natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Sellega seoses märkis Saksamaa, et Frankfurt Hahn on ainus Saksamaa lennujaam, kust tehakse otselende Kaunasesse (Leedu), Kerrysse (Iirimaa), Kosile (Kreeka), Montpellier'sse (Prantsusmaa), Nadori (Maroko), Plovdivi (Bulgaaria), Pulasse (Horvaatia), Rhodosele (Kreeka), Santiago de Compostelasse (Hispaania) ja Volosesse (Kreeka).
Therefore, according to Germany, Fraport had 72 votes while the representatives of the Land and local authorities only had 28 votes.
Peale selle aitab Frankfurt Hahni lennujaam Saksamaa sõnul suurendada noorte tööalast liikuvust, võimaldades neil jõuda odavalt Hunsrücki piirkonda ja Rheinland-Pfalzi liidumaale.
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.
Saksamaa täheldas, et samamoodi on nüüd üliõpilastele kõikjalt Euroopast kergesti ligipääsetavad kõrgetasemelised ülikoolid ja kõrgkoolid Koblenzis, Mainzis, Kaiserslauternis, Trieris, Wiesbadenis, Mannheimis, Bonnis jne, kus õppemaksu enamasti ei nõuta.
Furthermore, Germany rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the conferral of an advantage and the MEOT submitted by PwC on this matter.
Lisaks on Saksamaa väitel ühistes huvides ka see, et Hunsrücki piirkond ja seda ümbritsevad Rheinland-Pfalzi liidumaa piirkonnad oleksid ühendatud teiste äärealadega, nagu näiteks Limerick, mis juba väljendub linnadevahelistes partnerlussidemetes.
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.
Saksamaa kui maailma suuruselt neljanda majandusega riik väitis, et ta ei keskendu üksnes ühenduse tagamisele peamiste Euroopa sõlmpunktidega, vaid ka piirkondade omavahelisele ühendamisele.
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.
Saksamaa sõnul on Euroopa jaoks oluline saavutada suurem sõltumatus peamistest sõlmpunktidest, nagu Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol või Frankfurt Main, sest arvukamate otseühenduste kõrval tähendab see ka suuremat turvalisust, eriti kaubaveo puhul, kuivõrd piirkondlikes lennujaamades esineb vähem ilmaoludest, streigist, terrorismist jm tingitud tühistamise riske.
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).
Lõpetuseks rõhutas Saksamaa, et Zweibrückeni lennujaama lähedus ei too kaasa lennujaamade dubleerimist ühes teeninduspiirkonnas, sest Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama ja Zweibrückeni lennujaama vaheline kaugus on 127 kilomeetrit.
It also referred to its statements for the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 176) as regards the selectivity of the measure.
Saksamaa sõnul kulub selle vahemaa läbimiseks autoga 1 tund ja 27 minutit ning rongiga umbes 4 tundi.
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).
Seepärast väitis Saksamaa, et ükski arukas töötaja, veoettevõtja ega turist, kelle lähtepunkt asub Hunsrücki piirkonnas, ei läheks oma lõppsihtkohta jõudmiseks Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama asemel Zweibrückeni lennujaama.
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.
Peale selle märkis Saksamaa, et ajavahemikus 2005–2012 toimunud reisijate- ja kaubaveo vaatlemisel ei ole võimalik tuletada mingit kõnealuse kahe lennujaama vahelist asendamissuhet.
At that moment Fraport held 156 votes while Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Land Hesse held 42 votes each.
Saksamaa sõnul on suurim osa Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama reisijatest pärit Hunsrück-Mosel-Nahe piirkonnast (vt joonis 5).
Therefore, Germany argued that the State could not have a determining influence as it only possessed 84 out of 240 votes.
Joonis 2
Furthermore, Germany took the view that no advantage was conferred on Ryanair through this agreement.
Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama reisijateveo turuosad 2013. aastal [39]
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.
Taristu on vajalik ja eesmärgiga proportsionaalne
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.
Saksamaa sõnul tehti investeeringud vastavalt vajadustele ning rajatud taristu oli lennujaama jaoks vajalik, et tagada ühendusvõimalused, võimaldada piirkonnal areneda ja vähendada Frankfurt Maini lennujaama ülekoormatust.
As far as costs are induced by the handling of Ryanair passengers, these are according to Germany allocated to Ryanair.
Saksamaa märkis, et taristu ei olnud ebaproportsionaalne ega lennujaama kasutajate vajaduste jaoks liiga suur.
Germany also rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the effectiveness of the penalty system which was introduced in the 2005 Ryanair agreement.
Seega leidis Saksamaa, et see kokkusobivustingimus oli täidetud.
Germany stated that this penalty system reflects market conform behaviour.
Taristu pakub piisavaid kasutamise väljavaateid keskmiseks tähtajaks
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.
