natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I denne forbindelse påpegede Tyskland, at Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn er den eneste tyske lufthavn, der tilbyder direkte flyvninger til Kaunas (Letland), Kerry (Irland), Kos (Grækenland), Montpellier (Frankrig), Nador (Marokko), Plovdiv (Bulgarien), Pula (Kroatien), Rhodos (Grækenland), Santiago de Compostela (Spanien) og Volos (Grækenland).
Thus, Germany argued, the possibility to generate additional passenger volume was an opportunity to limit losses and acquire clients with growth potential.
Ifølge Tyskland bidrager Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn også til jobmobilitet for unge, som kan rejse til Hunsrückregionen og Rheinland-Pfalz til meget lave priser.
Germany is of the opinion that costs which were decided on before the conclusion of the agreement, such as the costs for the general airport infrastructure and general airport administration (in other words costs that arose irrespective of the 1999 Ryanair agreement), should not be included in the profitability analysis of the 1999 Ryanair agreement, and PwC supports Germany in this opinion.
Tyskland påpegede ligeledes, at de anerkendte universiteter og videregående uddannelsesinstitutioner i Koblenz, Mainz, Kaiserslautern, Trier, Wiesbaden, Mannheim, Bonn osv., som i de fleste tilfælde tilbyder gratis undervisning, nu er lettilgængelige for studerende fra hele EU.
Germany argued especially that it would only be possible for an airport with an existing network of clients to have his clients partially bear the costs of infrastructure measures and that Frankfurt Hahn airport was not in such a position.
Tyskland anførte, at landet som den fjerde største nationale økonomi i verden ikke kun har fokus på at medvirke til skabe forbindelse til de andre europæiske hovedlufthavne, men også på at forbinde regionerne med hinanden.
Germany took the view that a depreciation period of 25 years would then be appropriate, which would mean a depreciation of EUR […] per year.
Endelig understregede Tyskland generelt, at nærheden til Zweibrücken lufthavn ikke fører til duplikering af lufthavne for det samme opland som følge af afstanden på 127 km mellem Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn og Zweibrücken lufthavn.
Therefore, taking into account the time for initiation of Frankfurt Hahn airport, Germany took the view that this would have sufficed for a market economy investor to conclude the agreement.
Denne afstand svarer ifølge Tyskland til 1 time og 27 minutters kørsel i bil og omkring fire timer med tog.
The 2001 schedule of airport charges could not be seen as State aid according to Germany.
Tyskland hævdede videre, at der ikke kan udledes et substitutionsforhold mellem lufthavene af passager- og luftfragttallene i perioden 2005-2012.
Germany stated that the 2001 schedule of airport charges had generated revenues for FFHG and it was not necessary or possible that the schedule of airport charges would lead to coverage of all costs incurred by FFHG.
De fleste af Frankfurt Hahn lufthavns passagerer kommer ifølge Tyskland fra Hunsrück-Mosel-Nahe-regionen (se figur 5).
For such a result, according to Germany, the revenues from the non-aviation sector needed be taken into account as well under the single-till-approach (see recital 169).
Figur 2
Germany furthermore disputed that the measure was imputable to the State because of the approval of the airport charges by the Rhineland-Palatinate Transport department.
Frankfurt Hahn lufthavns markedsandele for passagerbefordring med fly 2013 [39]
This approval did not mean any economic or political dependence, but was simply a regulatory formality requested under German law which every airport, whether publicly owned or not, has to fulfil according to the law.
≽ 2 %-5 %
The reason for this law is to protect the airlines from any possible abuse of the monopolistic power of the airport to set prices for its use.
≽ 5 %-10 %
Moreover, Germany argued that no advantage was granted to Frankfurt Hahn airport through the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
≽ 10 %-20 %
It agreed with the Commission that the results of the private market investor test for the 2002 Ryanair agreement, which is based on the 2001 schedule of airport charges and introduces an additional marketing support, can serve as a benchmark.
Lufthavn
On this basis, since the MEOT is positive for the 2002 Ryanair agreement, Germany argued that no other result can apply to the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
Markedsandele 2013
Concerning the doubts raised by the Commission in relation to the MEOT, Germany referred to its argumentation in relation to MEOT for the 2002 Ryanair agreement (see recital 178 and following).
