natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En lukning af lufthavnen ville derfor ikke have været en mulighed.
Security fee (paid by Ryanair to appropriate government body) in EUR
En lukning af lufthavnen ville desuden have været for tids- og ressourcekrævende.
2010 Agreements
Derudover mindede Hansestadt Lübeck Kommissionen om, at hverken Hansestadt Lübeck eller Infratil havde forudgående erfaringer med privatisering af en lufthavn.
On 29 March 2010, Ryanair and Lübeck airport signed Side Letter No 1 to the 2000 Agreement covering the period from 28 March 2010 to 30 October 2010.
Dette kan føre til visse fejlberegninger, men bestemt ikke til en konklusion om, at en af parterne ikke handlede i overensstemmelse med markedsprincipperne.
This side letter prolonged the 2000 Agreement until 30 October 2010 and introduced a new per-passenger incentive payment of EUR […] to be paid by FLG to Ryanair, in addition to the payment for marketing services specified in the 2000 Agreement of EUR […] per passenger (below 18 rotations per week) or EUR […] per passenger (above 18 rotations per week).
Desuden anførte Hansestadt Lübeck, at Infratil i forbindelse med privatiseringen var den eneste budgiver, hvilket reducerede Hansestadt Lübecks forhandlingsstyrke.
Since more than 18 rotations per week were flown by Ryanair, a total of EUR […] per passenger was to be paid by FLG to Ryanair.
SGF anførte, at tillægsaftalen af 2009 udgjorde ny støtte, hvilket gav Infratil en fordel.
As all other conditions from the 2000 Agreement were maintained, passenger service fees per departing payments to be paid to FLG amounted to EUR […], ramp handling charges per turnaround amounted to EUR […], handling charges per passenger were EUR […] and security charges per passenger were EUR […].
Eftersom støtten overskrider grænsen for de minimis-støtte, skulle den have været anmeldt, hvilket Tyskland ikke gjorde.
In October 2010, a Side Letter No 2 was signed, which did not maintain the conditions of the March 2010 Side letter, but returned to the schedule of marketing payments as stated in the original 2000 Agreement.
I den forbindelse fremførte SGF, at der ikke var nogen udsigt til overskud for Lübeck lufthavn.
The October 2010 Side letter extended the terms of the 2000 Agreement for 3 years until 1 November 2013.
SGF tilføjede, at FLG i begyndelsen af 2008 alene kunne undgå insolvens på grund af indrømmelserne fra Infratil.
On the day that Side letter No 1 was entered into, namely on 29 March 2010, FLG also signed a Marketing Services Agreement with Airport Marketing Services Limited (‘AMS’), a fully-owned subsidiary of Ryanair.
SGF var uenig i, at det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip blev overholdt, fordi ingen privat investor havde været villig til at fortsætte driften med underskud af en sådan størrelse, som udøvelsen af Infratils put-option viser.
That marketing services agreement also covered the period from 29 March 2010 to 30 October 2010 and set out the advertising services to be provided by AMS on the website www.ryanair.com, in return for a sum of EUR […] to be paid by FLG.
Med hensyn til lukningen af lufthavnen fremførte SGF, at Hamborg har tilstrækkelig kapacitet til at kunne fungere uden Lübeck som back-up-lufthavn.
CHARGES FOR THE DE-ICING OF AIRCRAFTS AT THE AIRPORT
Ifølge SGF havde FLG desuden overvurderet omkostningerne ved en lukning.
The de-icing charges are laid down in a scheme of special charges, applicable to all airlines using the airport.
Tabel 5 blev anset for mere realistisk, skønt den ifølge SGF eventuelt stadig er en overvurdering.
The scheme of special charges is a document separate from the general schedule of charges applicable at the airport.
Tabel 5
It is updated every few years.
Omkostninger ved lukning af Lübeck lufthavn ifølge oplysninger fra Schutzgemeinschaft
The scheme of special charges distinguishes several categories, namely de-icing for aircrafts up to 10 t maximum take-off weight, de-icing for aircrafts from 10 t maximum take-off weight, de-icing liquid and hot water and lays down a price for each of these categories.
Omkostninger
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
I 1000 EUR
In its 2007 and 2012 Opening decisions, the Commission initiated investigations concerning possible State aid in favour of FLG, Infratil and Ryanair, Wizz Air and other charter airlines serving Globalis Reisen.
Udgifter til kurator
The Commission had doubts concerning the loss transfer agreement of 19 October 1978 (‘loss transfer agreement’), according to which Hansestadt Lübeck covered the operating losses of FLG in the period 1978 to 2004, the lease agreement for land and airport infrastructure and the takeover of outstanding liabilities.