Saksamaa väitel tellis Fraport enne otsust laiendada lennujaama taristut liikluse prognoosi, et teha kindlaks Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama liikluspotentsiaal.
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.
Saksamaa esitas need prognoosid, mille olid koostanud Fraporti nimel lennunduseksperdid.
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.
Joonisel 3, joonisel 4 ja joonisel 5 on kokku võetud ühe sellise prognoosi tulemused, mis käsitlevad reisijate- ja kaubaveo eeldatavat arengut Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamas aastatel 2000–2011.
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.
Joonis 3
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).
Potentsiaalne reisijatevedu Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamas aastatel 2000–2010 Tellimuslennud
Germany argued that no advantage was conferred upon Ryanair through the 2006 schedule of airport charges.
Reisijad (miljonites)
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.
Baseeruvad lennukid
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.
Potentsiaalne odavlennuliiklus Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamas aastatel 2001–2011 (eeldusel, et Ryanair rajab lennujaama oma baasi) Olemasolevad marsruudid
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.
Stsenaarium 2: Ryanair rajab Frankfurt Hahni oma baasi Allikas: SH&E
Since the threshold for acquiring rebates was very low, namely 100000 passengers per year, these rebates were also supporting smaller airlines.
Reisijad (miljonites)
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).
Joonis 5
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.
Potentsiaalne kaubavedu Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamas aastatel 2001–2010 Lastilennud Ümber suunatud öise liikluskeelu tõttu
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.
(tuhandetes)
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.
Allikas: SH&E
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.
Võrdne ja mittediskrimineeriv juurdepääs taristule
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.
Saksamaa esitatud teabe kohaselt on kõigil taristu võimalikel kasutajatel lennujaamale võrdne ja mittediskrimineeriv juurdepääs.
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.
Saksamaa väitel olid taristu kasutamise eest makstud lennujaamatasud diferentseeritud äriliselt õigustatud alustel ning tasumäärad on läbipaistvalt ja mittediskrimineerivalt kättesaadavad kõikidele võimalikele kasutajatele.
This support is exclusively given for newly offered routes, meaning routes which have not been served at all or within the last 24 months.
Kaubavahetust ei mõjutata määral, mis oleks vastuolus ühiste huvidega
The amount of the support is based on the number of departing passengers served within 1 year.
Esiteks väitis Saksamaa, et Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama ja teiste sama teeninduspiirkonna lennujaamade vahel, nagu Zweibrückeni lennujaam ja Frankfurt Maini lennujaam, ei esine asendusmõju.
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.
Saksamaa sõnul ei ole ei reisijate- ega kaubaveo puhul võimalik tõestada FFHG-le antud abi põhjendamatut negatiivset mõju konkurentsile nende lennujaamadega.
Germany argued that the marketing support cannot be seen as a one-sided performance by the airport.
Saksamaa nentis, et viimastel aastatel on odavlennuettevõtjad pidanud aina sagedamini tegema üha rohkem lende peamistesse sõlmpunktidesse, sest traditsioonilised lennuettevõtjad on alandanud oma hindu ja hakanud sisenema odavlendude turule.
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.
Sellega seoses täheldas Saksamaa, et piirkondlikke lennujaamu, nagu Frankfurt Hahn, survestatakse praegu üha enam konkureerima huvireisijate pärast sõlmlennujaamadega.
Furthermore, Germany explained that the fixing of the amounts of support was based on reasonable considerations.
Seepärast järeldas Saksamaa, et antud rahalisel toetusel ei ole olnud konkurentsile mingit negatiivset mõju, vaid see on vastupidi osutunud asjakohaseks, aidates kohaneda liikumisel stabiilse ärimudeli poole.
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.
Teiseks näitab asjaolu, et Fraport oli enne, kui ta sidus end Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamaga, juba Frankfurt Maini lennujaama käitaja, Saksamaa sõnul seda, et ei olnud oodata mingit Frankfurt Maini lennujaama tegevuse asendamist Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama tegevusega.
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.
Fraport uuris hoopiski võimalust vähendada Frankfurt Maini lennujaama koormust ning kasutada Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama täiendavas rollis, sest Frankfurt Maini puhul võis ette näha läbilaskevõime piiratusest põhjustatud ülekoormatust.
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.
Saksamaa sõnul oli selles arutluskäigus üks põhiargumentidest Frankfurt Maini lennujaamale kehtestatud öine lennukeeld, kuivõrd Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamal oli ööpäevaringne tegevusluba.
COMPATIBILITY OF INVESTMENT AID TO FINANCE AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Saksamaa väitel oli abi vajalik, sest sellega hüvitati üksnes rahastamiskulud, ja väiksem summa oleks kaasa toonud väiksemad investeeringud.
