natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To derive estimates of staff costs that are incremental to the Ryanair agreements beyond 2006, statistical analysis was carried out based on data on the airport's aggregate staff costs, in order to determine the proportion of costs that varied with changes in passenger numbers [111].
Täiendavad kulud põhinevad põhjendustes 503–508 täpsustatud keskmistel ühikuhindadel ja liiklusprognoosidel ning need hõlmavad […]eurost ühekordset makset.
The estimate of the additional staff costs was then derived from the regression results combined with the estimated number of Ryanair passengers.
Komisjon märgib, et turundusleping Meridianaga pidi kehtima ühe aasta, ajavahemikus juunist 2010 oktoobrini 2010, ja selles nähti ette võimalus pikendada seda aastateks 2011 ja 2012, kui lennuettevõtja reisijate arv ületab teatavad miinimummäärad.
Other costs: Similarly, regression analysis has been carried out to estimate the incremental costs of goods and materials [112], services [113], security, inventories, as these costs were not mentioned in the business plans.
Itaalia selgituse kohaselt eeldas So.Ge.A.AL lepingute allkirjastamise ajal, et Meridiana saavutab reisijateveo nõutava miinimumtaseme ning et seega pikendab Meridiana turunduslepingut (ja seega ka käitluslepingut) ettevõtjaga So.Ge.A.AL sarnastel tingimustel.
Incremental concession costs [114] have been based on per-unit costs at the airport level, multiplied by the traffic forecasts for Ryanair.
Nagu tabelist 16 nähtub, võttis Itaalia kasumlikkuse analüüsi tegemiseks arvesse ka ajavahemikku 2010–2013.
According to Italy, So.Ge.A.AL did not aim to recover the cost of the new passenger terminal from charges paid by Ryanair.
Tabel 16
In other words, the investment costs connected to the new terminal are not imputable to any of the Ryanair agreements and therefore are not part of the incremental costs.
Meridiana 2010. aasta lepingu puhul eeldatavate rahavoogude NPVd ajavahemikul 2010–2013 (tuhandetes eurodes)
Marketing payments to AMS have been taken into account as costs to the airport.
[150–200]
At the same time, a ‘terminal value’ was added as revenue to the airport to account for the benefits of the marketing service agreements and airport service agreements which in Italy's view last even after the expiry of the marketing service agreement.
NPV [125] (lepingu kestuse ajal)
The ‘terminal value’ is calculated based on the same approach followed by Ryanair and detailed in recitals 443-446.
Germanwingsi liiklusprognoosid põhinevad 2007. aasta lepingus sätestatud lennuoperatsioonide sihtarvul ning need on aluseks ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL eeldustele lisatulude ja lisakulude kohta selle lepingu sõlmimise ajal.
Table 10 presents the NPV [115] of the cash flows which could have been expected from the Ryanair agreements based on the assumptions detailed in recitals 459 to 471.
Täiendavad lennundustulud põhinevad avaldatud lennujaamatasudel ja 2007. aasta lepingul, kombineerituna liiklusprognoosidega.
Table 10
Lisakulud põhinevad põhjendustes keskmistel ühikuhindadel ja liiklusprognoosidel ning need hõlmavad […]eurost ühekordset makset esimesel tegevusaastal ja ka tulemustasusid (analüüsis eeldati, et Germanwings saavutab reisijate sihtarvud).
NPVs of the cash flows expected from the Ryanair agreements — 2014 MEOP report
Tabelis 17 esitatud NPV arvutamisel kasutatud regressioonanalüüsi aluseks olid lepingule eelnevast ajast, täpsemalt aastatest 1998–2006 pärinevad kulude andmed.
NPV over the duration of the agreement (million EUR) [116]
Tabel 17
22 June 2000 — 21 June 2010
Germanwingsi 2007. aasta lepingu puhul eeldatavate rahavoogude NPVd (tuhandetes eurodes)
[4 – 8]
NPV [126] (lepingu kestuse ajal)
1 January 2002 — 31 December 2012
Hinnang
[3 – 6]
Komisjon nõustub, et Itaalia kasutatud meetod reisijate arvu hindamisel ning selle alusel eeldatavate täiendavate lennundus- ja lennundusväliste tulude arvutamisel on usaldusväärne.
