natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
På baggrund af bestemmelserne i 2014-rammebestemmelserne, der er nævnt i betragtning 250 og 251, er Kommissionen derfor forpligtet til at vurdere, om de pågældende foranstaltninger udgør ulovlig driftsstøtte eller investeringsstøtte.
Germany argues that EEL GmbH is a vehicle, whose object is to facilitate the channelling of funds to FN GmbH in an efficient and economic manner.
Investeringsstøtte eller driftsstøtte?
As has been laid out in Recital 25, EEL GmbH was founded by the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze to manage the airport real estate prior to its privatisation.
Foranstaltning 1
Thereafter, EEL GmbH engaged in granting loans to FN GmbH.
Som konkluderet i afsnit 8.3.6 har FN GmbH nydt godt af den statsstøtte, som er indeholdt i lån 4 og forlængelse 1 og eventuelt forlængelse 2, der udgør en del af foranstaltning 1.
The granting of loans to third parties is by itself an economic activity.
Kommissionen vil vurdere karakteren af hver enkelt delforanstaltning særskilt.
Therefore, when the various measures forming Measure 4 were granted to EEL GmbH, the latter was engaged in an economic activity.
Kommissionen bemærker, at lån 4 blev ydet til finansiering af investeringer foretaget af FN GmbH: Som nævnt i betragtning 39, blev det i stk. 1, nr. 2, i låneaftalen, som blev underskrevet den 1. juli 2005, fastsat, at lånet var øremærket investeringer.
With reference to Article 101 TFEU, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.
Kommissionen bemærker, at EEL GmbH har etableret kontrolmekanismer, der er fastsat i låneaftalens stk. 2, hvorefter FN GmbH (og EEL GmbH, såfremt selskabet måtte ønske det) skal kontrollere, at fakturaerne er snævert forbundet med færdiggørelsen af lufthavnen, og at EEL GmbH (og ikke FN GmbH) betalte låneudgifterne.
EEL GmbH is only acting as a vehicle of public authorities, and does not, as such, carry economic activities: its only purpose is to pool the resources of two public authorities in view to financing the development of the airports.
Disse mekanismer har vist sig at være effektive, idet Tyskland har kunnet påvise, at de rater, der blev udbetalt fra lånet, udelukkende blev anvendt til dækning af investeringsomkostninger.
As the cumulative criteria pursuant to Article 107(1) of the TFEU are not fulfilled, the Commission considers that Measure 4 does not contain any State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Derfor er det Kommissionens opfattelse, at lån 4 udgør ulovlig driftsstøtte ydet før den 4. april 2014, og at dens forenelighed skal vurderes efter luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2005.
Even if EEL GmbH had to be regarded as an undertaking subject to the EU competition law throughout the period during which the measures forming Measure 4 were granted (which is not), the Commission assessment would lead to the same conclusion that Measure 4 does not constitute State aid as demonstrated in the sections below.
For så vidt angår forlængelse 1, bemærker Kommissionen, at den udgør en forlængelse af lån 1, 2 og 3.
EEL GmbH has received all the capital, liquidity benefits and capital injections included in the scope of Measure 4 from its shareholders, which financed these measures through their respective budgets.
Forlængelsen er ikke i sig selv målrettet finansiering af nye investeringer, hvilket Tyskland da heller ikke har kunnet påvise.
Measure 4 also includes a 100 % guarantee granted by the municipality of Weeze, which exposed the budget of the municipality.
Kommissionen mener derimod, at denne forlængelse alene blev ydet for at løsne FN GmbH fra sin kortfristede forpligtelse til at tilbagebetale alle akkumulerede lån og renter.
Therefore, the all the measures constituting Measure 4 were financed through budget resources of two local authorities, which in addition, decided to grant these various measures.
Derved ønskede EEL GmbH og dets offentlige andelshavere at sikre, at FN GmbH ikke ville løbe tør for likvide midler, hvilket kunne have medført, at støttemodtageren ville have reduceret sine investeringer eller have bragt virksomheden i krise.
Therefore, Measure 4 is financed through State resources and is imputable to the State.
Af disse årsager er det Kommissionens opfattelse, at forlængelse 1 udgør ulovlig driftsstøtte ydet før den 4. april 2014, og at dens forenelighed skal vurderes efter luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2014.
In this respect, the Commission must analyse whether the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze acted as prudent market economy operators guided by profitability prospects [67] would have done in the same circumstances in providing EEL GmbH with the capital measures, guarantees, loans and loan repayment deadline extensions that constitute Measure 4.
