natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany supported its argument concerning the compliance with the conditions on the market with the expert report by Ernst & Young.
Et toetada oma väiteid Ryanairi ebaõiglaselt väikeste tasude ning Lübecki ja Hamburgi vahelise konkurentsi kohta, nimetas Air Berlin ka Lübecki lennujaama kuuepäevast sulgemist alates 19. aprillist 2004.
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.
Selle sulgemise ajal tuli Ryanairil oma lennud Lübecki lennujaamast Hamburgi lennujaama üle viia.
Germany argued that the business strategy from 2000 holds up from an ex post perspective.
Hamburgi lennujaama suuremate lennujaamatasude tõttu esitas Ryanair FLG-le lisakulude kohta arve summas […] eurot.
Passenger numbers increased considerably, Ryanair added new destinations and Lübeck airport was able to acquire new airlines such as Wizz Air.
See tõendab Air Berlini väitel, et Ryanair sai tervelt kuue päeva jooksul Hamburgi lennujaama teenindavate lennuettevõtjate ees […] euro suuruse eelise.
Germany further stated that there was no selective advantage for Ryanair, as FLG would have offered the same conditions to any other interested airline.
Tabel 7
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].
Reisijate ja lendude arv (Air Berlini esitatud tabel)
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.
Reisijate (isikute) arv
Furthermore, Germany stated that FLG was not integrated into the structures of the public administration.
Lennukite liikumine
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.
Tabeli 7 kohaselt kasvas reisijate arv tunduvalt 2000. aastal, kui Ryanair lennujaamas tegevust alustas.
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.
Air Berlin väitis, et 97 % reisijatest moodustasid Ryanairi reisijad.
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.
Sellega on siiski vastuolus FLG kahjum, mis tekkis enne (kuni 1999. aastani) ja pärast (alates 2000. aastast) seda, kui Ryanair Lübecki lennujaamas tegevust alustas.
Germany submitted that the Side Letter No 1 complies with market conditions and that it did not give an advantage to Ryanair.
Tabel 8
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.
FLG kahjum (Air Berlini esitatud tabel)
Germany further argued that this has been proven by Ryanair's comparator analysis.
Kahjum (eurodes)
Germany argued that low cost carriers such as Ryanair and Wizz Air have fewer demands with regard to ground handling services and infrastructure services.
Ryanairi makstud tasud Lübecki lennujaamale olid tollal kehtinud tasukorras sisalduvatest tasudest väiksemad.
Firstly, less check-in counters are needed as check-in for Ryanair flights is available online and less luggage is carried.
Lisaks kasutas Ryanair Air Berlini väitel turunduskulusid sõltumatute turundusteenuste osutamiseks.
Secondly, there are no passenger busses.
Air Berlini arvates ei tundu Ryanairi turundusteenustest saadud eelised olevat seotud Ryanairi tegelike turunduskuludega.
Fourthly, as there are no transfer flights, no facilities for transfer are needed.
Air Berlini väitel käitatakse Lübecki lennujaama regionaalpoliitilistel kaalutlustel, mitte aga kasumlikkuse eesmärgil.
Finally, since the flight crew often takes charge of the cleaning inside the airplane, there is less demand for ground cleaning services.
Air Berlini seisukoha järgi on Ryanairi eelistingimuste olemasolu Lübeckis ja lennujaama tingimuslikku erastamist vaevu võimalik üksteisest eraldada.
Germany argued that there was no imputability to the State, using the same arguments as for the 2000 Agreement.
Air Berlin ei pea osaluslepingut Infratiliga tõendiks turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõttest kinnipidamise kohta, sest asjasse on segatud müügioptsioon.
Germany pointed out that the Side Letter No 2 is an extension of the 2000 Agreement, and did not substantially change the 2000 Agreement.
Pigem on Air Berlin seisukohal, et turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev ettevõtja oleks 2005. aastal algatanud lennujaamaga seoses uue hanke.
As the 2000 Agreement complies with the requirements of the market, the Side Letter No 2 would also do so.
Veel märkis Air Berlin, et Ryanairiga sõlmitud kokkulepe on seostatav Saksamaaga.
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 põhikirja kohaselt peab nõukogu lennujaama kasutamisest tekkivad tasud heaks kiitma (põhikirja § 12).
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.
Nõukogu kuuest liikmest neli valib Lübecki linn.
