TMP lufthavn bidrog f.eks. til at forbedre mobiliteten i mere overbelastede lufthavne i overensstemmelse med EU's mål.
For example TMP airport helped to improve mobility at more congested airports in accordance with the Union’s objective.
Driften af TMP lufthavn bidrog til en regionalt afbalanceret udvikling i et tyndt befolket land som Finland.
Operating TMP airport contributed to regionally balanced development in a sparsely populated country such as Finland.
Det var i denne forbindelse vigtigt at sikre trafikforbindelser fra de fjernere egne i Finland til Europa, da andre transportformer ikke var et levedygtigt alternativ.
In this regard, it was particularly important to safeguard traffic connections from the more remote regions in Finland to Europe, since other forms of transport were not a viable alternative.
Udgifterne til bygning af terminalen stod i forhold til målet og var nødvendige.
The costs incurred for the construction of the terminal were proportional to the purpose as well as necessary.