Tilsvarende betragtninger ville gøre sig gældende for forlængelse 2, hvis den skulle betragtes som statsstøtte.
It is first important to recall, as concluded in section 8.3.2, that EEL GmbH constitutes an SPV created by its two public shareholders with a view to managing the real estate of the Niederrhein-Weeze airport, and used exclusively as of 2003 to provide financing to the same airport.
Foranstaltning 2
This is confirmed by the fact that in their (written) General Meeting of 10 and 11 April 2003 these two public shareholders have strictly circumscribed EEL GmbH's new financing activity to investments into Niederrhein-Weeze airport.
FN GmbH har nydt godt af foranstaltning 2 som kompensation for omkostningerne til anskaffelse og installation af de anlægsaktiver, som beskrives i betragtning 46.
This objective is line with the purpose of EEL GmbH laid down in Article 2 of its Founding Act (Gesellschaftsvertrag) of 16 December 1999 [68].
I henhold til punkt 25 i luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2014 forstås der ved investeringsstøtte »støtte til finansiering af anlægsaktiver, især med henblik på at dække behovet for finansiering af kapitalomkostninger«.
Moreover, as already explained in Recital 153, EEL GmbH has no board of directors.
Derfor udgør alle udgifter under foranstaltning 2 investeringsomkostninger.
Both managing directors are representatives of the public bodies.
Foranstaltning 2 udgør således ulovlig investeringsstøtte, der er ydet før den 4. april 2014, og dens forenelighed skal vurderes efter luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2005.
It results from these elements that any decision taken by EEL GmbH is in fact taken by representatives from the public shareholders, who run it on a day-to-day basis in addition to sitting in its governing bodies.
Foranstaltning 3
In applying the market economy operator principle to Measure 4, it is necessary to give due consideration to the fact that the beneficiary of these financing measures is an SPV created and owned by the entities from which Measure 4 originates, and exclusively used for a well-defined objective pursued by these same entities.
Som beskrevet i afsnit 3.3 blev foranstaltning 3 ydet med henblik på at mellemfinansiere en del af FN GmbH's udgifter til erhvervelse af lufthavnsejendommen (615 ha og ca. 650 bygninger af forskellige typer til ombygning til en civil lufthavn).
Moreover, in this context, it is necessary to give due consideration to the very objective in view of which the Special Purpose Objective is used and maintained in operation.
Som anført i punkt 3 i præamblen og i stk. 1 i låneaftalen af 14. marts 2002 blev mellemfinansieringen ydet i form af et rentefrit lån, som udtrykkeligt var øremærket til finansiering af de investeringsudgifter, der var nødvendige for gennemførelsen af EuZZLG (se betragtning 21).
SPVs are commonly created and used by private undertakings in a variety of circumstances.
Mellemfinansieringen udgør derfor ulovlig statsstøtte i form af investeringsstøtte ydet før den 4. april 2014, og dens forenelighed skal vurderes efter luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2005.
A possible situation where SPVs are used is cases where two independent undertakings set up a joint venture in order to develop a specific project or perform a specific activity or function (for instance research and development, production, distribution) [69] to the benefit of each undertaking.
Som forklaret ovenfor finder Kommissionen, at lån 4 i foranstaltning 1, foranstaltning 2 og foranstaltning 3 udgør statsstøtte i form af investeringsstøtte, mens forlængelse 1 og muligvis forlængelse 2 af foranstaltning 1 skal betragtes som driftsstøtte.
The SPV is therefore a legal structure to which both undertakings allocate the resources (funding, staff, assets …) that are necessary for the implementation of their joint project, function or activity and through which they implement this joint project or perform this joint function or activity.
Investeringsstøttens forenelighed
In certain situations, for instance when the SPV only has a production or research and development function, it receives funding on the part of its parent companies without by itself generating profit which can be redistributed to shareholders, for example in the form of dividends.
I henhold til punkt 61 i retningslinjerne fra 2005 skal Kommissionen undersøge, hvorvidt:
Instead of generating such profit, it contributes to the performance of operations that its parent companies consider necessary in view of their objectives.
opførelsen og driften af infrastrukturen svarer til en klart defineret almen interesse (regionaludvikling, adgangsmulighed osv.)