Infrastrukturen er nødvendig og står i forhold til målet
Furthermore, Germany expressly disagreed with the Commission as to the assessment concerning the selectivity of the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
De finansierede investeringer var ifølge Tyskland nødvendige og stod i forhold til målet af fælles interesse (se betragtning 197 ff.).
Germany argued that the 2001 schedule of airport charges was of a general nature and applied to all airlines using the airport, and that hence it could not be selective or specific.
Investeringerne blev ifølge Tyskland foretaget i overensstemmelse med behovene, og den opførte infrastruktur var nødvendig, for at lufthavnen kunne garantere forbindelsesmuligheder, for regionens udvikling og for at aflaste Frankfurt Main lufthavn.
According to Germany, the 2001 schedule of airport charges included no differentiations which would give an advantage to one airline over the other and they did not contain any kind of rebate system either.
Tyskland påpegede, at infrastrukturen ikke var uforholdsmæssig eller for stor i forhold til lufthavnsbrugernes behov.
Therefore, Germany took the view that no airline was granted a selective advantage.
Tyskland fandt derfor, at denne forenelighedsbetingelse var opfyldt.
Finally, Germany argued in relation to the 2001 schedule of airport charges that this schedule was in accordance with market conform behaviour and as such would not be able to distort competition between airports or the competition on the internal market.
Tilfredsstillende udsigter for anvendelse af infrastrukturen på mellemlang sigt
Germany considered, in contrast to the 2008 opening decision, that the 2002 Ryanair agreement did not generate any losses, but instead provided a source of income for FFHG.
Tyskland anførte, at Fraport igangsatte trafikprognoseundersøgelser med henblik på at kortlægge trafikpotentialet for Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn, inden selskabet besluttede at udvide lufthavnens infrastruktur.
Concerning the question of imputability of the 2002 Ryanair agreement and the use of State resources, Germany referred to its explanations concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 167 and following).
Tyskland fremlagde disse undersøgelser, som var udarbejdet af luftfartseksperter på vegne af Fraport.
Furthermore, Germany added that in 2002, at the time of conclusion of the agreement, FFHG's shares were already being held mainly by Fraport, whose resources are not State resources and whose actions are not imputable to the State, as Germany already pointed out in relation to the 2001 PLTA (see recital 134 and following).
Figur 3, figur 4 og figur 5 opsummerer resultaterne af en af disse undersøgelser vedrørende den forventede udvikling i passager- og fragttrafik i Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn i perioden 2000-2011.
According to Germany, the supervisory board of FFHG, who approved the conclusion of the 2002 Ryanair agreement, was not dominated by the State.
Figur 3
In this regard, Germany contended that the presentation of FFHG's supervisory board members in recital 18 of the 2008 opening decision was erroneous.
Potentielle passagerer i alt i Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn 2000-2010
Germany stated that according to FFHG's articles of association, Fraport had six representatives and Land Rhineland-Palatinate had eight, out of which three were representatives of local authorities.
Passagerer (i mio.)
According to Germany, the members had however different numbers of votes and the majority of votes was always with the private company Fraport.
Kilde: SH&E.
This was due to the fact that Fraport's representatives had 12 votes each, while the representatives of the Land only had 5 votes each and those of the local authorities even had only one vote.
Potentielt passagertal i Frankfurt Hahn
Therefore, according to Germany, Fraport had 72 votes while the representatives of the Land and local authorities only had 28 votes.
Figur 4
Since the supervisory board decides by simple majority, Germany took the view that it would not have been possible to conclude the 2002 Ryanair agreement without the votes of Fraport and therefore the conclusion of the agreement is not imputable to the State.
Potentiel lavpristrafik
Furthermore, Germany rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the conferral of an advantage and the MEOT submitted by PwC on this matter.
Scenarie 2: med Ryanair-base i Frankfurt Hahn
Germany argued that the figure of […] passengers per flight was not overestimated since already in 2002 […] % of Ryanair flights were carried out by a Boeing 737-800 and the average load factor of those flights was […] %, meaning that the number of passengers per plane was in fact on average […] per Ryanair flight.
Passagerer (i mio.)
Therefore, Germany took the view that the estimation of the number of passengers of […] was reasonable and not too high, especially since FFHG had taken into account that the change by Ryanair from Boeing 737-200 to Boeing 737-800 would come very quickly.
Figur 5
As regards the Commission's doubts relating to the cost for general airport infrastructure and general airport administration, Germany referred to its argumentation in relation to the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 171 and following).
