natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forbindelsen mellem skattemyndigheden, afgiftspligtens indtræden (afgang fra en irsk lufthavn) og de negative eksterne følger for det irske samfund (støj og luftforurening) var nøjagtig de samme for alle passagerer, der rejste fra en irsk lufthavn, uanset flyets destination og den tilbagelagte afstand.
The connection with the fiscal authority, the taxable event (the departure from an Irish airport) and the negative externalities for the Irish society (noise and air pollution) were precisely the same for all passengers departing from an Irish airport regardless of the destination of the flight and the distance travelled.
De berørte luftfartsoperatører var i samme juridiske og faktiske situation med hensyn til dette formål.
The concerned airline operators were in the same as each other legal and factual situation with regard to that objective.
For det tredje var afgiftssystemet ikke karakteriseret ved, at differentieringen var baseret på afgiftsniveauet i relation til flyvningernes afstand, idet der kun var to faste satser: en for meget korte flyvninger og en for alle andre.
Third, the tax system was not characterised by an articulated differentiation in the tax level in relation to the flights' distance, but it fixed only two rates: one for very short distance flights and the other for all other flights.
Dette kriterium så ud til at begunstige flyvninger inden for Irlands grænser og til visse vestlige dele af Det Forenede Kongerige og skabte følgelig en forskelsbehandling mellem indenrigsflyvninger og flyvninger mellem Irland og resten af EU.
That criterion seemed to favour flights within Ireland and to certain western parts of the United Kingdom and, consequently, discriminated between national and intra-Union flights.
I den foreliggende sag anførte de irske myndigheder, at en højere afgift på destinationer, der var omfattet af den lave sats, ville være uforholdsmæssigt høj i forhold til prisen.
In the case at hand, the Irish authorities argued that a higher charge on the destinations for which the lower rate applied would be disproportional in relation to the price.
Kommissionen konstaterede, at prisen på flybilletter til indenrigsdestinationer ikke nødvendigvis er lavere end på billetter til andre destinationer i EU.
The Commission found that the price of tickets for domestic destinations is not necessarily lower than that of flights to other destinations in the Union.
Den lavere sats så således ikke ud til at være begrundet i karakteren af og logikken bag flybilletafgiftssystemet og forekom derfor at være en selektiv foranstaltning.
The lower tax rate did thus not appear to be justified by the nature and logic of the air travel tax system and therefore seemed to be a selective measure.
Eftersom alle andre kriterier i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, så ud til at være opfyldt, forekom foranstaltningen at udgøre statsstøtte til de luftfartsoperatører, der foretog de flyvninger, som var omfattet af den reducerede sats.
Since all other criteria in Article 107(1) of the Treaty also seemed to be fulfilled, the measure appeared to constitute State aid to the airline operators that had operated the routes benefitting from the reduced rate.
Støtten så ikke ud til at henhøre under anvendelsesområdet for nogen af de rammebestemmelser vedrørende statsstøttes forenelighed, som Kommissionen har udstedt.
The aid did not appear to fall within the scope of any guidelines for compatibility of State aid issued by the Commission.
Da den så ud til at udgøre driftsstøtte, som virkede diskriminerende over for flyvninger inden for EU, kunne den ikke betragtes som direkte forenelig i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c).
As it appeared to constitute an operating aid that discriminated between flights within the Union, it could not be considered to be compatible directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Desuden var støtten ikke omfattet af andre af undtagelserne i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 2 eller 3.
Furthermore, the aid did not fall within any other exemption specified in Article 107(2) or (3) of the Treaty.
Kommissionen nærede følgelig tvivl med hensyn til støtteforanstaltningens forenelighed med det indre marked og besluttede i henhold til artikel 4, stk. 4, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [8] at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure og opfordrede derfor Irland og andre interesserede parter til at fremsætte deres bemærkninger.
Consequently, the Commission had doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market and, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [8], it decided to open the formal investigation procedure, thereby inviting Ireland and other interested parties to submit their comments.
Som svar på meddelelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende [9] modtog Kommissionen bemærkninger fra de irske myndigheder og Ryanair.
In response to the notice in the Official Journal [9], the Commission received comments from the Irish authorities and from Ryanair.
Bemærkninger fra de irske myndigheder
Comments from the Irish authorities
Afgiften er en forbrugerafgift
The tax is a tax on consumers
De irske myndigheder anfører, at flybilletafgiften grundlæggende er en forbrugerafgift.