1 September 2003 — 1 September 2014 [9 – 12] 2006 ASA (3 April 2006) 1 January 2006 — 31 December 2010
Sama kehtib ka turundusmakseid sisaldavate lisakulude arvutamise kohta.
[6 – 9]
Komisjoni arvates aga peaks regressioonanalüüsi aluseks olema andmed, mis oleksid pidanud ettevõtjale So.Ge.A.AL lepingute sõlmimise ajal kättesaadavad olema ning seega tuleks analüüs teha üksnes kõnealuste lepingute sõlmimisele eelnenud ajavahemiku kohta, praegusel juhul Germanwingsi ja Volare lepingute puhul nimelt aastate 1998–2006 kohta ja Alitalia ning Meridiana lepingute puhul aastate 1998–2009 kohta.
1 January 2010 — 31 December 2013
Vastupidiselt Ryanairi 2000., 2002. ja 2003. aasta lepingule, mille puhul komisjon nõustus, et varasemate kulude andmete alusel ei saa teostada mõtestatud regressiooni ning seetõttu kasutati aastate 1998–2008 kulude andmeid asendusena sellele, mida turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev mõistlik ettevõtja oleks eeldanud nende lepingute sõlmimise ajal (vt põhjendus 491), on Germanwingsi 2007. aasta lepingu ja Meridiana 2010. aasta lepingu kohta saadaval rohkem andmepunkte regressiooni tegemiseks nende varasemate kulude andmete põhjal, mis oleksid pidanud ettevõtjale So.Ge.A.AL kõnealuste lepingute sõlmimise ajal kättesaadavad olema.
[9 – 12]
Lisaks märgib komisjon, et Itaalia kiitis heaks sarnase meetodi ka Ryanairi 2006. aasta lepingute analüüsi puhul, mis on varasemad kui 2007. aastal allkirjastatud Germanwingsi leping.
The Commission takes note that for the purpose of the profitability analysis of the 2006 and 2010 ASAs, Italy considered a duration of 10 years for the 2006 ASA and nine years for the 2010 ASA, rather than the period during which the agreement was set to apply initially, namely five and four years respectively.
Lisaks võtab komisjon teadmiseks, et Itaalia lähenemisviisi puhul ei ole arvesse võetud jääkväärtust pärast ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning Alitalia, Meridiana, Volare ja Germanwingsi vahel sõlmitud lepingute lõppu saadava tulu arvessevõtmiseks.
Italy did however also provide to the Commission the results of the profitability analysis when taking into account the initial duration of the 2006 and 2010 ASAs as strictly defined in those agreements.
See meetod on kooskõlas põhjendustes 445–450 esitatud komisjoni argumentidega.
In defence of its position, Italy argued that at the time of signing each of the agreements with Ryanair, So.Ge.A.AL had reasonable expectations that these would be renewed on similar terms.
Viimaks märgib komisjon, et turunduslepingus Meridianaga (mis kehtis 2010. aasta juunist 2010. aasta oktoobrini) nähti ette võimalus pikendada seda aastateks 2011 ja 2012, kui lennuettevõtja reisijate arv ületab lepingus ettenähtud teatavad miinimummäärad.
In particular, based on the explicit provision in the 2006 ASA that the agreement could be extended for an additional five-year term until 1 January 2016, So.Ge.A.AL expected this agreement to be renewed on similar terms.
Itaalia selgituse kohaselt eeldas So.Ge.A.AL lepingute allkirjastamise ajal, et Meridiana saavutab reisijateveo nõutava miinimumtaseme ning et seega pikendab Meridiana turunduslepingut (ja seega ka käitlemislepingut) ettevõtjaga So.Ge.A.AL sarnastel tingimustel.
Similarly, the 2010 ASA was expected to cover the period between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, with the potential for the ASA to be extended for an additional five-year term until 31 December 2018.