Aktuelt underskud ved midlertidig videreførelse indtil 2010/11
Furthermore, the Commission had doubts on the possible investment aid by means of the 2005 Regional Airports decision and its alleged violation, the compensation of losses since November 2009, the financing of infrastructure investments by Hansestadt Lübeck and the Land Schleswig-Holstein and the subordination of shareholder loans of Hansestadt Lübeck to FLG.
Socialplan
In relation to those measures, the Commission expressed doubts whether, under normal market conditions, a market economy operator would also have provided similar advantages to FLG.
Tilbagebetaling af støtte
When 90 % of the shares in FLG were sold to Infratil, the Commission had doubts regarding the compatibility of the privatisation process with State aid rules.
Udgifter til revisor
In addition, the Commission suspected possible State aid when the terms of the put option were renegotiated in 2008/2009.
Desuden sætter SGF spørgsmålstegn ved den påståede forpligtelse til at drive lufthavnen som en offentlig tjeneste, eftersom tilladelsen til at drive lufthavnen ikke er ensbetydende med en tjeneste af almen økonomisk interesse.
With regard to the 2000 Agreement with Ryanair and the March and October 2010 Side letters, the Commission had doubts whether they conferred a selective advantage to Ryanair and therefore constituted State aid.
En sådan tilladelse kan annulleres.
The Commission had doubts whether the charges for de-icing, charged since November 2009, involved State aid, since there were indications that the prices charged for de-icing were lower than the costs incurred by the airport.
Ryanair fremførte, at forskellen mellem prisen for put-optionen, der blev aftalt i 2005 og 2009, og den faktiske pris for put-optionen, som Hansestadt Lübeck betalte, kunne være begrundet i en række faktorer, såsom udviklingen i aktiekurser.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
De økonomiske vilkår i 2005 var langt mere optimistiske end i 2009, og prisforskellen kan have afspejlet dette forhold.
Germany pointed out that FLG does not exist anymore.
Ryanair fremførte, at aftalen med FLG blev indgået på grundlag af økonomiske overvejelser.
During the course of the privatisation of Lübeck airport, FLG merged into Hansestadt Lübeck.
Lübeck lufthavn blev betragtet som en realistisk sekundær lufthavn til lufthavnen i Hamborg, og selve Lübeck blev anset som en værdifuld kulturel destination.
Thereby, Hansestadt Lübeck became the universal successor of FLG and all claims between FLG and Hansestadt Lübeck disappeared.
Derudover blev tjenesterne i Lübeck lufthavn iværksat for at sikre en lavprisbase og for at analysere de demografiske forhold med henblik på at afgøre, om der var et tilstrækkeligt opland til en ny lufthavn.
Therefore, Germany states that all questions of State aid between Hansestadt Lübeck and FLG became without object.
Selv om Ryanair ikke kunne fremlægge en forretningsplan, der underbygger dets beslutning om at iværksætte ydelser i Lübeck lufthavn, understregede Ryanair, at en sådan forretningsplan ikke normalt er påkrævet for en privat markedsøkonomisk investor.
In addition, Germany commented on the specific measures, stating that all measures were in accordance with State aid rules, since they either constitute existing aid or comply with the MEO principle.
Ryanair redegjorde for, at selskabets ydelser i Lübeck lufthavn blev afbrudt af kommercielle hensyn, herunder stigning i omkostninger og et lavere udbytte end forventet (en konsekvens af den økonomiske krise).
Loss transfer agreement: According to Germany, since the loss transfer agreement was concluded 1978 and ended on 31 December 2004, it cannot be included in the investigations.
Ryanair fremførte, at regionale lufthavne i EU befinder sig i en vanskelig position på markedet.
If it were to be categorised as State aid, it would merely constitute existing aid.
Der skal derfor tages højde for lufthavnsindtægter fra både luftfartsaktiviteter og andre aktiviteter, som omtales som »single till-princippet«.
Germany also argued that the loss transfer agreement constituted a general economic policy measure, which cannot be considered State aid.
Da aftaler med Ryanair normalt giver løfte om et højt passagertal, vil sådanne forretningsrelationer ofte bidrage til, at lufthavnen bliver mere kendt og tiltrækker andre luftfartsselskaber samt butikker og andre tjenesteleverandører.
According to Germany, the loss transfer agreement also passes the MEO test as the relevant measures were intended to attract airlines to the airport and to raise passenger numbers.
Ryanair fremførte desuden, at der var tydelige beviser på, at et højere passagertal ville føre til højere indtægter fra ikke-luftfartsrelaterede aktiviteter.
Lease agreement and takeover of loans: According to Germany, any aid in relation to those measures would be existing aid.