The Irish authorities state that the nature of the air travel tax is essentially a customer tax.
For at gøre det lettere at anvende afgiften forpligtede de irske myndigheder hvert luftfartsselskab til at betale skattevæsenet det relevante beløb pr. passager, som påbegynder en flyvning fra en irsk lufthavn og befordres af det pågældende selskab.
For ease of application, the Irish authorities obliged each airline to pay to the Revenue service the relevant amount per passenger departing from an Irish airport and carried by that airline.
Luftfartsoperatørerne har dog ret til at lægge afgiften over på passagerne, så det er dem, der betaler den.
The airline operators are, however, allowed to pass on the tax and collect it from their passengers.
Desuden fremgår flybilletafgiften normalt af billetprisen og/eller i operatørernes almindelige betingelser som en (punkt)afgift sammen med andre skatter og afgifter.
Moreover, the air travel tax is normally listed in the ticket price and/or in the general terms and conditions of operators as a tax or levy, in conjunction with other charges and taxes.
Følgelig begunstiger afgiften ikke bestemte luftfartsoperatører, da der blot er tale om endnu en (punkt)afgift eller skat, som reelt pålægges forbrugeren.
Accordingly, the tax does not confer a benefit on any airline operators since it is merely another levy, tax or charge which is effectively charged to the consumer.
Ingen begunstigelse af bestemte operatører
Absence of benefit to particular operators
De irske myndigheder anfører, at begunstigelse af bestemte operatører er en forudsætning for, at flybilletafgiften kan være omfattet af definitionen i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
The Irish authorities state that the conferring of a benefit on particular operators is a prerequisite for the air travel tax to fall within the definition of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Eftersom flybilletafgiften hovedsagelig er en forbrugerafgift, uanset om satsen er 10 eller 2 EUR, kan det ifølge de irske myndigheder være vanskeligt at se, hvordan afgiften begunstiger bestemte operatører.
According to the Irish authorities in a situation where the air travel tax is essentially a consumer tax, whether applied at EUR 10 or EUR 2, it might be difficult to see how the tax confers a benefit on particular operators.
Det bestrides ikke, at alle operatører, uanset om de skal opkræve 10 eller 2 EUR, behandles på samme måde.
There is no dispute that all operators, whether they are obliged to charge the EUR 10 or the EUR 2 tax rate, are placed on an equal footing.
Spørgsmålet er, om der er tale om en kollektiv begunstigelse af de luftfartsoperatører, som kun skal opkræve satsen på 2 EUR. Ifølge de irske myndigheder er det eneste realistiske scenarie for, at flybilletafgiften kan udgøre støtte, hvis de selskaber, der flyver på ruter til destinationer, der ligger højst 300 km fra Dublin lufthavn, skulle opkræve afgiften til satsen på 10 EUR, men fik lov til at beholde differencen mellem de to satser på hhv. 10 og 2 EUR. Dette var imidlertid ikke tilfældet.
The question that arises is whether an advantage is conferred on the airline operators who only have to charge the EUR 2 tax rate collectively. According to the Irish authorities, the only realistic scenario in which the air travel tax could constitute aid is if the airlines operating routes to destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin airport were obliged to collect the air travel tax at EUR 10, but were allowed to retain the difference between the EUR 10 rate and the EUR 2 rate.
I den sammenhæng er det vigtigt at bemærke, at de irske myndigheder, da de udviklede den pågældende afgift, ikke havde en bestemt operatør eller forretningsmodel i tankerne.
It was, however, not the case. In that regard, it is important to point out that the Irish authorities, in designing the tax in question, did not have in mind any particular operator or business model.
Der er ingen begunstigelse af irske luftfartsoperatører
There is no advantage to Irish airline operators
For det første bør det bemærkes, at Irland ikke længere har nogen nationale luftfartsoperatører som sådan, da staten har afhændet en del af sin kapitalinteresse i Aer Lingus, som oprindelig var et nationalt luftfartsselskab og nu er mindretalsaktionær.
First, it should be noted that Ireland no longer has national air carriers per se, given that the State divested its interest in Aer Lingus, which was originally the national State airline operator, into a minority shareholding.
Hvis afgiften havde nogen virkning for irske luftfartsoperatører, ville denne variere meget fra selskab til selskab.
If the tax had any effect on Irish airline operators, that effect would have been very different for each of those airline operators.