Therefore, it is clear that when two independent private undertakings create and use a SPV in view of a well-defined objective, and provide it with funding, they do not necessarily provide this funding with a view to obtaining a financial return in the form of dividends or payment of interests, as an investor or a bank would do.
infrastrukturen er nødvendig og står i forhold til det fastlagte mål
Instead, they provide this funding with a view to achieve the objective for which the SPV is used.
der på mellemlangt sigt er tilfredsstillende udsigter med hensyn til anvendelsen af infrastrukturen, navnlig hvad angår anvendelsen af den eksisterende infrastruktur
In view of these considerations, the behaviour of the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze towards EEL GmbH ought to be analysed taking account of the fact that these two public authorities are the sole shareholders of EEL GmbH and taking account of the exclusive objective assigned to EEL GmbH as of 2003, namely, the granting to FN GmbH of the various loans and repayment deadline extensions constituting Measure 1.
alle potentielle brugere på lige vilkår og uden forskelsbehandling har adgang til infrastrukturen
It should be recalled in this respect that the various measures forming Measure 1 are, as indicated in section 8.3.2, clearly imputable to the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze.
udviklingen i samhandelen ikke påvirkes i et omfang, der strider mod EU's interesse.
In other words, the two public authorities designed and decided to implement Measure 1 and decided to use EEL GmbH for that purpose.
Ud over kravet om at opfylde de specifikke forenelighedskriterier, der er angivet i luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2005, bør statsstøtte til lufthavne, som enhver anden statsstøtteforanstaltning, være nødvendig og stå i et rimeligt forhold til det tilstræbte legitime mål for at blive godkendt som forenelig støtte [77].
Therefore, when applying of the Market Economy Operator Principle to Measure 4, the fact that the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze decided to implement Measure 1 and to use EEL GmbH for that purpose ought to be taken as a starting point.
Opførelsen og driften af infrastrukturen svarer til en klart defineret almen interesse (regionaludvikling, adgangsmulighed osv.)
The relevant question that the Commission must address is the following: if two hypothetical market economy operators had decided to implement measures such as those forming part of Measure 1, would they have used an SPV such as EEL GmbH and provide it with similar funding as that stemming from Measure 4 in order to achieve this objective?
De undersøgte investeringsstøtteforanstaltninger er målrettet finansieringen af omdannelsen af den tidligere britiske militærbase i Weeze til en civil lufthavn og en væsentlig opgradering af lufthavnen.
Against this backdrop, the fact that certain loans may have been provided to EEL GmbH by its shareholders at rates lower than normal market rates, that a guarantee was provided free of charge, or that capital was injected with no clear prospects of financial return would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze did not act vis-à-vis EEL GmbH as market economy operators would have done.
Disse foranstaltninger har leveret et væsentligt bidrag til den regionale udvikling og skabt nye jobs i et område, der er økonomisk ramt af lukningen af den britiske militærbase.
The relevant question is rather whether the financing provided to EEL GmbH under Measure 4 is reasonable, from a market economy operator perspective, in light of the objective pursued by EEL GmbH's shareholders, namely, the implementation of Measure 1.
Som Tyskland har påpeget, medførte lukningen af den britiske militærfacilitet, at ca. 6300 personer forlod området, hvilket udløste et tab af 400 civile jobs med direkte tilknytning til driften af militærbasen og et tab på ca. 102 mio. EUR i indtægter for ca. 80 virksomheder.
Two prudent market economy operators pursuing the same objective as EEL GmbH's public shareholders would have had essentially two options: create a Special Purpose Vehicle similar to EEL GmbH (option 1) or grant loans directly to FN GmbH without a dedicated body (option 2).
De britiske troppers afgang efterlod desuden 1600 boligenheder tomme, dvs. over 30 % af den samlede boligmasse alene i Weeze kommune.
A rational market economy operator would not have considered any other option, like the use of private financial intermediaries, which would have charged a fee for the provision of such a service.
Kommissionen bemærker, at etableringen og udviklingen af den civile lufthavn ifølge Tyskland har ført til skabelsen af over 1200 jobs i Landkreis Kleve, ligesom servicevirksomheder har klynget sig sammen i lufthavnens erhvervspark.
This option would have increased the cost of channelling funds to FN GmbH due to these fees.
Som Tyskland har påpeget, er dette projekts bidrag til regional økonomisk udvikling — og dermed til den økonomiske samhørighed, som er et vigtigt mål for EU — til en vis grad allerede blevet anerkendt af Kommissionen.
