natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Frankrig konkluderer, at passagerafgiften i terminal mp2 ikke kan udgøre en økonomisk fordel til fordel for et selskab i henhold til artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF, da den fastsættes i tilknytning til de udgifter, der er forbundet med opførelse og drift af terminal mp2, at forskellen mellem passagerafgiften for benyttelsen af hver af de to terminaler er objektiv, gennemsigtig og begrundet i de omkostninger, der tilskrives hver terminal, og at differentieringen i denne forbindelse er udtrykkeligt bestemt i artikel 10 i direktiv 2009/12/EF.
Aerodrome operators therefore produce an annual declaration of costs and traffic, which is sent to the local civil aviation safety directorate for validation.
I det foreliggende tilfælde påvises foranstaltningens selektivitet heller ikke, idet afgiften gælder uden forskel for ethvert selskab, der benytter terminal mp2.
The tax is calculated by the national government's Directorate-General for Civil Aviation, based on the cumulative results from previous years.
Hvad angår de nedsatte passagerafgifter for nationale flyvninger, præciserer Frankrig, at bekendtgørelsen af 16. oktober 2009 forbyder enhver fremtidig differentiering af afgifterne i Schengen, og minder om, at Kommissionen i sin afgørelse af 28. januar 2009 fandt, at det ikke var nødvendigt at foreslå yderligere foranstaltninger.
France disputes the finding that this mechanism could involve elements of State aid.
RABAT PÅ AFGIFTERNE FOR AT OPRETTE NYE RUTER
First of all, it underlines that this general system is applicable to all French airports according to the same rules.
Frankrig gør indledningsvis gældende, at de afgiftsgradueringer, som blev tilladt luftfartsselskaberne, og som undersøges af Kommissionen i betragtning 116-137 i indledningsafgørelsen, forekommer i samtlige statslige lufthavne og i et meget stort antal decentralisererede lufthavne i Frankrig.
It further states that, given the fact that the tax rate is set according to forecast cost and traffic figures, it is difficult to ensure that the tax revenue perfectly matches the costs in any given year, but disputes that there may be overcompensation.
Frankrig tilføjer, at disse foranstaltninger skal fremme oprettelsen af nye flyforbindelser.
France points out in this respect that airport operators are reimbursed for costs only ex post according to the depreciation charge and that, when a positive balance is recorded, this is added to the cumulative accounts from previous years and carries financial charges payable by the operator, which gives rise to a tax adjustment in the following year.
Disse svarer til et mål af almindelig interesse, nemlig bedre og øget tilgængelighed, fysisk planlægning af området og integration i det indre marked.
France notes that the airport tax system has been in overall deficit for a number of years (by around EUR 110 million at the end of 2010), meaning that part of the safety and security costs borne by airports is not compensated, with this part being allocated to financial costs payable by the State.
Ifølge Frankrig skal det påberåbte mål af almindelig interesse tages i betragtning af Kommissionen i dens analyse af den således tildelte støttes forenelighed med EU-retten.
France underlines that tax increases occurring ex post have to take account of the effects on airlines, which prevents the deficit from being clawed back too quickly.
Frankrig hævder ligeledes, at afgiftsgradueringerne godkendes årligt af den franske stat i forbindelse med en godkendelsesprocedure, der gælder samtlige statslige lufthavne, og som gør det muligt at sikre, at foranstaltningerne ikke er diskriminerende.
Lastly, France refers to the ‘reset’ mechanism that applies if an airport operator changes, which requires the operator to reimburse any positive balance recorded at the end of its term.
Frankrig hævder, at den årlige satsgodkendelsesprocedure således ville være tilstrækkelig til at opfylde kravet om, at der på medlemsstatsligt plan stilles en klagemekanisme til rådighed for enhver klage over forskelsbehandling i ydelsen af støtte, hvilket er et af forenelighedskriterierne for den undersøgte støtte.
With regard to Marseille Provence Airport, France states that the cumulative deficit in the airport tax system was EUR 2,7 million at the end of 2000, that the balance was restored in 2010 with a tax rate set at EUR 8,20 and that the rate for 2011 was adjusted downwards (EUR 7,774) so that a surplus was not generated.
Frankrig minder om, at national ret (artikel R.224-2-2 i Code l'aviation civile), hvorefter det er muligt at foretage afgiftsgradueringer, påbyder den ansvarlige for fastsættelsen af afgiftssatserne at definere de overvågningsindikatorer, der svarer til det forfulgte mål af almindelig interesse.