Potentiel fragttrafik i alt i Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn 2001-2010 Omladet fra lastbil
It also referred to its statements for the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 176) as regards the selectivity of the measure.
(i 1 000)
In relation to the question of State resources and imputability, Germany referred to its statements for the 1999 and 2002 Ryanair agreements (see recitals 167 and following, and recitals 178 and following).
Adgang til infrastrukturen på lige vilkår og uden forskelsbehandling
Furthermore, Germany stated that, at the moment of conclusion of the 2005 Ryanair agreement, the supervisory board of FFHG was constituted in a way that the public authorities were not able to exercise a determining influence on the decision.
I henhold til de oplysninger, som Tyskland har fremlagt, har alle potentielle brugere af infrastrukturen adgang til infrastrukturen på lige vilkår og uden forskelsbehandling.
At that moment Fraport held 156 votes while Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Land Hesse held 42 votes each.
Tyskland anførte, at de lufthavnsafgifter, der blev betalt for anvendelsen af infrastrukturen, var baseret på kommercielt begrundet differentiering, og at planen for lufthavnsafgifter var tilgængelig for alle potentielle brugere på en gennemsigtig og ikkediskriminerende måde.
Therefore, Germany argued that the State could not have a determining influence as it only possessed 84 out of 240 votes.
Samhandelen berøres ikke i et omfang, der strider mod den fælles interesse
Furthermore, Germany took the view that no advantage was conferred on Ryanair through this agreement.
Tyskland anførte for det første, at der ikke er nogen substitutionsvirkninger mellem Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn og andre lufthavne i oplandet, som f.eks. Zweibrücken lufthavn og Frankfurt Main lufthavn.
Germany stated that in contrast to the Commission's suggestion in the 2008 opening decision, PwC had been provided with all relevant figures since it could otherwise not have conducted this comprehensive, neutral and independent MEOT.
Tyskland hævdede, at lavprisluftfartsselskaberne i de seneste år har skullet tilbyde flere flyvninger til hovedlufthavnene, fordi de etablerede luftfartsselskaber har sænket deres priser og nu også er aktive på lavprismarkedet.
Germany stated that PwC had made a second evaluation in its supplementary assessment where it explained that a major part of the costs related to investments of a general nature which the airport made independently of the services provided to Ryanair.
Regionale lufthavne, som f.eks. Frankfurt Hahn, skal nu ifølge Tyskland i stigende grad konkurrere med hovedlufthavnene om ferierejsende.
As far as costs are induced by the handling of Ryanair passengers, these are according to Germany allocated to Ryanair.
Den ydede finansielle støtte har derfor ifølge Tyskland ikke uforholdsmæssigt påvirket konkurrencen negativt, men har tværtimod været gavnlig i tilpasningen til en stabil forretningsmodel i fremtiden.
Germany also rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the effectiveness of the penalty system which was introduced in the 2005 Ryanair agreement.
Tyskland hævdede for det andet, at det forhold, at Fraport, inden selskabet blev etableret i Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn, allerede var operatør af Frankfurt Main lufthavn, viser, at der ikke kunne forventes substitutionsbevægelser fra Frankfurt Main til Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn.
Germany stated that this penalty system reflects market conform behaviour.
I stedet investerede Fraport i muligheden for at aflaste Frankfurt Main lufthavn og udnytte de supplerende muligheder, som Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn tilbød, da man forventede en overbelastning af Frankfurt Main hovedlufthavnens kapacitet.
Germany argued that additional sanctions to the ones agreed upon would have been unnecessary and inappropriate since Ryanair had no exclusive rights to use the airport and was also assuming a risk.
Forbuddet mod natflyvninger i Frankfurt Main lufthavn var ifølge Tyskland et af de væsentligste elementer i denne argumentation, da Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn havde licens til drift døgnet rundt.
Moreover, Germany stated that the agreement was not a selective measure since the agreed airport charges were based on the general 2006 schedule of airport charges.
Tyskland hævdede endelig, at virkningerne af eventuel støtte til fordel for FFHG alene var begrænset til de positive regionale virkninger for Hunsrückregionen, og at der ikke var tale om uforholdsmæssigt negative virkninger i forhold til andre lufthavne, fordi Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn bruges til at aflaste Frankfurt Main.
Germany also argued that any losses incurred by FFHG were not generated by the 2005 Ryanair agreement but by the necessary investments for Frankfurt Hahn airport, whereas the investments induced by Ryanair had been covered by the revenue generated by the 2005 Ryanair agreement.