De irske myndigheder påpeger, at ruterne inden for EU, der var omfattet af den højere sats på 10 EUR, i alt væsentligt blev befløjet af de samme irske luftfartsselskaber.
The Irish authorities point out that the intra-Union routes that were subject to the higher rate of EUR 10 were operated by predominantly the same Irish airlines.
I den relevante periode tegnede tre luftfartsoperatører sig for omkring [93-97] [10] % af markedet for flyafgange, der var omfattet af den lavere sats, men de var også fremtrædende på markedet for flyvninger inden for EU, hvor de sad på [82-87] [10] På grund af forretningshemmelighed er der anført et interval.
In the relevant period, the three airline operators held about [93-97] [10] % of the market for flights to which the lower rate applied, but they also predominated in the intra-Union air travel market, holding [82-87] [10] Due to a business secret, a range is used.
% af markedet.
% of all such intra-Union flights.
De irske myndigheder fremhævede især, at der tydeligvis ikke var noget belæg for Ryanairs påstand om forfordeling, eftersom Ryanair tegner sig for ca. [56-63] [10] På grund af forretningshemmelighed er der anført et interval.
In particular, the Irish authorities argue that any disadvantage claimed by Ryanair is clearly unsustainable, since Ryanair accounts for approximately [56-63] [10] Due to a business secret, a range is used.
% af alle passagerer på ruterne med den lavere sats (jf. tabel 1).
% of the passengers carried on the routes to which the lower rate was applicable (see Table 1).
Irske luftfartsoperatørers andel af ruter ud af irske lufthavne.
Market shares of Irish airline operators on routes departing from Irish airports
Oplysninger fra Irland er baseret på tal fra de tre irske luftfartsoperatører og data fra det centrale statistikkontor.
Information provided by Ireland based on figures provided by the three Irish airline operators and data extracted from the Central Statistics Office.
Højst 300 km
No more than 300 km
Over 300 km [11]
More than 300 km [11]
Tabel 1 viser, at den operatør, som eventuelt ville kunne klassificeres som en national operatør på grund af statens mindretalsinteresse (Aer Lingus), havde mange flere afgange med den højere sats ([35-40] (*) %) end med den lavere sats ([16-23] (*) %).
Table 1 shows that the only operator which might conceivably be classified as a national operator by virtue of the State's minority interest (Aer Lingus) had a much greater share of flights to which the higher rate applied ([35-40] (*) %) than of flights to which the lower rate applied ([16-23] (*) %).
Hvis den lavere sats derfor havde nogen virkning for luftfartsselskaber, ville det i høj grad være gået ud over Aer Lingus.
Therefore, if the lower tax rate had had any effect on airlines, Aer Lingus would have been significantly disadvantaged.
For så vidt angår Aer Arann, som i henhold til klageren også begunstiges af den påståede støtte, bemærker de irske myndigheder, at selskabet i perioden 2007-2010 oplevede en betydelig nedgang i både omsætning og passagertal.
As for Aer Arann, which the complainant also claims benefits from the alleged aid, the Irish authorities note that, between 2007 and 2010, it experienced a significant reduction in both turnover and passenger numbers.
Efter indførelsen af afgiften havde Aer Arann angiveligt mistet 18 mio. EUR. Det ser derfor ud til, at luftfartsselskabet klarede sig bedst før afgiftens indførelse.
Following the introduction of the tax, Aer Arann reported losses of EUR 18 million. It therefore appears that the airline was at its most profitable before the introduction of the tax.
De irske myndigheder anfører også, at klageren og Aer Arann kun konkurrerede på én indenrigsrute, og at klageren tegnede sig for i nærheden af [37-42] (*) % af afgangene på denne rute.
The Irish authorities also point out that there was only one domestic route on which the complainant and Aer Arann competed and that, on that route, close to [37-42] (*) % of the flights were operated by the complainant.
For afgange til destinationer i udlandet, der var omfattet af den lavere sats (vestlige lufthavne i Det Forenede Kongerige), tegnede klageren sig for over [37-42] (*) % af ruteforbindelserne, mens Aer Arann og Aer Lingus havde mindre andele.
For flights to destinations abroad benefiting from the lower rate (western United Kingdom), the complainant operated more than [37-42] (*) % of the scheduled flights, while Aer Arann and Aer Lingus had smaller shares.
Desuden har ikke-irske luftfartsoperatører altid kunnet operere flyvninger omfattet af den lavere sats.