SETTING OF PASSENGER CHARGES FOR TERMINALS MP1 AND MP2
Frankrig præciserer, at der siden 2005, da ordningen trådte i kraft, jævnligt var blevet fremlagt en status over afgiftsgradueringerne i materialet til Cocoécos møder, hvilket beviser foranstaltningernes offentlige karakter over for repræsentanterne for platformens brugere og er tilstrækkeligt til at opfylde kriteriet om støttens forenelighed vedrørende offentliggørelsen af de pågældende foranstaltninger.
It explains that this differentiation in charges between Terminals mp1 and mp2 is due to the underlying cost difference between the passenger functions of these terminals.
Frankrig understreger, at de undersøgte afgiftsgradueringer er i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i direktiv 2009/12/EF, som giver medlemsstaterne lov til at indføre gradueringer af lufthavnsafgifterne i »almenhedens og samfundets interesse«.
France states that, in its decision of 26 July 2011, the Council of State accepted that the charges for Terminal mp1 were valid, which, according to France, therefore means that it incidentally accepted the validity of the accounting rules allocating the costs and revenues between Terminals mp1 and mp2.
Frankrig slutter heraf, at lufthavnsforvalteren ved indførelsen af en sådan afgiftsgraduering ikke er forpligtet til at handle som en fornuftig markedsøkonomisk aktør.
Lastly, France stresses that, due to the ‘single till’ principle that is applied at Marseille Provence Airport, the difference between the cost price of the passenger charge and the actual passenger charge consists of non-aeronautical resources specific to the terminal in question, which a prudent operator would take into account when determining the charge applicable to the terminal.
Frankrig understreger, at der findes andre afgiftsgradueringer i den almindelige interesse efter fransk ret, bl.a. miljøhensyn, f.eks. gradueringen af landingsafgiften alt efter kategorien af luftfartøjet og tidspunktet på dagen set i relation til støjforurening.
France disputes that the CCIMP took into account only the additional costs that were directly linked with the commissioning and operation of Terminal mp2.
Frankrig bestrider, at sådanne foranstaltninger udgør startstøtte, og gør gældende, at de har til formål at internalisere visse elementer af samfundsinteresse (kompensation for skade på miljøet, forbedring af områders tilgængelighed osv.), som ellers ikke ville blive indregnet i afgiftssatserne.
It alleges that, as the two terminals are geographically separated, it is possible to separate out all the investments needed for Terminal mp2, i.e. EUR 8,95 million.
Frankrig hævder, at en forretningsplan, der påviser, at de tilladte gradueringer ikke er rentable, ikke af den grund indebærer, at lufthavnsforvalteren skal opgive dem, for i denne forretningsplan ville de eksterne virkninger af foranstaltningerne ikke blive taget i betragtning, f.eks. udledning af mindre forurening, mindre støj eller øget eller bedre tilgængelighed.
France notes that the cost structure of an airport essentially consists of fixed costs.
Ifølge Frankrig har den vanskelige kvantificering af disse eksterne virkninger ført til, at disse incitamenter er genstand for en hypotese for sig i direktiv 2009/12/EF.
France then details the elements used to determine the operating costs attributed to Terminal mp2:
Frankrig anfægter Kommissionens metode, som består i at anvende det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip, som ikke er egnet til analysen af foranstaltninger, hvis mål det er at lade positive eksterne virkninger gavne en samfundsinteresse.
as Terminal mp2 represents only 8,9 % of the airport's total terminal area, it accounts for only 9,8 % of the total for the ‘tax and insurance’ cost item;
Frankrig hævder, at de oplysninger, der er fremlagt i betragtning 124 i Kommissionens indledningsafgørelse, er fejlagtige.
as the servicing and maintenance costs essentially involve the repair of mechanical parts such as lifts, travellators and escalators, the simplified-service terminal, which does not have any travellators or escalators, accounts for only 5 % of the ‘servicing and maintenance’ cost item;
De viste satser angives som en variabel del af landingsafgiften pr. passager.
as Terminal mp2 is new and better insulated, has a significantly lower ceiling height than Terminal mp1 and represents 8,9 % of the airport's terminal area, it accounts for only 8,6 % of the ‘fluids’ (energy) costs;
I virkeligheden beregnes den variable del af landingsafgiften på grundlag af luftfartøjets vægt i tons og ikke på grundlag af antal passagerer.