The Commission notes that, when making the Decision to finance EEL GmbH themselves instead of using financial intermediaries, the public shareholders limited their financial exposure to what was strictly necessary to fund FN GmbH under Measure 1:
Kommissionen har faktisk givet strukturfondsmidler til Nordrhein-Westfalen under Konver II-programmet, som netop var målrettet finansiering af omdannelsen af tidligere militære anlæg i Kleve.
the level of funding directly provided by public shareholders to EEL GmbH until 2010 (EUR [20-40] million [70]) was proportionate to the amounts borrowed by FN GmbH from EEL GmbH (EUR [20-40] million [71]);
De undersøgte investeringsstøtteforanstaltninger bidrog også til at gøre området lettere tilgængeligt.
the conditions of the funding of EEL GmbH (date, amount and maturity) have been aligned to the funding of FN GmbH by EEL GmbH:
De lufthavne, der ligger tættest på Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn, er Düsseldorf lufthavn (76 km, 51 minutters rejse i bil) og Eindhoven, Nederlandene (88 km, 1 time og 12 minutters rejse i bil) [78].
Date of loan agreement granted by EEL GmbH to FN GmbH
Derfor konkluderer Kommissionen, at investeringen i Niederrhein-Weeze ikke overlapper med eksisterende urentabel infrastruktur.
Date of public measures granted by Germany to EEL GmbH
Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn har tværtimod spillet en vigtig rolle i aflastningen af Düsseldorf lufthavn uden at begrænse planerne om at udvide lufthavnene i Düsseldorf og Eindhoven.
[5-15] (+ [2-5] received from a bank loan on 2 May 2003)
Uden det undersøgte projekt var der risiko for, at regionen ville være underbetjent.
Loan roll over to 31.12.2010 (+ 6,5)
Kommissionen kan derfor konkludere, at opførelsen og driften af infrastrukturen svarer til en klart defineret almen interesse, nemlig regional økonomisk udvikling og forbedring af regionens tilgængelighed.
Loan roll over to 31.12.2010 and debt restructuring
Infrastrukturen er nødvendig og står i et rimeligt forhold til det fastlagte mål
Loan roll over to 31.12.2016
Ifølge Tyskland var den planlagte modernisering af Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn nødvendig for at færdiggøre ombygningen af den forhenværende militærflyveplads til en civil lufthavn.
EEL GmbH does not have any material assets in its balance sheet other than its claims vis-à-vis FN GmbH.
Det var nødvendigt at opføre og modernisere rullebaner og forpladser, før der kunne indledes civile flyvninger.
The (small) profits derived from the financing activities to FN GmbH only appear in EEL GmbH's accounts, but they do not correspond to any cash or liquidity since FN GmbH has not repaid its debt to EEL GmbH.
Kommissionen kan derfor konkludere, at infrastrukturen er nødvendig og står i et rimeligt forhold til det fastlagte mål.
Indeed, given EEL GmbH's strategy to fund FN GmbH, these interests are only intended to allow EEL GmbH to break even and to pay the interests of the rolled over loans granted by the public shareholders and [bank], as evidenced by the minutes of EEL GmbH's general assemblies.
Infrastrukturen har på mellemlangt sigt tilfredsstillende udsigter hvad angår anvendelsen af den eksisterende infrastruktur
EEL GmbH's is therefore unable to reimburse its two shareholders and the [bank],as long as FN GmbH has not repaid the loans and interests due to EEL GmbH.
Som forklaret ovenfor nåede Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn i 2010 et passagertal (2,9 mio.) tæt på dens kapacitetsgrænse (3,5 mio.).
This means that EEL GmbH cannot engage into any other economic activities as claimed by Germany.
Den trafik er skabt efter kun seks års drift, hvilket er langt hurtigere end andre tyske lufthavne med samme lavprisstrategi (som Kassel eller Hahn).
The Commission takes the view that the choice of option 1 made by the two shareholders was therefore consistent with the latters' stated objective to dedicate EEL GmbH' resources to the sole financing of FN GmbH.
Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavns betydelige vækst skyldes lufthavnens vigtige rolle i aflastningen af lufthavnene i Düsseldorf og Eindhoven samt befolkningstætheden i oplandet (over 35 mio. indbyggere).
In addition, the Commission considers that under option 1 the administration and management costs of a SPV like EEL GmbH is reduced to the strict minimum (no immobilisation of assets other than the claims vis-à-vis FN GmbH, no permanent staff and management, almost no operating costs, no financial costs other than the reimbursement of the loan granted by the [bank]).
På grundlag af ovennævnte passagertal havde udviklingsprojektet for Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn gode anvendelsesudsigter på mellemlangt sigt, navnlig under hensyntagen til, at lufthavnens infrastruktur oprindeligt var af militær karakter, og at investeringerne har bidraget til at omdanne den til civilt brug.
This is all the more so since when the two public shareholders decided to implement Measure 1, EEL GmbH was already existing, as a dormant structure, and did not have to be created ex nihilo.