Moreover, non-Irish airline operators have always been free to operate flights to which the lower tax rate applied.
I denne sammenhæng kan staten ikke foretage et skøn.
There was no discretion for the State in this context.
De irske myndigheder anfører, at udenlandske (ikke-irske) operatører, hvis der var en fordel ved at operere flyvninger omfattet af den lavere sats, ville have valgt at foretage disse flyvninger.
The Irish authorities argue that, if there was an advantage in operating flights to which the lower tax rate applied, foreign (non-Irish) operators would have chosen to operate such flights.
Fraværet af udenlandske flyselskaber, der foretager disse flyvninger, tyder på, at den lavere sats ikke medførte nogen begunstigelse.
The absence of foreign airlines operating such flights suggests that there was no advantage stemming from the lower rate.
Den lavere sats blev indført for at undgå at anvende en afgiftssats, der ikke stod i forhold til billetprisen
The lower rate was introduced in order to avoid applying a tax rate which was disproportionate in relation to the ticket price
De irske myndigheder understreger, at formålet med differentieringen af satser var at indføre et element af proportionalitet i den afstandsrelaterede afgift, eftersom prisen normalt er lavere til nærmere beliggende destinationer.
The Irish authorities stress that the purpose of the differentiation in rates was to introduce an element of proportionality in the level of the tax relating to distance, since prices are normally lower for closer destinations.
Selvom det erkendes, at der ikke er en perfekt sammenhæng mellem afstand og pris, er det indtrykket, at sammenhængen var tilstrækkelig til at begrunde en opdeling af afgiften i to satser.
While it is accepted that there is not a perfect correlation between distance and price, it was felt that the correlation was sufficient to justify splitting the tax into two tiers.
Det er de irske myndigheders holdning, at en mekanisme, der giver en mere præcis differentiering på grundlag af afstand, ville have gjort systemet uforholdsmæssigt kompliceret og administrativt belastende.
The Irish authorities consider that a mechanism providing a more precise differentiation on the basis of distance would have rendered the system extraordinarily complicated and administratively burdensome.
Ingen konkurrencefordrejning
No distortion of competition
De irske myndigheder påstår, at den lavere sats ikke medførte nogen konkurrencefordrejning og ikke havde nogen indvirkning på samhandelen.
The Irish authorities argue that the lower tax rate did not result in any distortion of competition and had no effect on trade.
Eftersom afgiften havde karakter af forbrugerafgift, havde den ingen følelig indvirkning på luftfartsoperatørerne.
First, since the tax was a consumer tax in nature, it had no perceptible effect on airline operators.
For det andet var der med hensyn til de differentierede satser ingen forskel mellem det irske marked og andre medlemsstaters marked.
Second, the differentiated tax rates did not distinguish the Irish market from that of other Member States.
Langt de fleste af de flyvninger, som var omfattet af den lavere sats, var udenrigs (68 % sammenholdt med 32 % for rent nationale flyvninger).
Of the flights to which the lower rate applied, the vast majority were non-domestic (68 % compared to 32 % for purely domestic flights).
For det tredje er luftfartsoperatørerne aktive på et marked, der er åbent for konkurrence, hvilket betyder, at markedet var åbent for nytilkomne, som var omfattet af den lavere afgiftssats på samme vilkår som andre luftfartsoperatører.
Third, the airline operators are active on a market which is open for competition, which means that the market was open for new entrants to which the lower tax rate applied on the same conditions as for other airline operators.
Hvis den lavere sats havde begunstiget bestemte operatører, ville ikke-irske luftfartsoperatører antagelig have valgt at beflyve ruter med den lavere sats.
If the lower tax rate had conferred a benefit on certain operators, non-Irish airlines would presumably have chosen to operate routes to which the lower rate applied.
At der ikke var nytilkomne, tyder på, at den lavere sats ikke begunstigede bestemte luftfartsoperatører.
The absence of new entrants indicates that the lower rate did not confer an advantage on certain airline operators.
Eventuel støtte ville være de minimis-støtte elle have en ubetydelig indvirkning på de involverede luftfartsoperatører
Any aid would be de minimis aid or have a negligible effect on the airline operators involved
De irske myndigheder påstår, at den lavere sats, hvis den skulle anses som statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, skulle erklæres forenelig med det indre marked, da den enten ville være de minimis-støtte eller under alle omstændigheder have en ubetydelig indvirkning på de involverede luftfartsoperatører.