7,8 % of the cleaning costs are allocated to Terminal mp2, given the proportion of the area occupied (8,9 %) and the floor covering (tiling in Terminal mp2, carpeting in Terminal mp1), with an identical cleaning frequency in the two terminals;
Subsidiært hævder Frankrig, at afgiftsgradueringerne for oprettelse af nye ruter er økonomisk rentable for lufthavnen Marseille Provence.
the creation of Terminal mp2 has not resulted in any additional staff costs, except for one hiring at the terminal coordination unit (poste de coordination de l'aérogare — PCA) in 2007, one hiring at the operational coordination unit (poste de coordination d'exploitation — PCE) and one hiring at the information office (bureau d'information — BI) in 2010, which are shown in the table produced by France, with the latter having also detailed in its response the formulas used to allocate the operating costs between the two terminals.
Frankrig fremsender i sit svar en undersøgelse, der er foretaget efterfølgende, af de tildelte foranstaltningers rentabilitet.
France therefore maintains that, as the operating costs were allocated at constant staffing levels, the costs allocated to Terminal mp2 are as economical with regard to the passenger charge as for Terminal mp1.
Ifølge Frankrig viser de beregninger, der er foretaget på grundlag af de kommercielle indtægter i 2008, at den gennemsnitlige rabat, der blev ydet til en rute befløjet med standardfly fra terminal mp1 og mp2, er mindre end de indtægter, som genereres af de indtægter, der tilskrives hver af terminalerne, og giver et nettoresultat på […]* EUR pr. passager fra terminal mp1 og […]* EUR pr. passager fra terminal mp2.
France further notes that the costs allocated to Terminal mp2 in fact correspond to the additional costs that would have been borne by Terminal mp1 if the second terminal had not been constructed (Annex 44 and Annex 25).
Frankrig hævder, at 83 % af den trafik, der er skabt som følge af denne foranstaltning, stadig findes efter tre år og skaber ekstra indtægt.
France also disputes PwC's conclusion that investments not directly allocated to the terminals must be indirectly allocated, and details the investments that are not included in the passenger charge and how they are taken into account in the accounting plan (investments in buildings separate from the terminals for which separate rental income is received, one-off investments to replace obsolete facilities that are allocated to specific cost centres, and road infrastructure, IT and walkway investments that are allocated to a specific cost centre and, where applicable, included in the overheads).
Frankrig gør gældende, at en ny undersøgelse af rentabiliteten af de gradueringer, som Cocoéco vedtog den 6. december 2004, blev foretaget på grundlag af forrentningsplanen fra september 2005, der blev ajourført i maj 2006, på basis af et fly af typen B737 på 67 tons for terminal mp2 og et fly af typen A319 for terminal mp1.
France further disputes PwC's argument that, as Terminal mp2 passengers may use the facilities of Terminal mp1, 10 % of Terminal mp1's depreciation should be allocated to Terminal mp2.
Man undersøgte to trafikhypoteser: I den første angår trafikstigningen fra det tredje år efter indførelsen af gradueringerne kun stigningen i antallet af afgange på de eksisterende ruter, i den anden angår trafikstigningen alene nye ruter.
It maintains that the clear separation between the airport's infrastructures makes this use very unlikely, that this would involve allocating an area equivalent to the total area of Terminal mp2, and that this would require the commercial revenues of Terminal mp1 to be allocated in the same proportion to Terminal mp2, i.e. a reduction in the margin of the main terminal of EUR […]* million.
Den første hypotese medfører et nettoresultat i forhold til omsætningen på […]* % og en NNV på […]* EUR, den anden et nettoresultat i forhold til omsætningen på […]* % og en NNV på […]* EUR.
France further underlines that the traffic assumptions used by PwC in its 2006 and 2007 reports are based on forecasts from the November 2004 business plan and do not take account of the downgrading of the traffic figures in the September 2005 and May 2006 business plans, following Air France's decision not to transfer its shuttle service to Terminal mp2, and the six-month delay in the decision to open the new terminal, which significantly reduced the traffic in 2006 and 2007.
Frankrig hævder, at gradueringerne var ikkediskriminerende og gjaldt samtlige selskaber, som opfyldte betingelserne for anvendelse.
France disputes the finding in the PwC report that Terminal mp1's traffic was ‘cannibalised’ by Terminal mp2.
Frankrig bestrider derfor, at kriteriet om foranstaltningens selektive karakter i henseende til at betegne den som statsstøtte skulle være opfyldt.