Som dokumentation herfor fremlagde Ryanair følgende tabel:
In addition, Germany stated that the rent was in accordance with market standards, as proven by an independent study by Ernst & Young commissioned by Hansestadt Lübeck prior to the sale of FLG to Infratil and which was provided by Germany to the Commission.
Tabel 6
With respect to the takeover of loans, Germany stated that all debt guarantees were solely provided within the framework of the pre-financing of investments in infrastructure measures, which were in any event financed afterwards through payments under the loss transfer agreement.
Indtægter fra ikke-luftfartsrelaterede aktiviteter som procentdel af de samlede indtægter i udvalgte lufthavne
Investment aid to FLG by means of the 2005 Regional Airports Decision and its alleged violation: Germany stated that all concerned measures were never implemented or fell within the public remit sphere.
Kilde: Resultatindikator for lufthavne i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Compensation for FLG losses since November 2009: Germany stated that the financing of FLG by Hansestadt Lübeck since 2009 was in accordance with Union State aid rules, since FLG did not exercise an economic activity, as its activities concerned services within the public remit or services of general economic interest.
mio. GBP
Financing of infrastructure investments by Hansestadt Lübeck and the Land Schleswig Holstein: Germany argued that the financing of infrastructure investments concern services of public interest or services of public remit and are thereby in accordance with State aid rules, as provided in the 1994 Aviation guidelines [26] (as is the case with regard to the compensation of losses since 2009).Subordination of shareholder loans of Hansestadt Lübeck to FLG: Germany stated that the subordination agreement of Hansestadt Lübeck in favour of FLG was common market practice and did not give FLG any advantage.
2010/11 (%)
Germany argued that the agreed purchase price was in accordance with market standards.
Gennemsnit
Germany further stated that the bidding procedure for the acquisition of 90 % of the shares of FLG was open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional.
Ryanair anførte, at set fra en markedsøkonomisk operatørs synspunkt vil ethvert kommercielt tilbud normalt være en forbedring i forhold til den dengang herskende situation, såfremt marginalfordelene forventes at overstige marginalomkostningerne.
Germany stated that a renegotiation of the agreement, which was due to the decision of OVG Schleswig from 18 July 2005 [27], did not change the outcome of the bidding procedure, which was that the bid of Infratil was the only and highest bid.
For at levere yderligere dokumentation for, at 2000-aftalen var i overensstemmelse med markedskravene, gennemførte Ryanair en sammenligning af lufthavne med en størrelse og situation, der kan sammenlignes med Lübeck lufthavn.
Germany stated that there was no reason for a new call for interest, as the decision of OVG Schleswig changed the value of the airport, but not the actual subject of the bidding procedure.
En sammenligning af de afgifter, som Ryanair betalte i sammenligningslufthavnene, viste, at de omkostninger, som Ryanair betalte i Lübeck lufthavn, generelt var højere end gennemsnittet i sammenligningslufthavnene både pr. passager og pr. turnaround.
These arguments were supported by reference to German public procurement law.
Ryanair opfordrede Kommissionen til i forbindelse med vurderingen af, om 2000-aftalen er i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip, at lægge større vægt på analysen af sammenligningslufthavnene end på dens rentabilitetsanalyse.
Moreover, Germany stated that the expert report by Ernst & Young concluded that the conditions of the privatisation reflected the current market value of FLG and by far exceeded the economic results of a potential liquidation.
I en rapport udarbejdet af Oxera beregnes den aktuelle nettonutidsværdi (»NNV«) af 2000-aftalen.
Germany stated that the agreement between Infratil and Hansestadt Lübeck has to be assessed in the context of the legal and economic situation of Lübeck airport in 2009.
Rapporten konkluderer, at NNV er på […] EUR.
This includes the pending planning approval, the pending court cases involving the airport and the economic and financial crisis.
Oxera gennemførte en række følsomhedskontroller i forbindelse med denne beregning.
Germany contested the allegation that there was an advantage for Infratil, since the price for the put option had already been negotiated in the context of the initial agreement with Infratil in 2005 by way of a public, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure.
Air Berlin fremførte, at de ruter, som Ryanair tilbød fra Lübeck lufthavn, konkurrerer direkte med dem, som Air Berlin tilbyder fra lufthavnen i Hamborg.
Germany argued that the moderate increase in the price in 2009 as compared to the amount agreed in 2005 should be seen as proportionate to the counter-performances by Infratil.
Det gælder navnlig destinationerne London, Milano og Barcelona, fordi begge luftfartsselskaber har disse destinationer i deres portefølje.