Germany further noted that there was no State aid since the basic elements for such aid were absent.
Ryanairile antud võimaliku riigiabi kohta väitis Infratil, et 2000. aasta kokkulepe oli majanduslikult otstarbekas, lennujaama arengu jaoks suure tähtsusega ja turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõttega täielikult kooskõlas.
Firstly, the charges were not selective.
Samuti on Infratil arvamusel, et 2000. aasta kokkulepe ja selle täitmine ei ole seostatav Lübecki linna ega muude riigiasutustega.
Secondly, the charges were not imputable to the State, which is confirmed by the fact that Infratil and Yasmina, two private investors, were responsible for setting those charges during the time they were operating the airport for a substantial time.
Lübecki linn ega nõukogu ei andnud korraldusi ega juhiseid 2000. aasta kokkuleppe vastuvõtmiseks ja ka ei kontrollinud seda vastuvõtmist.
Thirdly, there was no advantage.
BDF on seisukohal, et tingimused, mille Ryanair FLG-lt sai, ei olnud siseturuga kokkusobivad, sest nendega ei täidetud läbipaistvuse ja mittediskrimineerimise nõudeid ega nähtud ette karistusi juhuks, kui Ryanair ei täida oma lepingulisi kohustusi vastavalt 2000. aasta kokkuleppele.
The private investors Infratil and Yasmina decided not to change the scheme for special services, which is an indication that the de-icing charges were in accordance with the requirements of the market.
BDFi väitel põhjustavad kehtivate tasukordade diskrimineerivad erandid teatud lennuettevõtja kasuks suuri konkurentsimoonutusi ja reisijate subsideeritud ümberjagamist linnastu piires, mis ei ole majanduse kui terviku huvides.
OBSERVATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES
Lisaks märkis BDF, et meetmest tuleb komisjonile teatada, kui ei ole võimalik välistada, et meede sisaldab riigiabi.
In relation to a possible State aid in favour of FLG, the majority of commenting parties agreed with Germany on the matter.
BDF leidis, et teatud tingimustel on õiguslikult võimalik Saksa lennujaam käitaja taotlusel sulgeda.
In particular, Ryanair, FLG, IHK Lübeck and ADV.
FLG väitis, et meede ei ole seostatav Saksamaaga, sest 2010. aasta kokkulepped sõlmis FLG läbirääkimiste teel iseseisvalt.
Disagreeing third parties were SGF, BDF, and two individual persons Peter C. Klanowski and Horst Conrad.
Ryanair väitis, et 2010. aasta kokkulepped ei ole seostatavad riigiga.
These parties argued that FLG received State aid from Hansestadt Lübeck:
Ryanair selgitas seetõttu, et mõlema lisakokkuleppe mõju on kirjeldatud Ryanairi märkustes 2000. aasta kokkuleppe kohta.
Loss transfer agreement: SGF stated that a public service obligation for the operation of the airport is only given for general aviation and does not include commercial aviation.
Ryanair esitas Oxera aruande, [31] kus uuriti lisakokkulepete nr 1 ja nr 2 eeldatavat kasumlikkust 2009. aasta äriplaani alusel, [32] mille Lübecki lennujaam koostas enne lisakokkulepete nr 1 ja nr 2 allkirjastamist.
Contrary to what Germany stated, SGF was of the opinion that airports in Germany can be closed at the request of the operator of the airport.
Aruandest nähtub, et mõlema lisakokkuleppe sõlmimise hetkel lähtuti realistlike eelduste alusel sellest, et need on piisavalt tasuvad.
SGF further stated that both the rent paid by FLG until 2006 and the rent paid afterwards are too low;
Turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtjana tegutsev lennujaam oleks pakkunud sarnaseid tingimusi.
Lease agreement and takeover of loans: According to BDF, the failure of Germany to provide sufficient information to the Commission is an indication for the existence of aid;
RYANAIR JA WIZZ AIR
Potential investment aid to FLG by means of 2005 Regional Airports Decision and its alleged violation: in disagreement with the statements in the opening decision, SGF stated that aid to the airport was granted prematurely, as there was no planning approval decision yet.
Ryanair ja Wizz Air väitsid, et vastavalt Stardust Marine'i kohtuasjas [33] tehtud otsusele ei ole kogu riigiabi, mida Lübecki lennujaam väidetavalt Wizz Airile ja teistele lennuettevõtjatele andis, seostatav Saksa riigiga.