Bortset fra Luxembourg lufthavn, som ligger 1 time og 30 minutters kørsel (111 km) fra Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn, er der endvidere ifølge Tyskland ikke andre konkurrerende udenlandske lufthavne i oplandet.
In relation to the 2006 schedule of airport charges, Germany argued generally that these airport charges had been developed exclusively based on economic considerations taking into account the business model of Frankfurt Hahn airport as a low cost carrier airport, i.e. with the expectation that the costs of operation would be covered in the short term and in the long term a sustainable profit would be generated.
Selv i forhold til Luxembourg har den ydede støtte ingen fordrejende virkning for konkurrencen efter Tysklands vurdering.
Concerning the questions of State resources and imputability, Germany referred to its argumentation made in relation to the 1999, 2002 and 2005 Ryanair agreements (see recitals 167 and following, 178 and following and 182 and following) and in relation to the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 173 and following).
Støttens tilskyndelsesvirkning, nødvendighed og proportionalitet
Germany argued that no advantage was conferred upon Ryanair through the 2006 schedule of airport charges.
Tyskland anførte, at den økonomiske aktivitet i lufthavnen ville være væsentligt lavere uden investeringsstøtten.
Firstly, Germany justified the different passenger charges which were created in order to provide an incentive to low cost carriers while covering the operational costs of the airport.
Støtten var ifølge Tyskland nødvendig, da den kun vedrørte finansieringsomkostningerne, og da et lavere beløb ville føre til et lavere investeringsniveau.
A reduction of charges according to the volume of passengers, Germany argued, is a common approach at national and international airports, as was already accepted by the Court of Justice.
FORENELIGHED AF DRIFTSSTØTTE TIL FINANSIERING AF LUFTHAVNENS DRIFT
When such volume based reductions are granted, these must be justified on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria and this was the case at Frankfurt Hahn airport, according to Germany.
Luftfartsretningslinjerne fra 2014 fastsætter de betingelser, hvorunder drifts- og investeringsstøtte til lufthavne kan erklæres for forenelige med det indre marked i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c).
Since the threshold for acquiring rebates was very low, namely 100000 passengers per year, these rebates were also supporting smaller airlines.
Med hensyn til det veldefinerede mål af fælles interesse anførte Tyskland, at formålet med dækningen af FFHG's driftsomkostninger hele tiden havde været at forbedre den økonomiske struktur i den økonomisk tilbagestående og tyndtbefolkede Hunsrückregion.
Secondly, Germany argued that the economic justification of the airport charges relied on the single-till-approach, referring to its statements concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 169).
Tyskland anvendte i denne forbindelse samme ræsonnement som i forbindelse med vurderingen af foreneligheden af investeringsstøtte til finansiering af lufthavnsinfrastruktur (se afsnit 5.4.1.1).
Germany also justified the differentiation according to turn-around-times (hereinafter: TRT) of under or over 30 minutes by explaining that TRT of more than 30 minutes are in fact more cost-intensive.
Behov for statslig indgriben
Germany also stated that even though the airport charges were not covering 100 % of the costs, a MEO would still have chosen this schedule of charges since cost-coverage of an infrastructure such as an airport could not be achieved in such a short time.
Med hensyn til behovet for statsstøtte forklarede Tyskland, hvorfor Frankfurt Hahn har driftsunderskud, som skal dækkes.
However, FFHG was expecting that through the 2006 schedule of airport charges more passengers would be generated and that by 2008 full cost coverage would be achieved.
Det er ifølge Tyskland et ganske ambitiøst mål, at en lufthavn, såsom Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn med 1-3 mio. passagerer, skal blive rentabel og være i stand til at dække sine driftsomkostninger.
According to the assessment made by PwC for this schedule of airport charges, this was economically realistic at the moment of introduction of the airport charges, as was also confirmed by PwC's supplementary assessment.
Det var ifølge Tyskland ikke muligt at opnå dette ambitiøse mål i opstartsårene, da lufthavnen var belastet af meget høje infrastrukturinvesteringer, som den selv finansierede på kapitalmarkedet, og af hvilke den måtte betale høje renter.
In relation to the marketing support granted under the 2006 schedule of airport charges, Germany argued that this is in fact not an integral part of the schedule.