The Irish authorities claim that, even if the lower tax rate was to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, it should be declared to be compatible with the internal market, since it would either be de minimis aid or would anyway have a negligible effect on the airline operators involved.
Bemærkninger fra tredjeparter
Comments from third parties
Med hensyn til om den lavere sats udgør statsstøtte, tilslutter Ryanair sig Kommissionens indledende holdning, der fremgår af dens beslutning af 13. maj 2011, nemlig at den lavere sats begunstigede bestemte luftfartsoperatører og udgør statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
With respect to the State aid nature of the lower tax rate, Ryanair agrees with the preliminary view which the Commission expressed in its decision of 13 May 2011 that the lower tax rate conferred an advantage on certain airline operators and constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Ryanair er dog ikke enig med Kommissionen i, at i) den højere sats på 10 EUR skal betragtes som den "almindelige" sats, og at ii) Ryanair blev begunstiget af foranstaltningen.
However, Ryanair disagrees with the Commission's view that (i) the higher rate of EUR 10 is to be considered as the "normal" rate, and that (ii) Ryanair obtained an advantage through the measure.
Med hensyn til indførelsen af den "almindelige" sats eller "standardsatsen" under afgiftssystemet påstår Ryanair, at Kommissionens holdning, nemlig at den højere sats på 10 EUR er den almindelige sats, og at alle operatører, som skal betale den lavere sats på 2 EUR, er blevet begunstiget, er arbitrær.
With respect to the establishment of the "normal" or "standard" rate under the tax system, Ryanair claims that the Commission's view that the higher rate of EUR 10 is the normal rate and that all operators to which the lower rate of EUR 2 applied obtained an advantage, is arbitrary.
Ifølge Ryanair er der ingen grund til, at det er den højere og ikke den lavere sats, der skal opfattes som den almindelige.
According to Ryanair, there is no reason why the higher rate, and not the lower, should be seen as the normal rate.
Eftersom systemet med to forskellige satser desuden er blevet erstattet af en ordning med en enkelt sats, vil den nye sats sandsynligvis være en blanding af de to oprindelige satser.
Moreover, since the two-tier rate has been replaced by a single rate, the new rate is likely to be a blend between the initial rates.
Den nye sats vil derfor være den rimelige benchmark til at vurdere eventuelle ulemper eller fordele, der skyldes systemet med to forskellige satser.
Therefore, the new rate would be the reasonable benchmark to assess any potential harm or benefits arising from the two-tier system.
Ryanair påstår derudover, at den todelte flybilletafgift ikke begunstigede Ryanair.
Ryanair further claims that the two-tier air travel tax did not confer an advantage on Ryanair.
Kommissionen skal i vurderingen af, om en foranstaltning udgør statsstøtte, tage hensyn til dennes samlede indvirkning på den potentielle begunstigede og navnlig udlede eventuelle afgifter, der belaster den fordel, som den påståede støtte har medført.
When examining a measure that may constitute State aid, the Commission must take into consideration its overall effects on the potential beneficiary and, in particular, deduct any specific charges that burden the advantage conferred by the alleged aid.
I løbet af den periode, hvor det todelte afgiftssystem fandt anvendelse, betalte Ryan de afgifter, der fremgår af tabel 2.
During the period when the two-tier tax system applied, Ryanair paid the taxes specified in Table 2.
Befordrede passagerer og betalte afgifter i perioden 30. marts 2009-1. marts 2011.
Passengers carried and tax paid during the period 30 March 2009 until 1 March 2011
Destinationskategori fra Dublin lufthavn
Destination category from Dublin airport
Passagerer omfattet af afgift
Passengers subject to tax
Betalt afgift
Tax paid
Højst 300 km inden for Irland (2 EUR)
No more than 300 km within the State (EUR 2 rate)
Højst 300 km uden for Irland (2 EUR)
No more than 300 km outside the State (EUR 2 rate)
Over 300 km inden for EU
More than 300 km within the EU
Over 300 km uden for EU
More than 300 km outside the EU
Ryanair fremfører derfor, at selskabet ikke blev begunstiget af den lavere afgift, men nærmere havde været ugunstigt stillet.
Ryanair thus argues that it did not enjoy any benefit from the lower tax, but rather suffered a disadvantage.
Irlands betragtninger vedrørende interesserede parters bemærkninger
Observations by Ireland on the third party comments