According to Germany, if it would be considered that measures 1 to 6 involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, insofar as they were aimed at financing airport infrastructure at Frankfurt Hahn airport this aid could be deemed compatible on the basis of Article 107(3) of the Treaty and the 2005 Aviation Guidelines.
LENNUJAAMA TEGEVUSE RAHASTAMISEKS ANTUD TEGEVUSABI KOKKUSOBIVUS SISETURUGA
Contribution to a well-defined objective of common interest
2014. aasta lennundussuunistes on sätestatud tingimused, mille alusel lennujaamadele antavat tegevus- ja investeerimisabi võib lugeda siseturuga kokkusobivaks ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c tähenduses.
Concerning the well-defined objective of common interest, Germany submitted that the financing of airport infrastructure at Frankfurt Hahn airport was always aimed at the objective of improving the regional economic structure of the economically underdeveloped and scarcely populated Hunsrück region.
Seoses ühist huvi pakkuva täpselt määratletud eesmärgiga väitis Saksamaa, et FFHG tegevuskulude katmise eesmärk oli alati parandada majanduslikult vähearenenud ja hõredalt asustatud Hunsrücki piirkonna majanduse struktuuri.
In this regard, Germany stated that, firstly, the objective of supporting FFHG was to help overcome the weak structural economy of the Hunsrück region.
Siinkohal kasutas Saksamaa sama arutluskäiku kui lennujaama taristu rahastamiseks antud investeerimisabi kokkusobivuse hindamisel (vt punkt 5.4.1.1).
Germany asserted that Frankfurt Hahn airport is surrounded by a number of areas considered as regions in need of support within the framework of the Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’ [37], a task shared by the federal and local governments.
Vajadus riigi sekkumiseks
In this regard, Germany submitted that the four regions around the airport, namely Landkreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, Birkenfeld, Cochem-Zell and Rhein-Hunsrück-Kreis, are on average only half as densely populated as the rest of Land Rhineland-Palatinate.
Seoses vajadusega riigi sekkumise järele selgitas Saksamaa, miks Frankfurt Hahnil tekib tegevuskahjum, mis vajab katmist.
Germany pointed out that for those districts whose economy is shaped by small and medium sized enterprises, employment is the main anchor against a further decrease of the regional economy and Frankfurt Hahn airport plays an important role as an employer and client.
Saksamaa meelest on sellise 1–3 miljoni reisijaga lennujaama jaoks nagu Frankfurt Hahn kasumisse jõudmine ja suutlikkus katta oma tegevuskulud võrdlemisi vaevanõudev eesmärk.
Secondly, Germany argued that Frankfurt Hahn airport plays an important role in the strategic development of incoming (~ 33 % of passengers corresponding to approximately 1 million passengers in 2005) and outgoing tourism (~ 67 % of passengers) for the Land Rhineland-Palatinate.
Saksamaa sõnul ei olnud tegevuse algusaastatel võimalik seda eesmärki saavutada, sest lennujaam oli koormatud väga suurte taristuinvesteeringutega, mida ta rahastas kapitaliturul ise ja mille puhul ta pidi maksma kõrget intressi.
Germany stated that 88 % of the incoming passengers are staying several nights in the region.
Saksamaa lisas, et alates maailma tabanud majandus- ja finantskriisist on reisijate- ja eelkõige kaubaveo arengus registreeritud paigalseis.
Germany submitted that the Frankfurt Hahn airport's incoming tourists generated approximately 5,7 million overnight stays in 2005 [38].
Saksamaa väitis, et neid asjaolusid arvesse võttes oli vajadus riigi sekkumise järele, et katta tegevuskulud, sest vastasel juhul oleks FFHG muutunud maksujõuetuks.
According to Germany the number of overnight stays further increased, with Land Rhineland-Palatinate welcoming 8,2 million guests in 2011 which generated 21,5 million overnight stays.
Saksamaa sõnul oleks see kaasa toonud ööpäevaringse tegevusloa tühistamise, mis tähendab, et FFHG oleks pidanud peatama maksujõuetuse ajal kõik lennud, mille tulemusel oleks omakorda kaotatud kliendid, näiteks lennu- ja veoettevõtjad.
This has resulted in about 198000 jobs being generated by tourism in Rhineland-Palatinate, according to Germany.
Riigiabi kui poliitikavahendi asjakohasus
The catalysed income and employment effects stem especially from incoming tourism, in which Frankfurt Hahn airport plays a central role as the gateway for tourists into the Hunsrück region, but also into Rhineland-Palatinate more generally, as Germany explained.
Saksamaa väitis, et tegevuskulude katmine oli taotletava eesmärgi saavutamiseks asjakohane meede.
Furthermore, Germany argued that outgoing tourism (67 %) also generates income for Frankfurt Hahn airport through non-aeronautical revenues.