Komisjon ei saa selle väitega nõustuda.
The Commission cannot accept this argument.
Esiteks ei nähtud Meridiana käitluslepingus ette ühtegi selgesõnalist sätet võimaliku uuendamise kohta.
First, neither the 2006 nor the 2010 agreement lays down its automatic prolongation once the agreement has run its full duration.
See säte on olemas üksnes turunduslepingus.
The 2006 ASA rather lays down that So.Ge.A.AL undertakes, upon expiry of the term of the agreements, to renegotiate a suitable airport use service package with Ryanair for an additional five-year term, provided that certain conditions are met, notably the carrier meets its obligations in terms of marketing services in full and So.Ge.A.AL obtains the concession to operate the airport beyond 1 January 2011.
Komisjon arvab, et aprillis 2010, kui käitlusleping allkirjastati, ei saanud So.Ge.A.AL tugineda kummagi lepingu uuendamisele sarnastel tingimustel, kuna uuendamine oli oletuslik.
The Commission considers that based on that provision alone, in 2006 So.Ge.A.AL could not have relied on an extension, not the least on similar terms, such extension being hypothetical and depending in particular on Ryanair's willingness to accept it.
Seega arvab komisjon, et kasumlikkuse analüüsis tuleks võtta arvesse üksnes lepingu esialgset kehtivusaega ehk ühte aastat.
Indeed, the above-mentioned provision does not legally bind Ryanair to the conclusion of a new agreement with the airport manager, nor does it provide any certainty in respect of the observance by either party of the conditions in question, notably in view of the significant uncertainty surrounding the award of the comprehensive concession to the airport operator at that time.
Samal ajal märgib komisjon, et Itaalia lähenemisviis ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL käitluslepingu pikendamisega seotud ootuste põhjendamisel tugines pelgalt turunduslepingu (ja mitte käitluslepingu) pikendamise võimalusele.
The Commission considers that the 2010 ASA provides even less certainty as to its potential extension.
Komisjoni arvates on selle lähenemisviisi puhul keeruline nõustuda Ryanairi ja AMSi uuringu käigus esitatud väitega, et turundus- ja lennujaamateenuste lepingud on kergesti lahutatavad.
Article 2 — ‘Term’ reads: ‘the agreement may be extended for an additional five-year period under the conditions and terms set forth herein, or as amended by the parties, provided that prior written consent can be reached by both parties at least six months prior to the expiry of the initial term. (…) Any subsequent renewal of this agreement shall be negotiated between the Parties, at least six months before the expiry of the additional term.’
Komisjon koostas tagantjärele analüüsi põhjendustes 525–532 toodud kaalutluste põhjal.
It is therefore evident that any extension of the agreement would have been subject to negotiations between the parties and could not therefore have been assumed by So.Ge.A.AL at the time the 2010 ASA was signed.
Tabelis 18 on esitatud NPVd, mis saadi nende lepingute puhul tulemuseks nende sõlmimise ajal ettenähtud kehtivusperioodiks.
Second, the Commission notes that there is evidence in the case file that in 2009 tensions between So.Ge.A.AL and Ryanair put the contractual relation with the carrier at risk.
Tabel 18
At that time Ryanair had conditioned the continuation of its operations at Alghero airport on the conclusion of a supplemental agreement.
Ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning Air One/Alitalia, Meridiana, Volare ja Germanwingsi vaheliste lepingute NPVd
In fact, it is apparent from the minutes of So.Ge.A.AL's Board of Directors of 7 July 2009, 9 September 2009 and 23 February 2010 provided by Italy that the decision of the airport manager to eventually sign the new ASA with Ryanair for a five-year period took into account the fact that the latter agreement did not lay down penalties for the early termination of the agreement.
NPV lepingu kestuse ajal (tuhandetes eurodes)
Ryanair had been forcefully asking for the conclusion of a supplemental agreement, which ‘will certainly result in the increase of the value of co-marketing contributions’.