It stresses in this respect that Air France did not in the end implement its plan to transfer the Orly shuttle flights to Terminal mp2 and that Air France's traffic over the 2008-2011 period remained stable for each of the two destinations for which Ryanair operated competing routes from Terminal mp2 from 2009 onwards.
Frankrig minder om, at Kommissionen i sin afgørelse om lufthavnen i Manchester [26], som den nævner i sin Charleroi-afgørelse [27], anerkendte, at ydelsen af rabatter på landingsafgifterne udgjorde en foranstaltning af begrænset varighed og indgik i en ordning, der var åben for samtlige luftfartsselskaber, som åbnede en ny rute fra Manchester, således at den fjernede enhver risiko for konkurrencefordrejning og ikke faldt ind under artikel 107 i TEUF.
France maintains that, as PwC's arguments are unfounded, the charge of EUR 3,84 per passenger is also unfounded, and points out that this is higher than the charge applied to Terminal mp1 in 2007.
Frankrig konkluderer, at en ordning, der er tilgængelig for alle luftfartsselskaber og tildeles i en begrænset periode, falder uden for anvendelsesområdet for artikel 107 i TEUF.
France notes that, following annulment by the Council of State of the charges applied to Terminal mp2 for 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the charges applied to Terminal mp1 for 2008, the airport operator set new charges for each of the terminals.
Frankrig præsenterer den afgiftsgradueringsordning, som var gældende fra den 15. februar til den 31. juli 2009, og præciserer, at 24 selskaber har benyttet sig af den.
The justification for an increase in the charges at Terminal mp2 lies in the requirement imposed by the regulator (Ministers for the Economy and Civil Aviation) for the AMS advertising agreement costs to be allocated to this terminal alone, without the formulas for allocating costs between the terminals having been called into question.
Frankrig minder om, at ordningen blev annulleret af Tribunal administratif de Marseille i dennes afgørelse af 30. juni 2009 med den begrundelse, at omfanget af gradueringen var for stor, og erstattet fra 1. februar 2010 af en ordning, hvor rabatsatserne var blevet reduceret og betingelserne for ydelse af dem skærpet.
According to France, the CCIMP set the charges at a level to achieve an identical cost coverage rate for each terminal (i.e. […]* %).
Frankrig gør gældende, at betingelserne, der hidrører fra Manchester-beslutningen, er opfyldt i begge gradueringsordninger, idet de pågældende gradueringer ikke faldt ind under artikel 107 i TEUF.
France maintains that Directive 2009/12/EC provides that the level of airport charges may be differentiated according, inter alia, to their costs and that, to ensure that this differentiation in charges is justified by a difference in costs, the coverage rate of these costs by the passenger charge for each terminal should be equivalent.
Ifølge Frankrig er det derfor forkert, at Kommissionen i sin indledningsafgørelse undersøger de pågældende gradueringer i lyset af det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip.
France adds that this coverage rate can be less than 100 % if the ‘single till’ regulation regards the overall economic equilibrium of the airport as including non-aeronautical revenues.
NEDSÆTTELSE AF AFGIFTEN FOR OPHOLD OM NATTEN
France notes that the Mazars consultancy estimated in its report that, for 2007, the coverage of passenger costs by the income from the passenger charge was […]* % for Terminal mp1 and […]* % for Terminal mp2.
Frankrig gør gældende, at denne rabat blev indført i den almindelige interesse i lighed med rabatten for nye ruter.
France concludes that the passenger charges at Terminal mp2 cannot constitute an economic advantage in favour of an undertaking pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU as they were set in relation to the costs involved in constructing and operating Terminal mp2, that the difference between the passenger charges for using each of the terminals is objective, transparent and justified by the costs allocated to each terminal, and that the differentiation is, in this respect, expressly provided for by Article 10 of Directive 2009/12/EC.
Gradueringen af afgiften for ophold om natten ville gøre det muligt for lufthavnen Marseille Provence at øge antallet af flyvninger først og sidst på dagen og dermed optimere udnyttelsen af infrastrukturerne.
The selectivity of the measure is also not proven in this case, as the charges were applicable without distinction to any airline using Terminal mp2.
Frankrig understreger, at virkningen af denne foranstaltning begrænser sig til […]* % af omsætningen på afgiften for ophold om natten eksklusive virkningerne af gradueringen for oprettelse af nye ruter.