Saksamaa väitis, et Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama käigushoidmiseks oli vältimatu eeltingimus lennujaama tegevuskulude katmine, sest vastasel juhul oleks FFHG muutunud maksujõuetuks.
Thirdly, Germany stated that, taking into account all parts of the airport activities, Frankfurt Hahn airport created 3063 jobs in the region Hunsrück in 2012 out of which 74 % were full-time positions.
Abisumma proportsionaalsus (abi piirdumine minimaalselt vajalikuga)
According to Germany, 90 % of those employees also live in this region.
Saksamaa väitis, et laenude igasugune abielement piirdus tegevuskahjumiga ja oli tõepoolest minimaalne, mis oli vajalik, et hoida Frankfurt Hahni lennujaam käigus ja vältida lennujaama maksujõuetuks muutumist.
Germany argued furthermore that through Frankfurt Hahn airport, a movement of young, qualified employees towards other regions is being prevented as well as an economic and social decline of the regional communities and their infrastructure.
Konkurentsile ja liikmesriikidevahelisele kaubandusele põhjendamatu negatiivse mõju vältimine
Furthermore, Germany pointed out that the presence of Frankfurt Hahn airport does not only produce the mentioned direct effects for the labour market, but also substantial indirect effects through an increasing number of economic and touristic activities.
Saksamaa sõnul ei ole ei reisijate- ega kaubaveo puhul võimalik tõestada FFHG-le antud tegevusabi põhjendamatut negatiivset mõju konkurentsile nende lennujaamadega.
In total, this generated around 11000 jobs through incoming tourism for all of Rhineland-Palatinate.
Saksamaa nentis, et viimastel aastatel on odavlennuettevõtjad pidanud aina sagedamini tegema üha rohkem lende peamistesse sõlmpunktidesse, sest traditsioonilised lennuettevõtjad on alandanud oma hindu ja hakanud sisenema odavlendude turule.
Germany argued that the financing of infrastructure at Frankfurt Hahn airport has also helped reaching the well-defined objective of common interest of combatting air traffic congestion at major EU hubs.
Seepärast järeldas Saksamaa, et tegevuskulude katmisel ei ole olnud konkurentsile mingit negatiivset mõju, vaid see on vastupidi osutunud asjakohaseks, aidates kohaneda liikumisel stabiilse ärimudeli poole.
In this regard, Germany pointed to the fact that in the past the capacity limits of Frankfurt Main airport have constantly been exceeded.
Fraport uuris hoopiski võimalust vähendada Frankfurt Maini lennujaama koormust ning kasutada Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama täiendavas rollis, sest Frankfurt Maini puhul võis ette näha läbilaskevõime piiratusest põhjustatud ülekoormatust.
Germany submitted that Frankfurt Hahn airport, especially in the light of its 24 hours operating licence, was therefore serving the goal to provide additional capacities in order to relieve the congestion at Frankfurt Main airport.
Kokkuvõttes väitis Saksamaa, et ükskõik millise FFHG-le antud abi mõju piirdus positiivse piirkondliku mõjuga Hunsrücki piirkonnale.
Furthermore, Germany submitted that supporting Frankfurt Hahn airport also serves the objective of common interest to increase the mobility of Union citizens.
Põhjendamatu negatiivne mõju teistele lennujaamadele puudus, sest Frankfurt Hahni lennujaama kasutatakse Frankfurt Maini lennujaama ülekoormatuse vähendamiseks.
In this regard, Germany pointed out that Frankfurt Hahn airport is the only German airport offering direct flights to Kaunas (Latvia), Kerry (Ireland), Kos (Greece), Montpellier (France), Nador (Morocco), Plovdiv (Bulgaria), Pula (Croatia), Rhodes (Greece), Santiago de Compostela (Spain) and Volos (Greece).
Lisaks märkis Saksamaa, et kui jätta kõrvale Luxembourgi lennujaam, mis asub Frankfurt Hahni lennujaamast juba 1 tunni ja 30 minutilise autosõidu (111 km) kaugusel, ei ole samas teeninduspiirkonnas ühtki konkureerivat välismaist lennujaama.
Also, according to Germany, Frankfurt Hahn airport contributes to the job mobility of young people, who can reach the region Hunsrück and Rhineland-Palatinate at low prices.
HUVITATUD ISIKUTE MÄRKUSED
Similarly, Germany pointed out that the high-quality universities and institutions of higher education in Koblenz, Mainz, Kaiserslautern, Trier, Wiesbaden, Mannheim, Bonn, etc., where for the most part no tuition fees are demanded, are now easily accessible to students from all over Europe.
Eelkõige kinnitab Ryanair, et talle ei ole antud mingit eelist, sest kõnealused lepingud kajastavad tavapäraseid turutingimusi.