Kuna eeldatav diskonteeritud tulemus on Meridiana ja Germanwingsi lepingute puhul negatiivne, leiab komisjon, et nende lepingute sõlmimisel ei käitunud So.Ge.A.AL turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtjana.
Should such agreement not be signed immediately, the carrier would cease operation of all routes from Alghero airport [117];a document outlining the evolution of the arrangements with Ryanair and the current state of the relations with the airline, putting forward what in Ryanair's view would be the following steps, which included the cancellation or the reduction of the frequency of intra EU flights and their replacement with national routes was discussed [118];the Board inquired on the negotiating margin, if any, in respect of the contractual relation with Ryanair, ‘given that the shareholders had not given the Board a mandate to terminate the agreement with the carrier’ [119].(480) It also results from the minutes of So.Ge.A.AL's Shareholders Assembly of 26 October 2001 that the company considered the termination of the 2000 ASA before its expiry and that this generated long debates among the shareholders.
Lennujaama käitaja ei saanud eeldada, et suudab katta vähemalt ühestki kõnealusest lepingust tulenevad lisakulud.
On this basis the Commission concludes that at the time the 2006 and 2010 Ryanair ASAs were concluded, So.Ge.A.AL could not have expected that those agreements are prolonged, or at least could not have expected that they are prolonged under the same contractual terms.
Kuna So.Ge.A.AL ei toiminud seega turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtjana, andis tema otsus sõlmida sellistel tingimustel lepingud Germanwingsile ja Meridianale majandusliku eelise.
The Commission also notes that based on the information submitted by Italy, the agreement with another airline subject to the investigation, Germanwings, did not run its full duration and the carrier only operated from the airport in 2007.
Tabelis 19 on kokku võetud lisakulud ja -tulud, mida oleks saanud eeldada Meridiana ja Germanwingsiga lepingute sõlmimise ajal.
Italy has in the course of the investigation clarified that the airline had decided to cease operations from the airport as it could not generate sufficient traffic to break even from a financial perspective.
Tabel 19
The Commission therefore concludes that for the purpose of the profitability analysis of the 2006 and 2010 ASAs, only the period laid down by the ASAs, namely five years for the 2006 ASA and four years for the 2010 ASA should be taken into account (the NPVs in Table 10 were calculated based on the initial duration of the agreements, as set out in the ASAs).
Germanwingsi ja Meridiana lepingute täiendav kasumlikkus
Besides, the Commission notes that the 2006 and the 2010 ASAs and marketing services agreements signed between So.Ge.A.AL, Ryanair and AMS, applied retrospectively, as follows:
Eeldatav reisijate arv
the 2006 ASA and the marketing services agreement were signed on 3 April 2006, but applied retrospectively from 1 January 2006;
Eeldatav täiendav lennundustulu
the 2010 ASA and the marketing services agreement were signed on 20 October 2010, but applied retrospectively from 1 January 2010.
Eeldatav täiendav lennundusväline tulu
In other words, the agreements concluded in April 2006 and October 2010 simply formalised terms which were agreed before, ahead of the period during which these agreements applied retrospectively.
Turundustoetuse kulud
On that basis the Commission considers that considering each agreement over its scheduled duration is in line with an ex ante approach and that therefore in the analysis of the profitability of the 2006 and 2010 agreements, the period for which the agreements applied retrospectively should not be excluded.
Eeldatav nimiväärtus
However, based on the grounds detailed above, the Commission considers that the benefits a prudent MEO would expect from a marketing service agreement would be strictly limited to the term of operation of the carrier at the airport, as set out in the airport service agreement.
Vastupidiselt võis Volare ja Alitalia lepingute puhul eeldada positiivset diskonteeritud tulemust.
On this basis the Commission considers that any ‘terminal value’ aiming to reflect future benefits of the marketing services beyond the term of application of those agreements should be left out from of the analysis.
Seega ei andnud So.Ge.A.AL nende lennuettevõtjatega lepinguid sõlmides neile majanduslikku eelist.