As regards the reduced passenger charges for national flights, France states that the Order of 16 October 2009 thereafter prohibited any differentiation in charges for countries in the Schengen area and notes that, in its decision of 28 January 2009, the Commission considered that it was not necessary to propose additional measures.
Frankrig minder om sit synspunkt om, at det er utilstrækkeligt at vurdere gradueringerne i den almindelige interesse ud fra et rent rentabilitetsperspektiv.
REDUCTIONS IN THE CHARGES FOR CREATING NEW ROUTES
På de tidspunkter af døgnet, som foranstaltningen var rettet mod, var det forretningsfolk, der var de hyppigste rejsende, og det er dem, der genererer flest kommercielle indtægter.
As a preliminary point, France maintains that all state airports and a very large number of decentralised airports in France agree to the modulation of charges for airlines, as assessed by the Commission in recitals 116 to 137 of its opening decision.
En stor andel af de omkostninger, der er forbundet med parkeringsafgiften, var sammensat af afskrivninger og finansieringsomkostninger, hvis økonomiske varighed ikke påvirkes af parkerede flys ophold om natten eller af erhvervsskatten, som er uafhængig af udnyttelsen af standpladsområder.
It adds that these measures are intended to encourage the creation of new air routes.
De ekstra omkostninger som følge af ophold om natten begrænsede sig derfor til udgifter til personale, vedligeholdelse, reparation og diverse forbrugsvarer, dvs. […]* EUR pr. nat pr. fly.
They meet an objective of general interest involving improvement of the area's service and connectivity, regional development and integration in the European market.
Frankrig præciserer, at rentabilitetsberegningerne af denne afgiftsgraduering for ophold om natten bygger på undersøgelser af den finansielle fortjenstmargin pr. flyvning, der præsenteres i forretningsplanen fra september 2005, som blev ajourført i maj 2006, og hvoraf det fremgår, at omsætningen pr. rotation var […]* EUR for mp1 og […]* EUR for mp2.
According to France, the claimed objective of general interest must be taken into account by the Commission in its analysis of the compatibility with European law of the aid granted in this respect.
I terminal mp1 anså man kun de nationale mellemlange flyvninger (Orly-navetten) for at kunne skabe ekstra rotationer.
France also maintains that the modulation of charges is annually approved by the State through an approval procedure applicable to all state aerodromes, which ensures that the measures are non-discriminatory.
I terminal mp2 kunne hvert af lavprisselskabernes fly generere en ekstra daglig rotation, idet lavprisselskaberne ikke drev ruter med en enkelt daglig afgang og en enkelt returflyvning fra deres base.
According to France, the annual approval procedure for charges is therefore sufficient to meet the requirement that the Member State must have an appeal mechanism to remedy any discrimination in the granting of aid, which is one of the compatibility criteria for the aid under investigation.
Der blev af forsigtighedshensyn anvendt en vægt på 50 % for at nedsætte virkningen af disse supplerende marginer pr. rotation i hver terminal.
France points out that the national law (Article R.224-2-2 of the Civil Aviation Code) establishing the possibility of the modulation of charges requires the person responsible for setting charges to define monitoring indicators corresponding to the objective of general interest pursued.
Tabel 4
France maintains that the monitoring indicators chosen ensure each year that the measure is being correctly implemented and identify any needs for adjustment, and are sufficient to meet the aid compatibility criterion involving the existence of a penalty mechanism if a carrier fails to fulfil its undertakings towards the airport.
Simulering af rentabiliteten af gradueringen for ophold om natten
France explains that the assessment of the modulation of charges, since 2005 when this system came into operation, has been regularly included in the dossiers for Cocoéco meetings, which proves that the measures granted have been made public to representatives of airport users, and is sufficient to meet the aid compatibility criterion involving publication of the measures concerned.
Indtægter (1000 EUR)
France underlines that the modulation of charges under review complies with the provisions of Directive 2009/12/EC allowing Member States to modulate airport charges for issues of public and general interest.
Udgifter (1000 EUR)
France therefore concludes that the airport operator is not required to act as a market economy operator when applying such a modulation.
Margin (1000 EUR)
It stresses that other modulations of charges for issues of general interest exist under French law, particularly environmental issues, such as the modulation of the landing charge according to the aircraft category and the time of day in relation to noise pollution.
Nettomargin (1000 EUR)
France disputes that such measures constitute start-up aid and maintains that they aim to internalise certain components of public interest (offsetting of environmental damage, improvement of local connectivity, etc.), which would not otherwise be taken into account in the charges.