Germany stated that the takeover of losses was economically more advantageous than the consequences from Infratil's exercise of its put option.
Air Berlin anførte, at formålet med Ryanairs markedsføringsstrategi var at stjæle potentielle kunder fra bl.a. Air Berlin.
Firstly, Germany stressed that to close the airport was not an option, as the full-time operation of the airport was a public service obligation.
Kunder bevægede sig fra lufthavnen i Hamborg til Lübeck på grund af Ryanairs lave priser.
Secondly, it would not have been possible to find a new private investor within a reasonable time, as a Union wide public procurement procedure would have been necessary.
Air Berlin fremførte desuden, at selskabet finder det vanskeligt at åbne nye destinationer fra lufthavnen i Hamborg, så længe Ryanair tilbyder lignende destinationer fra Lübeck lufthavn til overdrevet lave priser.
Such a procedure consumes time (approximately 12 months) and resources.
Air Berlin henviste derudover til lukningen af Lübeck lufthavn i 6 dage fra den 19. april 2004 som støtte for argumentet om, at Ryanair betalte urimeligt lave afgifter, og at der var konkurrence mellem Lübeck og Hamborg.
According to Germany, there was no economic advantage for Ryanair.
Under lukningen måtte Ryanair flytte sin trafik fra Lübeck lufthavn til lufthavnen i Hamborg.
Germany stated that a private operator comparable to FLG would have accepted the agreement with Ryanair under similar conditions.
Som følge af de højere lufthavnsafgifter i lufthavnen i Hamborg betalte Ryanair ekstraomkostninger på […] EUR, som selskabet fakturerede til FLG.
When concluding the 2000 Agreement, FLG was pursuing the strategy to get profitable in the long term.
Air Berlin understreger derfor, at Ryanair allerede i de 6 dage havde en fordel i forhold til andre luftfartsselskaber, der var aktive i lufthavnen i Hamborg, på […] EUR.
In that context, Germany argued that the business strategy of airports was usually based on aeronautic activities as well as non-aeronautic activities, including the operation of shops, restaurants and parking areas.
Air Berlin understøttede sit argument ved at fremlægge en tabel over passagertal og antal flyvninger før (indtil 1999) og efter (fra 2000), at Ryanair begyndte sine aktiviteter i Lübeck lufthavn:
Therefore, in Germany's view, it is profitable to offer low aviation fees to all airlines in order to raise passenger numbers and to achieve significant growth in the non-aeronautic sector, which can compensate for reduced incomes in the aeronautic sector.
Tabel 7
Germany further stated that there were several advantages in recruiting airlines that provide scheduled services.
Air Berlins tabel over passagerantal og antal flyvninger
In particular, Germany argued that the airport could expect that the respective airlines would not enter into an agreement with competing airports in the future.
Passagertal (personer)
In addition, the airport was expected to attract other airlines.
Bevægelser af fly
Germany supported its argument concerning the compliance with the conditions on the market with the expert report by Ernst & Young.
I henhold til tabel 7 var der en stor stigning i passagertallet i 2000, da Ryanair begyndte at tilbyde flyvninger fra lufthavnen.
In addition, Germany pointed out that the private majority shareholder Infratil also continued to support the strategy set out in recital 112 after the privatisation of the airport.
Air Berlin anførte, at 97 % af disse passagerer kan henføres til Ryanair.
Germany argued that the business strategy from 2000 holds up from an ex post perspective.
Dette sættes i perspektiv af FLG's underskud før (indtil 1999) og efter (fra 2000), at Ryanair indledte sine aktiviteter i Lübeck lufthavn:
Passenger numbers increased considerably, Ryanair added new destinations and Lübeck airport was able to acquire new airlines such as Wizz Air.
Air Berlins tabel over FLG's underskud
Germany further stated that there was no selective advantage for Ryanair, as FLG would have offered the same conditions to any other interested airline.
Underskud (i EUR)
Furthermore, Germany is of the opinion that the alleged advantages in favour of Ryanair cannot be imputed to the State due to the ruling of Stardust Marine [28].
De afgifter, som Ryanair betalte for at anvende Lübeck lufthavn, lå under de afgifter, der var fastsat i afgiftsordningen, som var gældende på daværende tidspunkt.
According to Germany, FLG acted with autonomy and without any exertion of influence by the State, before, during and after the conclusion of the 2000 Agreement.
Air Berlin anførte desuden, at Ryanair leverede markedsføringsydelser, der ikke var afhængige af markedsføringsomkostningerne.
Furthermore, Germany stated that FLG was not integrated into the structures of the public administration.