The Commission also notes that Italy has not considered a ‘terminal value’ to account for benefits derived after expiry of the term of the agreements concluded by So.Ge.A.AL with Alitalia, Meridiana, Volare and Germanwings (see recital 528).
Kasumlikkuse analüüsi alusel, mille Itaalia esitas ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning Alitalia ja Volare vahel sõlmitud lepingute kohta, nõustub komisjon, et turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseval ja kasumlikkuse väljavaadetest juhinduval ettevõtjal olnuks mõistlik nende lepingute allkirjastamise ajal nõustuda nende lepingute tingimustega.
Furthermore, the Commission finds that the approach taken by Italy in estimating the passenger numbers, and calculating on that basis the expected incremental aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues (without prejudice to the assessment in the previous recital concerning the ‘terminal value’), is sound.
Seega ei hõlma need lepingud lennuettevõtjatele antud abi.
The Commission in addition considers that So.Ge.A.AL's expectations of Ryanair's load factor, at the time of signing each of the agreements, as reasonable, since they were based on its experience and knowledge of the airline's business model.
Need lepingud hõlmavad asjaomastele lennuettevõtjatele antud majanduslikku eelist.
The Commission notes that, according to Italy, So.Ge.A.AL did not aim to recover the cost of the new passenger terminal from charges paid by Ryanair.
Lepingud bmibaby, Air Italy ja Air Valléega
In this respect, it indeed appears that it was the development of tourism in general which required the expansion of Alghero airport's terminal capacity in order to accommodate anticipated growth in traffic.
Nagu eespool osutatud, esitas Itaalia 10. juuni 2014. aasta kirjaga komisjonile ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning teiste uuritavate lennuettevõtjatega, st bmibaby, Air Italy ja Air Valléega sõlmitud lepingute kasumlikkuse eelanalüüsi.
Prior to the investments being undertaken at Alghero airport, despite significant potential, the development of the tourism sector was impeded by a lack of international connectivity.
Ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning Air Italy, Air Vallée ja bmibaby vahel allkirjastatud asjaomased käitluslepingud on esitatud tabelis 20.
Alghero airport had reached capacity constraints in 2003 and 2004, and, therefore, investments were required to enable the airport to handle more passengers.
Tabel 20
So.Ge.A.AL's business plan from 2004 predicted that total passenger numbers at the airport would increase by approximately 30 % in 2008 compared to levels prior to the expansion of the airport's capacity in 2004.
Käitluslepingud bmibaby, Air Italy ja Air Valléega
While it is clear from the business plans drawn up by So.Ge.A.AL at various times in the period under investigation that the airport manager relied on low-costs airlines as major growth driver (and that the company would return to viability once it was awarded the comprehensive concession), this objective was not linked to the relationship with any specific airline.
Lepingu eeldatav kestus
This strategy required the expansion of the terminal capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic growth, a ‘comprehensive’ concession to ensure efficient and effective operations of the airport and contracts with low cost carriers.
29. mai 2010 – 30. september 2010
The Commission further notes that expected incremental costs have been estimated by Italy following a bottom-up approach.
Täiendavad lennundustulud hõlmavad maandumis-, pagasi käitlemise, reisija-, õhusõiduki käitlemise ning piletimüügi tasudest saadavat tulu.
A regression analysis has been followed to identify how operating costs vary as passenger numbers change, in order to estimate incremental costs which could have expected by So.Ge.A.AL at the time of signing the ASAs with Ryanair.
Kõik tasud, välja arvatud käitlemistasud, põhinesid lennujaama avaldatud tasumäärade kaval.
In the first step, a regression analysis has been carried out to identify the impact of a change in the airport's passenger numbers on the airport's operating costs.
Täiendavaid lennundusväliseid tulusid hinnati kooskõlas põhjenduses 502 kirjeldatud meetodiga.
In the second step, the estimate of the additional operating costs as a result of the Ryanair agreements has been derived from the results of the first step combined with forecasts of the number of Ryanair passengers.
Eeldatavad lisakulud hõlmavad personali- [127] ja käitlemiskulusid ning kaupade, teenuste ja materjalide kulusid ning ka ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL kontsessioonikulude jaotamist.