Kommissionen bemærker, at de civile infrastrukturer altid har været åbne for alle potentielle brugere uden forskelsbehandling.
On the contrary, the choice of option 2 would induce the duplication of the mechanisms put in place to support FN GmbH, which would increase the administration and legal costs of channelling funds to FN GmbH (e.g. duplication of legal contracts) and possibly affect the quality of the supervision and coordination of the project.
Udviklingen i samhandelen påvirkes ikke i et omfang, der strider mod EU's interesse
Therefore, it would have been rational for two prudent market economy operators guided by medium to long-term profitability prospects and acting in lieu of EEL GmbH's public shareholders, to choose option 1 rather than option 2.
Da støtten blev ydet den 15. oktober 2002, betjente Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn færre end 1 mio. passagerer pr. år, hvilket i henhold til luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2005 gjorde den til en lille regional lufthavn (kategori D) [80].
The Commission takes the view that the market investor test is satisfied and that there is no economic advantage conferred to EEL GmbH.
Oplandet til Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn er Tysklands vestlige regioner og Nederlandenes østlige regioner.
As of 2003, the activity of EEL GmbH was strictly limited to the provision of funding to FN GmbH.
Som forklaret ovenfor har Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn ikke været til væsentlig skade for konkurrencen i oplandsområdet — lufthavnene i Düsseldorf og Eindhoven — som havde alvorlige trængselsproblemer og et utilstrækkeligt antal slots (se betragtning 268).
EEL GmbH could not engage in any other activity.
Desuden betjenes Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn i modsætning til de to konkurrenter hverken af en tog- eller motorvejsforbindelse.
For instance, it could not grant loans to any other entity.
Kommissionen bemærker endvidere, at forretningsrejsesegmentet har en betydelig markedsandel på 40 % i Düsseldorf lufthavn, mens det kun udgør 7 % i Niederrhein-Weeze lufthavn.
Therefore, the only activity for which Measure 4 might have affected the competitive dynamics would be the provision of funding to FN GmbH.
Kommissionen bemærker, at Eindhoven lufthavn er udgangspunkt for både civil og militær flydrift, og at finansieringen af infrastrukturomkostningerne derfor afholdes af både de civile lufthavnsforvaltere og af det nederlandske militær.
Such competitive effect would have existed if, absent Measure 4, providers of funding other than EEL GmbH, such as banks or other investors, would have had a greater opportunity to provide funding to FN GmbH with a view to making a profit.
I 2010 og 2011 betalte Eindhoven lufthavn ca. 1 mio. EUR om året til det nederlandske militær, hovedsagelig for vedligeholdelse af infrastruktur, sikkerhed og flyvekontrol, men den afholdt ikke de oprindelige investeringsomkostninger, som Niederrhein-Weeze (delvist) måtte afholde.
However, as indicated in section 8.5.3, the clear intention of the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze was to implement Measure 1 themselves in order to provide FN GmbH with funding.
Støtteintensiteten til det samlede projekt (se afsnittet om støttens nødvendighed og proportionalitet nedenfor) er desuden begrænset til at dække projektets finansieringsbehov.
Indeed, the only rationale for Measure 4 is the implementation of Measure 1.
Lufthavnsoperatørens andelshavere vil finansiere over 50 % af investeringsomkostningerne.
Absent Measure 4, EEL GmbH would have been unable to implement Measure 1 itself.
På grundlag heraf kan Kommissionen derfor konkludere, at udviklingen i samhandelen ikke påvirkes i et omfang, der strider mod EU's interesse.
However, the absence of Measure 4 would simply mean that the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze would have decided to implement Measure 1 without using EEL GmbH, for instance, through a direct legal relationship between themselves and FN GmbH.
Støttens nødvendighed og proportionalitet
Therefore, absent Measure 4, banks or other investors would not have enjoyed a greater opportunity to provide funding to FN GmbH with a view to making a profit because the necessary funding would have been provided by the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze in any event.
Kommissionen skal fastslå, om den statsstøtte, der er ydet til FN GmbH, har ændret den støttemodtagende virksomheds adfærd på en sådan måde, at den iværksætter en aktivitet, der bidrager til at opfylde et mål af offentlig interesse, som i) den ikke ville gennemføre uden støtte, eller ii) som den ville have iværksat på mere begrænset eller anden måde.
Therefore, assuming that Measure 4 would involve an economic advantage in favour of EEL GmbH (quod non), this advantage would have no effect on competition and trade, and would therefore not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.