According to SGF, this created a time advantage for Lübeck airport compared to other airports and threatened competition in the market.
Wizz Air väitis, et Lübecki linn oli kõnealusel ajahetkel küll lennujaama ainuomanik, kuid sellest ei piisa riigiga seostatavuse tõendamiseks.
With respect to possible aid for infrastructure measures, SGF and Klanowski are of the opinion that some of the measures (namely the financing of security fences, lighting and the instrument landing system) have to be considered operating aid.
Wizz Air väidab, et Saksamaaga seostatavuse puudumine on veelgi ilmselgem ajal, mil Infratilile kuulus 90 % FLG osadest.
Further, SGF stated that those measures do not fulfil the criteria concerning accounting and financial reporting as defined in the Altmark decision [30] by the Court of Justice.
Ryanair ja Wizz Air väitsid, et need tasud ja võimalikud allahindlused moodustavad tähtsusetu osa lennuettevõtja lennujaamakuludest.
Moreover, SGF is of the opinion that the measures do not follow a clearly defined objective of general interest.
Ryanairi väitel ei ole võimalik hinnata neid tasusid üksteisest eraldi, sest jäätõrje jaemüügiturgu ei ole olemas.
In addition there is no satisfactory medium-term prospect for the use of the infrastructure.
Jäätõrje allahindluse tasakaalustaks suure tõenäosusega ärikasum, mille lennujaam mujal läbirääkimistel kokku lepiks.
Finally, SGF stated that there is no access to the new infrastructure in an equal and non-discriminatory manner even under the new schedule of charges, as only Ryanair is able to fulfil the criteria to benefit from the lowest fees;Financing of infrastructure investments by Hansestadt Lübeck and the Land Schleswig Holstein: SGF further argued that future investments were calculated on the basis of incorrect assumptions and were therefore excessive.
Ryanair tsiteeris Charleroi kohtuotsust, milles kinnitatakse: „Erainvestori kriteeriumi kohaldamisel on oluline käsitelda äritehingut tervikuna“ [34].
Apart from the airport's failure to generate higher passenger numbers, SGF added that the airport could not curb its losses.
Lõpuks väitsid Ryanair ja Wizzair, et Lübecki lennujaama jäätõrjevahendite hinna puhul on tegemist avalike ja eralennuväljade tavahinnaga.
In reference to the North German Air Traffic Concept (‘Norddeutsches Luftverkehrskonzept’), SGF argues that all larger airports in North Germany (including Hamburg) have ample capacities at their disposal.
SAKSAMAA MÄRKUSED HUVITATUD ISIKUTE VASTUSTE KOHTA
It is stated that there are no bottlenecks in relation to available capacities until at least 2030.
MÄRKUSED RYANAIRI VASTUSTE KOHTA
In addition, the investments, in particular the instrument landing system, cannot be regarded as reimbursement for a public service.
Saksamaa väitel näitavad Ryanairi vastused, et FLG tegutses vastavalt turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõttele.
According to SGF, it was in the economic interest of FLG to invest in this system in order to enable the achievement of its middle-term economic goals.
Saksamaa osutas eelkõige Ryanairi lähenemise kasutoovusele, mis tõendab tasuvusanalüüsi ja võrdlusanalüüsi põhjal kokkuleppe kokkusobivust turuga.
Infratil stated that the difference between the put option price paid in accordance with the 2009 Additional Agreement and the put option price that would have been payable in January 2009 had its basis in performances agreed by the parties.
Seejärel esitas Saksamaa märkused SGFi vastuste kohta seoses taristuinvesteeringutega.
Hansestadt Lübeck would have had to cover all but two of the additional amounts in any case after the de-privatisation, leading to the conclusion that the 2009 Additional Agreement was the most economic (‘wirtschaftlich’) decision.
Saksamaa väitis, et planeeringu kehtestamise otsus on vaid haldusakt, mille võib anda tagasiulatuvalt, mis ei ole rahastamise heakskiitmise tingimus ega mõjuta konkurentsi.
Infratil further argued that the additional amounts did not constitute an advantage for Infratil.
Lisaks ei nõustu Saksamaa sellega, et SGF liigitas investeeringud korrashoiumeetmeteks, mitte lennujaama toimimise parandamise meetmeteks.