For the 2006 and 2010 ASAs, the incremental cost data used by Italy in the regression pre-date the conclusion of the agreements which would have been available to So.Ge.A.AL at the date the airport manager entered the agreements in question.
Kuna ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning Air Vallée ja bmibaby vahel allkirjastatud asjaomased lepingud ei puudutanud turundusteenuseid, ei arvestata analüüsis turunduse eest tehtud makseid.
However, since costs data are only available for the period 1998 – 2010, if a similar approach was followed for the 2000, 2002 and 2003 agreements there would be only two, three and four data points available respectively to conduct the regression analysis.
Varasemate andmete alusel, mis pidanuksid ettevõtjale So.Ge.A.AL olema kõnealuste lepingute sõlmimise ajal kättesaadavad, ehk siis Air Italy lepingu puhul aastate 1998–2007 andmete ning Air Vallée ja bmibaby lepingute puhul aastate 1998–2009 andmete alusel tehti regressioonanalüüs reisijate arvu ning lennujaama tasandi kulude kohta.
The Commission agrees that this would be insufficient to obtain robust results.
Tabelis 21 esitatakse kokkuvõtlikult lisatulud, mida So.Ge.A.AL eeldas saada lepingust Air Italyga.
Absent sufficient ex ante data to allow to reconstruct the profitability analysis based on data which would have been available to So.Ge.A.AL at the time the agreements in question were signed, the Commission exceptionally (see recital 284) considers that for these agreements a regression based on outturn data for the whole period 1998-2010 is an acceptable proxy to what the reasonable expectations of a MEO would have been.
Nende lisatulude NPV, mida So.Ge.A.AL võis eeldada lepingust Air Italyga, ulatub 99330 euroni [128].
Based on the assumptions detailed above, the Commission has reconstructed the ex ante profitability analysis of the agreements with Ryanair based on the incremental costs and revenues that could be reasonably expected by a market economy operator acting in lieu of So.Ge.A.AL at the time of the conclusion of each of the agreements under investigation in the present case.
Tabel 21
The table below presents the NPV of the cash flows expected from the Ryanair agreements based on the assumptions detailed above.
NPV [129] (lepingu kestuse ajal)
NPVs of the cash flows expected from the Ryanair agreements
Nende lisatulude NPVd, mida So.Ge.A.AL võis eeldada lepingust Air Vallée ja bmibabyga, ulatuvad vastavalt 3399 euroni ja 25330 euroni [130].
NPV over the duration of the agreement (million EUR) [121]
Itaalia sõnul on hinnangulised NPVd suhteliselt väikesed, sest ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ning Air Vallée ja bmibaby vahel sõlmitud lepingud pidid eeldatavalt hõlmama vaid üheaastast (või lühemat) ajavahemikku.
22 June 2000–21 June 2010
Tabel 22
[4–8]
Air Vallée ja bmibaby lepingute puhul eeldatud rahavoogude NPVd (eurodes)
1 January 2002–31 December 2012
Komisjon märgib, et meetod, mida Itaalia kasutas reisijate arvu hindamisel ning ettevõtja So.Ge.A.AL ja Air Italy, Air Vallée ja bmibaby vahel sõlmitud lepingute eeldatavate lennundusega seotud ja lennundusväliste lisatulude ja lisakulude arvutamisel, on sama meetod, mida ta kasutas ka teiste lennuettevõtjate lepingute puhul.
1 September 2003–1 September 2014
Sellest tulenevalt järeldab komisjon, et kõnealuste lepingute allkirjastamise ajal eeldati nende kasumlikkust ettevõtjale So.Ge.A.AL.
As the expected discounted result is positive for each of the Ryanair agreements, the Commission is satisfied that each of the ASAs with Ryanair was expected to be profitable at the time they were concluded and therefore in concluding the agreements in question So.Ge.A.AL did not grant an economic advantage to Ryanair and therefore do not constitute State aid.
Konkurentsi kahjustamine ja mõju kaubandusele