Ifølge Air Berlin synes de beløb, der blev betalt til Ryanair for markedsføringsydelser, ikke at stå i forhold til de aktuelle markedsføringsudgifter afholdt af Ryanair.
Finally, Germany stated that the supervision of the public authorities over the management of FLG is limited to aviation and public remit matters and does not include business management activities.
Derfor mener Air Berlin, at 2000-aftalen mellem FLG og Ryanair ikke opfyldte markedskravene.
Further, Germany argued that Hansestadt Lübeck and in particular the supervisory board of FLG were not involved in the decision concerning the 2000 Agreement, as confirmed by the minutes of the supervisory board meeting from 11 July 2000 and a written confirmation of the former CEO of FLG.
Ifølge Air Berlin blev Lübeck lufthavn drevet ud fra regionalpolitiske mere end rentabilitetsmæssige overvejelser.
In addition, Germany stated that the 2000 Agreement does not distort or threaten to distort competition and does not affect trade between Member States, as there is no real competitive relationship between Lübeck airport and other airports.
Ifølge Air Berlin er det vanskeligt at vurdere Ryanairs præferencevilkår Lübeck på den ene side og metoden for samt betingelserne for den betingede privatisering af lufthavnen på den anden side særskilt.
Germany submitted that the Side Letter No 1 complies with market conditions and that it did not give an advantage to Ryanair.
Air Berlin mener ikke, at deltagelsesaftalen med Infratil er dokumentation for, at det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip er overholdt, fordi den omfattede en put-option.
Germany argued by reference to the Helaba I [29] case that there is no advantage when other operators of regional airports offer Ryanair similar conditions.
Air Berlin er derimod af den holdning, at en markedsøkonomisk investor ville have offentliggjort et nyt offentligt udbud for lufthavnen i 2005.
Germany further argued that this has been proven by Ryanair's comparator analysis.
Derudover fremførte Air Berlin, at aftalen med Ryanair kunne tilregnes Tyskland.
Germany argued that low cost carriers such as Ryanair and Wizz Air have fewer demands with regard to ground handling services and infrastructure services.
I henhold til FLG's vedtægter skal tilsynsrådet godkende afgifter for anvendelse af lufthavnen (punkt 12 i vedtægterne).
Firstly, less check-in counters are needed as check-in for Ryanair flights is available online and less luggage is carried.
Fire ud af tilsynsrådets seks medlemmer vælges af Hansestadt Lübeck.
Secondly, there are no passenger busses.
Desuden er Infratil af den holdning, at 2000-aftalen og gennemførelsen af den ikke kan tilregnes Hansestadt Lübeck eller andre statslige enheder.
Fourthly, as there are no transfer flights, no facilities for transfer are needed.
Hverken Hansestadt Lübeck eller tilsynsrådet udstedte nogen ordrer eller retningslinjer for vedtagelsen af 2000-aftalen, og de havde ikke nogen kontrol med en sådan vedtagelse.
Finally, since the flight crew often takes charge of the cleaning inside the airplane, there is less demand for ground cleaning services.
Det er BDF's opfattelse, at de vilkår, som FLG tilbød Ryanair, ikke er i overensstemmelse med det indre marked, fordi de ikke opfylder kravene om gennemsigtighed, ikkediskrimination, og fordi de ikke indeholder sanktioner, såfremt Ryanair ikke opfylder sine forpligtelser i henhold til 2000-aftalen.
Germany argued that there was no imputability to the State, using the same arguments as for the 2000 Agreement.
Ifølge BDF førte diskriminerende fritagelser fra den gældende afgiftsordning til fordel for ét bestemt luftfartsselskab til kraftige konkurrenceforvridninger og til støtte til omfordeling af passagerer inden for samme byområde, hvilket ikke giver nogen mening for den samlede økonomi.
Germany pointed out that the Side Letter No 2 is an extension of the 2000 Agreement, and did not substantially change the 2000 Agreement.
Derudover fremførte BDF, at en foranstaltning skal anmeldes til Kommissionen, hvis det ikke kan udelukkes, at foranstaltningen indebærer statsstøtte.
As the 2000 Agreement complies with the requirements of the market, the Side Letter No 2 would also do so.
BDF anførte, at det under visse betingelser juridisk er muligt at lukke en tysk lufthavn ned på anmodning fra operatøren.
Lastly, Germany stated that there is no negative impact on competition or trade, since Lübeck airport is a small regional airport and is not in competition with Hamburg airport.
FLG fremførte, at foranstaltningen ikke kunne tilregnes Tyskland, fordi 2010-aftalerne blev forhandlet selvstændigt af FLG.
Germany stated that the charges for de-icing are not individually negotiated but are based on a scheme for special services, which are applicable to all airlines.