Tyskland anførte desuden, at passagertrafikken og navnlig fragttrafikken siden den globale økonomiske og finansielle krise var stagneret.
Germany also argued that any market economy investor would have made the same marketing support available for airlines since there are high economic risks attached to the opening of a new route.
På denne baggrund var en statslig indgriben ifølge Tyskland nødvendig for at dække driftsunderskuddene, da FFHG ellers ville være blevet insolvent.
This support is exclusively given for newly offered routes, meaning routes which have not been served at all or within the last 24 months.
Dette ville ifølge Tyskland også have ført til tilbagetrækning af licensen til døgndrift.
The amount of the support is based on the number of departing passengers served within 1 year.
Det ville under insolvensen have tvunget FFHG til at indstille alle flyvninger, hvilket ville have ført til tab af kunder, som f.eks. luftfartsselskaber og luftfragtselskaber.
On the basis of criteria such as the temporary routes offered at Frankfurt Hahn airport, the weekly connections and the duration of continuous flight operation, it is ensured that support is in fact leading to an expansion of the network of flights offered by the airlines.
Tyskland påpegede, at det i så fald ville have været meget vanskeligt at finde en ny operatør til lufthavnen.
Germany argued that the marketing support cannot be seen as a one-sided performance by the airport.
Støtteforanstaltningernes egnethed som politikinstrument
According to Germany, the promotion of new routes led to a higher profit for the airport since higher passenger numbers would create higher non-aeronautical revenues.
Tyskland anførte, at dækningen af driftsomkostningerne var en hensigtsmæssig foranstaltning for at opnå det fastsatte mål.
Furthermore, Germany explained that the fixing of the amounts of support was based on reasonable considerations.
Hvis Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn blev tvunget til at indstille driften og var forsvundet fra de relevante markeder, havde man efter Tysklands opfattelse ikke kunnet opfylde de fastsatte mål af fælles interesse om at ombygge en tidligere amerikansk luftbase til en velfungerende civil lufthavn og udvikle Hunsrückregionen.
Germany also rejected the doubts of the Commission that the risk of marketing was higher for airlines which are not yet active at Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Tyskland fremhævede i denne henseende, at en offentlig investor i modsætning til en privat investor skulle tage disse mål i betragtning i forbindelse med overvejelsen af den alternative mulighed for at lukke lufthavnen.
For airlines with high passenger numbers servicing an attractive network, Germany argued, requires higher marketing costs which in turn justifies a higher marketing support from the airport, also given that higher passenger numbers increase the profits for the airport.
Tilstedeværelsen af en tilskyndelsesvirkning
In any case, the amount of support would be no more than one third of the real marketing costs, thereby ruling out any discrimination between airlines already serving Frankfurt Hahn airport and other airlines.
For at opretholde driften i Frankfurt Hahn lufthavn var det ifølge Tyskland absolut nødvendigt at dække dens driftsomkostninger, da FFHG ellers ville være blevet insolvent.
Moreover, Germany reasoned that bigger airlines will generally have a larger marketing budget, so the support given will actually be lower in relation to the whole budget than in case of a smaller airline.
Vellykket drift af lufthavnen var omvendt nødvendig for at opfylde målene af fælles interesse omhandlet i betragtning 213 ff.
Finally, Germany submitted that the MEOT carried out by PwC established that this marketing support was given in a way that was conforming to the market.
Tyskland gjorde videre gældende, at den finansielle konsolidering af lufthavnen, som operatøren havde planlagt, ville have været umulig uden denne driftsstøtte, da lufthavnen ville have akkumuleret større og større gæld i stedet for at afdrage sin gæld i overensstemmelse med det nuværende besparelsesprogram.
As regards selectivity of the measure and distortion of competition on the internal market, Germany referred to its statements concerning the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recitals 176 and following).
Støttens proportionalitet (begrænsning af støtten til et minimum)
Germany thus argued that the 2006 schedule of airport charges did not involve State aid.
Undgåelse af unødvendige negative påvirkninger af konkurrencevilkårene og samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne
COMPATIBILITY OF THE MEASURES WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET
Konkurrencen med disse lufthavne påvirkes ifølge Tyskland ikke uforholdsmæssigt negativt som følge af den støtte, som FFHG har modtaget, hverken med hensyn til passagertrafik eller fragttrafik.
COMPATIBILITY OF INVESTMENT AID TO FINANCE AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE