natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Luftfartsselskaber, der har etableret sig i Berlin, kunne derfor regne med, at der ville være tilstrækkeligt med passagerer, som ville rejse hertil.
Moreover, the rent would be too low given that Terminal B, unlike Terminals A and C, had a modern baggage-handling facility.
FBS har faktisk kunnet registrere en betydelig stigning i passagertallene og forbedrede årsresultater på baggrund af foranstaltningen.
Lübeck Airport indicated that it had not observed any negative impact of FBS’s commercial strategy on the market.
easyJet anførte, at eksistensen af en individuel afgiftsaftale mellem FBS og easyJet ikke nødvendigvis betyder, at der blev ydet diskriminerende rabatter. easyJet mente, at andre luftfartsselskaber med sammenlignelige vækstmål ville være blevet tilbudt nøjagtig de samme vilkår som easyJet.
Ryanair
Under alle omstændigheder har rabatterne været berettiget i lyset af de stordriftsfordele, som easyJet giver mulighed for.
Ryanair took the view that with regard to short and medium-haul flights, there was no competition between the airports of Dresden, Hamburg and Lübeck on the one hand and Schönefeld on the other hand.
En stor del af passagererne i Schönefeld lufthavn har været easyJet-kunder, og easyJet har således ydet et uforholdsmæssigt stort bidrag til forbedringen af FBS' resultater.
The distance between Schönefeld and, respectively, Dresden, Hamburg and Lübeck would be too great for such competition to take place.
Eneretten til at benytte bestemte områder i terminal B kunne derfor objektivt set retfærdiggøres.
The agreement with FBS would be similar to those with a number of private airports and would have been concluded in the same way by a market economy investor.
Desuden svarede bagagetransportsystemet i terminal B ifølge easyJet kun til de gængse tekniske standarder, og easyJet har herved ikke opnået nogen fordele i forhold til andre luftfartsselskaber.
Ryanair provided a study by a consultancy firm ([…]), which examined the contractual arrangements between Ryanair and FBS.
Med hensyn til markedsværdien af terminal B anførte easyJet, at den betalte leje lå over markedsværdien af terminal B, idet terminalen ikke i tilstrækkelig grad har kunnet dække easyJets kapacitetsbehov.
Based on a comparative analysis of Schönefeld with Liverpool and Luton airports, the consultancy firm came to the conclusion that FBS acted vis-à-vis Ryanair in line with what would be expected from a private market economy operator.
En lejesammenligning kan således kun foretages med sammenlignelige arealer i Schönefeld lufthavn eller — for så vidt angår kontorer — med kontorlokaler i umiddelbar nærhed af lufthavnen.
Ryanair also argued that Berlin, like London and Milan, was a major European economic and administrative centre and therefore an important European destination.
FBS henviste til Berlins særlige situation, nemlig lufthavnssystemet (oprindeligt bestående af tre lufthavne) og planerne for bygningen af storlufthavnen Berlin-Brandenburg (BER).
Airlines operating in Berlin could therefore rely on a sufficient number of passengers willing to travel there.
I 2003 lå Schönefelds kapacitetsudnyttelse på kun ca. 50 %, og lufthavnsdriften kunne ikke dække omkostningerne.
easyJet
FBS henviste desuden til, at de formodede konkurrenter, som Kommissionen nævnte i indledningsbeslutningen, i virkeligheden ikke var i konkurrence med de berlinske lufthavne, da den geografiske afstand mellem de enkelte lufthavne var for stor.
Indeed, the measure had brought FBS a substantial increase in passenger numbers and improved annual results.
Hvad angår ledelses- og overskudsoverførselskontrakten, fremførte FBS, at sådanne kontrakter mellem selskaberne i en koncern er almindelige i forretningsverdenen.
easyJet further stated that the existence of an individual fee arrangement between FBS and easyJet did not necessarily mean that discriminatory rebates had been granted. easyJet took the view that other airlines operating with the same growth targets would have been granted exactly the same treatment as easyJet.
FBS mente, at overførsel af overskud mellem de tre berlinske lufthavne er et rent internt anliggende i virksomheden.
In any event, the rebates would be justified in light of the economies of scale provided by easyJet. easyJet accounted for a large proportion of all passengers at Schönefeld and would have made a disproportionate contribution to the improvement of FBS’s results.
Efter FBS' opfattelse udgjorde lufthavnssystemet én enkelt virksomhed, som forfulgte fælles interesser og var indbyrdes forbundet i henhold til selskabsretten.
Regarding its use of Terminal B, easyJet remarked that this was not a closed-off airport terminal.
Lufthavnssystemet udgjorde ét enkelt geografisk marked og produktmarked.
In fact the area rented by easyJet was a separate check-in area and associated office space at Schönefeld’s North Terminal.
Der er således tale om en gængs markedspraksis, som ydermere ud fra et økonomisk synspunkt har været hensigtsmæssigt i det foreliggende tilfælde.
Most of the area was publicly accessible and was also used by other carriers’ passengers.
FBS anfægtede enkelte af de foreløbige konklusioner i indledningsbeslutningen vedrørende anvendelsen af statslige midler.
At the time when the agreement with easyJet was signed there would have been sufficient spare capacity at Terminal B. Other airlines would therefore not have suffered from any disadvantage. easyJet stressed that since it began its operations at Schönefeld in 2004, it was the airline with by far the largest passenger throughput.
Virksomheden fandt ikke, at den kendsgerning, at afgiftsordningen skal godkendes af offentlige myndigheder, retfærdiggjorde konklusionen om, at FBS' midler blev kontrolleret af staten.
Its exclusive use of certain parts of Terminal B would therefore be objectively justified.
Ifølge FBS gjaldt systemet med afgiftsordninger på samme måde for offentlige og private selskabsdeltagere i lufthavne, og det tog hensyn til den offentlige interesse i driften af lufttrafikken i overensstemmelse med de retlige standarder.
In addition, easyJet stated that the baggage handling system at Terminal B merely reflected usual technical standards and did not provide it with any advantage over other airlines.
FBS bemærkede, at ministerpræsidenten i delstaten Brandenburg, som ligeledes var medlem af bestyrelsen i FBS, ikke har nogen beføjelser i forhold til det kompetente ministerium for godkendelsen af afgiftsordninger.
As regards the market value of Terminal B, easyJet stated that the rent it paid was higher than what would reflect the market value of Terminal B, given that it was insufficient to meet easyJet’s capacity requirements.
I forbindelse med fastsættelsen af afgifter er retsforholdet mellem lufthavn og luftfartsselskaber udelukkende underlagt privatretten og civilretligt bindende uafhængigt af godkendelsen fra den relevante myndighed.
A rent comparison could only be made with similar areas at Schönefeld airport or, in relation to the offices, with office space in the immediate vicinity of the airport.
FBS fremførte, at den i 2003 efter den mislykkede privatisering på baggrund af forskellen i kapacitetsudnyttelse i de to vigtigste berlinske lufthavne — næsten fuld kapacitetsudnyttelse i Tegel uden nævneværdige udvidelsesmuligheder i modsætning til den betydelige ledige kapacitet i den fremtidige BER-lokalitet Schönefeld — måtte træffe foranstaltninger med henblik på at afvikle lufttrafikken i byområdet Berlin på en bæredygtig og økonomisk effektiv måde.
FBS
Derudover bemærkede FBS, at det i FBS-koncernens interesse har været nødvendigt at opretholde driften i Schönefeld med henblik på den fremtidige drift af BER.
FBS referred to Berlin’s particular situation, namely the airport system (originally made up of three airports) and the plans for the construction of the central Berlin Brandenburg airport (BER).
Ifølge FBS havde selv en midlertidig lukning af Schönefeld de facto gjort opnåelsen af det langsigtede strategiske mål — driften af en berlinsk storlufthavn på lokaliteten Schönefeld — umulig.
In 2003, Schönefeld was operating at about half its traffic-handling capacity only and the airport was failing to cover its costs.
LCC-strategien er blevet betragtet som den økonomisk mest gunstige løsning for FBS, idet det blev anset for at være sandsynligt, at den foreslåede afgiftsordning med det heri fastsatte system af målrettede og gradvist faldende økonomiske incitamenter på kort sigt ville betyde en stigning i trafikvolumenet i Schönefeld.
With regard to the control and profit transfer agreement, FBS argued that in the business world, such agreements between companies within a group were commonplace.
FBS anså LCC-strategien for at være yderst vellykket.
FBS took the view that a transfer of profits between the three Berlin airports was a purely internal matter for the undertaking.
Antallet af passagerer i Schönefeld voksede eksplosivt, uden at der var sket fald i passagertallet i de andre berlinske lufthavne.
According to FBS, the airport system formed a single undertaking, pursuing common interests, and mutually bound by company law.
FBS betonede, at det stigende trafikvolumen har medført øgede indtægter, og at de økonomiske vanskeligheder hurtigt kunne overvindes.
The airport system would constitute a single geographic and product market.
Allerede i 2006 var FBS' driftsresultatet (EBIT) for første gang positivt.
It would be normal market practice, and in the present case it would also make commercial sense.
Ifølge FBS måtte det forventes, at denne positive tendens fortsatte, hvilket primært har haft betydning for den nye lufthavns finansieringsevne.
FBS disputed some of the provisional findings arrived at in the opening decision as regards the involvement of State resources.
FBS anførte, at de i 2003 iværksatte strategiske ændringer har været nødvendige af økonomiske årsager, og at FBS med hensyn hertil har handlet som en privat markedsøkonomisk investor.
According to FBS, the fact that the schedule of charges had to be approved by public authorities was not sufficient to conclude that FBS’s resources were under State control.
Forretningsplanen, som lå til grund for LCC-strategien, har gjort det muligt for FBS at udarbejde en prognose, som viser, at lufthavnsdriften ikke vil vedblive med at være urentabel.
According to FBS, the system of charge schedules applied equally to public and private shareholders at airports and took account of the public interest in the operation of air transport, in line with legal standards.
FBS henviste til den undersøgelse (»det første konsulentfirmas undersøgelse«), der var blevet foretaget af konsulentfirmaet […].
Besides, according to FBS, the Minister President of Brandenburg (Ministerpräsident des Landes Brandenburg), who sat in FBS’ supervisory board, could not issue instructions to the ministry responsible for approving schedules of charges.
Undersøgelsen, der blev færdiggjort i 2007, bekræftede, at gennemførelsen af LCC-strategien og indførelsen af en relevant afgiftsordning har været hensigtsmæssig for en privat markedsøkonomisk investor.
Furthermore, when it comes to the determination of charges, the legal relationship between the airport and airlines was governed purely by private law and was binding under civil law, regardless of the approval by the relevant authority.
FBS bemærkede, at de individuelle kontrakter, der var blevet indgået med visse luftfartsselskaber inden ikrafttrædelsen af afgiftsordningen fra 2004 med henblik på gennemførelsen af LCC-strategien, har været nødvendige for at give luftfartsselskaberne et incitament til at etablere sig i Schönefeld.
FBS also stated that the schedule of charges would have the effect of general terms and conditions and would form an integral part of the contract between an airport and an airline, independently of any official approval.
Alle individuelle kontrakter med forskellige luftfartsselskaber er blevet indgået på baggrund af rent økonomiske overvejelser med det formål at opnå en kortsigtet forbedring af den økonomiske situation i FBS.
The schedule of charges, including the discount schemes, would have been offered to all airlines without distinction since 1 May 2004.
For så vidt angår easyJet-kontrakten fra 2003, mente FBS, at der har været tale om en væsentlig bestanddel af gennemførelsen af LCC-strategien, og at den dermed ikke udgør statsstøtte.
Individual contractual arrangements would have only been meant to establish bilateral settlement terms and to set forth the objectives in detail.
LCC-strategien har for easyJet, et af de førende lavprisselskaber i Europa, udgjort et incitament til at etablere sig i Schönefeld.
No special advantages would have been granted through those agreements.
På grundlag af den vellykkede indgåelse af kontrakten med easyJet (der betragtes som »ankerbruger«) har FBS været i stand til at overbevise andre luftfartsselskaber om fordelene ved at etablere sig i Schönefeld.
FBS argues that owing to the differing capacity utilisation patterns at Berlin’s two main airports, with Tegel operating at close to full capacity without any significant expansion possibilities, as opposed to Schönefeld which had substantial free capacities and was in addition the future location of BER, FBS had to take measures in 2003 after the failed attempt to privatise the company, with a view to managing air transport in the Berlin conurbation on a sustainable, economically efficient basis.
FBS fremførte, at easyJet-kontrakten fra 2003 ikke afviger grundlæggende fra afgiftsordningen fra 2004 og ikke har givet anledning til indrømmelse af ulovlige fordele.
According to FBS, even a temporary closure of Schönefeld would have made it de facto impossible to achieve the long-term strategic goal of operating a centralised Berlin airport on the Schönefeld site.
FBS henviste også til, at easyJet-ændringskontrakten fra 2007 udtrykkeligt har henvist til afgiftsordningen fra 2006, der var gældende på daværende tidspunkt.
According to FBS, it was therefore necessary to bridge, in as economically efficient a manner as possible, Schönefeld’s operation from 2003 until such time as BER would open.
Desuden betonede FBS, at de individuelle kontrakter med lavprisselskaber blev indgået inden vedtagelsen af luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2005.
FBS added that in order to better harness Schönefeld’s available capacities, it had launched the implementation of the LCC strategy proposed by a renowned consultancy firm.
Underskrivelsen af enkelte kontrakter skete endda allerede inden vedtagelsen af Kommissionens Charleroi-beslutning [31].
That LCC strategy would have been viewed as the economically most favourable option for FBS, since its proposed schedule of charges with embedded incentive schemes appeared likely to increase traffic at Schönefeld in the short term through targeted, degressive financial incentives.
Tildelingen af terminalområder er gængs praksis i tyske og internationale lufthavne.
According to FBS, the LCC strategy had been highly successful.
Derudover har der ikke været nogen reklamerettigheder, som havde givet easyJet en fordel i forhold til andre luftfartsselskaber, da easyJet — ligesom alle andre luftfartsselskaber — kun har fået brandingrettigheder til sit eget check-in-område.
The number of passengers at Schönefeld soared, with no decrease in passenger volumes at the other Berlin airports.
TYSKLANDS BEMÆRKNINGER
FBS emphasised that the increased traffic led to increased revenues and the economic difficulties were quickly overcome.
Statslig indgriben
Already in 2006 the operating results (EBIT) of FBS were positive for the first time.
Tyskland meddelte i denne sammenhæng, at FBS og selskabets datterselskaber til trods for de statslige aktionærer ikke har været integreret i den offentlige forvaltning, men derimod bevidst er blevet underkastet konkurrencen og det frie marked.
On the basis of the business plan underpinning the LCC Strategy, FBS would have been in a position to assume that the airport’s operations would not continue to be unprofitable.
Tyskland tilføjede, at de statslige aktionærer forventede, at FBS tjente penge.
FBS referred to the study that it commissioned to auditing firm […] (‘the first expert study’), which was finalised in 2007 and which would have confirmed that from the perspective of a market economy operator, it was rational to implement the LCC Strategy and put in place a corresponding schedule of charges.
Ledelses- og overskudsoverførselskontrakten (foranstaltning 1)
FBS claims that the individual agreements concluded with certain LCCs before the date of application of the 2004 schedule of charges had been necessary for the implementation of the LCC strategy in order to offer airlines an incentive to base themselves at Schönefeld.
Tyskland mente ikke, at ledelses- og overskudsoverførselskontrakten indeholdt krydssubsidiering, som kunne udgøre statsstøtte.
FBS referred to a second study, commissioned to auditing firm […], which was also finalised in 2007.
Tyskland understregede, at de berlinske lufthavne i henhold til offentlig ret og EU-lovgivningen [32] var forbundet med hinanden på en sådan måde, at de dannede ét enkelt »lufthavnssystem«.
In the framework of that study, the consultancy analysed the profitability of the various agreements forming measure 3 and found that FBS behaved like a rational market economy operator when it concluded each of them.
Formålet med et sådant lufthavnssystem er et behandle de forskellige lufthavne som én lufthavn med flere start- og landingsbaner.
All these individual agreements with the different airlines would have been concluded on the basis of purely economic considerations with a view to improving FBS’s economic situation in the short term.
FBS og BFG kan dermed betragtes som én virksomhed.
With regard to the 2003 easyJet agreement, FBS maintained that it had been an essential component of the implementation of the LCC strategy and that it did not involve State aid.
Tyskland påpegede, at Kommissionen selv har anført en ledelses- og overskudsoverførselskontrakt, en fælles IT-struktur, centraliserede nøglefunktioner og fælles virksomhedsplaner som kriterier for at kunne kategorisere enkelte virksomheder i en koncern som ikke-selvstyrende [33].
The LCC strategy would have created an incentive for easyJet — one of the leading LCCs in Europe — to establish a base at Schönefeld.
Ifølge Tyskland betød overførslen af overskud ikke overførsel af omkostninger fra Schönefeld til Tegel og Tempelhof.
On the basis of the successful conclusion of the 2003 easyJet agreement easyJet (viewed as an ‘anchor tenant’), FBS would have been able to attract other airlines to Schönefeld.
Dette har således ingen indvirkning på lufthavnsafgifterne i Tegel.
The contractual relationship with easyJet (including the latter’s obligation to base a minimum number of aircraft at Schönefeld) would have ensured a high level of planning certainty on both sides and would have significantly contributed to increasing Schönefeld’s profitability.
De lufthavnsafgifter, der blev opkrævet i alle tre lufthavne, var baseret på omkostningerne i den enkelte lufthavn.
FBS argues that the 2003 easyJet agreement did not fundamentally deviate from the 2004 Schedule and entailed no undue granting of advantages.
Derudover anførte Tyskland, at FBS som enhver anden privat virksomhed fulgte en strategisk plan med henblik på at opnå overskud på lang sigt.
FBS also pointed out that the 2007 easyJet amending agreement explicitly referred to the 2006 Schedule, which was applicable at the time.
Hovedelementet i denne plan var etableringen af en storlufthavn i Berlin på lokaliteten Schönefeld.
FBS further stressed that the individual contracts with LCCs had been signed before the 2005 Aviation Guidelines were adopted and, at least for some agreements, even before the adoption of the Charleroi decision of the Commission [31].
Retsgyldigheden af afgiftsordningen fra 2004
Besides, according to FBS, renting facilities at Terminal B to easyJet conferred no specific advantage on it.
Ifølge Tyskland giver Kommissionens foreløbige konklusion i indledningsbeslutningen, hvorefter afgiftsordninger, som ikke godkendes uden forbehold af den kompetente delstatsmyndighed, ikke er retsgyldige [34], ikke et retvisende billede af den almindelige retsstilling i Tyskland.
The allocation of a separate terminal to easyJet would have been done on economic and practical grounds because of that airline’s high passenger throughput at Schönefeld. easyJet would have paid a normal market price, which would have been agreed on the basis of existing rents at Schönefeld.
Godkendelsen i henhold til § 43, litra a), i Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung (bekendtgørelse om godkendelse af luftfartøjer) ved den kompetente delstatsmyndighed [35] er ikke en forudsætning for afgiftsordningens retsgyldighed.
The allocation of terminal areas was common practice at German and international airports.
Efter gældende retspraksis fra Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) den tyske højesteret) og underinstanserne i Tyskland er der i forbindelse med lufthavnenes offentliggjorte afgiftsordninger tale om »almindelige forretningsbetingelser« i henhold til den tyske civilret [36].
Furthermore, there would be no advertising rights giving easyJet an advantage over other airlines, since easyJet would have been given branding rights in its check-in area only, in the same way as any other airline.
Dette ville betyde, at afgiftsordningerne — hvad enten de blev godkendt af den kompetente myndighed eller ej — ville fungere som kontraktvilkår, som de luftfartsselskaber, der benytter lufthavnen, ville blive tilbudt som standard [37].
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
I den forbindelse havde Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht (højesteret i delstaten Brandenburg) fastslået, at dommen fra Landgericht Potsdam ikke kunne stadfæstes.
State influence
Tyskland meddelte, at sagen efterfølgende blev hævet ved et forlig i hovedsagen mellem sagens parter.
Germany argued that FBS’s resources are not under State control, and that their use could not be attributed to the State.
Dommen fra Landgericht Potsdam er dermed aldrig blevet retskraftig, og med hævningen af sagen er den blevet virkningsløs, også selv om den ikke udtrykkeligt er blevet ophævet.
According to Germany, the incentives and rebates in question were not financed through public resources, but were the result of the business activities of an undertaking operating under private law.
Tyskland henviste til, at Landgericht Potsdam i mellemtiden har ændret sin retsopfattelse, og at den efterfølgende har afvist en stort set identisk sag vedrørende afgiftsordningen i Schönefeld.
Germany argued in this context that FBS and its subsidiaries, though partially state-owned, were not integrated into the public administration, but had been explicitly made subject to the principles of competition and free market.
Individuelle kontrakter indgået mellem FBS og visse luftfartsselskaber (foranstaltning 2 og 3)
Germany added that the public shareholders expected FBS to yield profits.
Tyskland meddelte, at afgiftssystemet og de individuelle kontrakter med forskellige luftfartsselskaber i Schönefeld lufthavn skulle ses i sammenhæng med gennemførelsen af LCC-strategien.
The control and profit transfer agreement (measure 1)
Schönefeld har udgjort et supplement til Tegel lufthavn, som fungerede på grænsen af sin kapacitet.
Germany pointed out that in public law terms, as well as under EU legislation [32], Berlin’s airports were interlinked in such a way as to form a single ‘airport system’.
LCC-strategien har været en legitim metode til indirekte kontrol med trafikbelastningen.
The purpose of such an airport system would be to treat different airports as a single airport with multiple runways.
Denne strategi har ikke medført en reduktion af passagertallene i Tegel.
FBS and BFG would thus have to be viewed as a single undertaking.
Tværtimod havde begge lufthavne kunnet øge sine passagertal betydeligt i årene forud for indledningen af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
Germany stressed that the Commission itself had referred to a control and profit transfer agreement, a joint IT structure, centralised key functions and unified company plans as criteria for considering individual companies within a group as non-autonomous [33].