Firstly, the additional coverage of losses in 2009 would not have had to be paid by Infratil, if it had exercised its put option.
Meetmed olid Saksamaa väitel vajalikud riiklike ja rahvusvaheliste eeskirjade täitmiseks.
Secondly, Hansestadt Lübeck's obligation to pay interest for the shareholder loans for the period from 1 January 2009 to 22 October 2009 cannot be considered an economic advantage, as Infratil could have realised the same or even higher returns from the proceeds of the put option in January 2009.
Asjaolu, et Ryanair kasutab lennujaama kõige rohkem, ei vii Saksamaa arvates järelduseni, et tegemist on soodustustega.
In a hypothetical scenario, Infratil would have utilised the proceeds for the repayment of existing debts in order to save interest.
Lübecki lennujaama keskmise aja väljavaadete kohta tehtud SGFi arvutuste kohta märkis Saksamaa, et esitatud vastused ei ole korrektsed.
Furthermore, no advantage was conferred to Infratil since Lübeck airport was not expected to make profits in the short term, but rather to continue to make losses.
Saksamaa väidab, et investeeringu tegemise hetkel olid olemas tõendatud ja optimistlikud keskmise aja väljavaated, nagu tunnistas ka komisjon 2007. aasta algatamisotsuses.
Infratil argued that the exercise of the put option did not enable Infratil to restore the situation ex quo ante completely, since Infratil had to carry certain losses (difference between approved operating losses and actual operating losses) without compensation.
Lisaks esitas Saksamaa märkused SGFi väite kohta, et FLG oli raskustes ettevõtja.
If the Commission were to find that Hansestadt Lübeck granted aid to Infratil by taking over losses incurred by FLG in 2009, according to Infratil such aid would merely have been a compensation for the losses incurred in the discharge of services of general economic interest.
Saksamaa väitel ei ole need suunised kohaldatavad, sest ennekõike ei kujuta tehtud maksed endast riigiabi.
Hansestadt Lübeck argued that the agreement to take over losses was the least costly and risky alternative.
Makseid ei ole kunagi liigitatud päästmis- või ümberkorraldamisabiks või neid tuleks selleks liigitada teiste suuniste alusel.
This is particularly justified on the basis of the legal obligation for Hansestadt Lübeck to operate the airport according to paragraph 45(1) of the German Air Traffic Authorisation Regulation (Luftverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung, ‘LuftVZO’).
Saksamaa vaidlustab SGFi väite, mille kohaselt olevat Lübecki linn väitnud, et lennujaama sulgemine ei ole võimalik ja et ta ei võta seda võimalust arvesse.
Therefore, a closing of the airport would not have been an option.
Saksamaa väitel kaalus Lübecki linn seda võimalust, kuid otsustas siiski selle vastu, sest arvutustest selgus, et see ei oleks olnud majanduslikult kõige arukam lahendus.
In addition, closing the airport would have consumed too much time and resources.
Lisaks selgitab Saksamaa, et LuftVZO § 45 lõike 1 kohaselt ei ole lennujaama ad hoc sulgemine võimalik.
Additionally, Hansestadt Lübeck reminded the Commission that neither Hansestadt Lübeck nor Infratil had previous experience with the privatisation of an airport.
Lennujaamad tegutsevad üldistes huvides ja peavad täitma käitamiskohustust.
This may lead to certain miscalculations, but certainly not to the conclusion that either party did not act in accordance with market principles.
Lennujaama sulgemiseks oleks seetõttu tulnud sellelt pärast pikalevenivat kohtumenetlust kasutusluba ära võtta.
Furthermore, Hansestadt Lübeck argued that Infratil was the only bidder in the context of the privatisation, therefore minimising the negotiating power of Hansestadt Lübeck.
Saksamaa märgib, et loa äravõtmine on välistatud, kui pädev ametiasutus on seisukohal, et avalik huvi lennujaama tegevuse jätkamise suhtes kaalub selle üles.
SGF submitted that the 2009 Additional Agreement constitutes new aid, leading to an advantage for Infratil.
Lennujaama sulgemise katse oleks olnud seega võimalik, aga kindlasti raske, pikaleveniv ja seega kulukas.
As that the aid exceeds the de minimis threshold, it should have been notified, which Germany failed to do.
See oli nii näiteks Berliini Tempelhofi lennujaama sulgemisel.
According to SGF, Infratil clearly received an advantage from the 2009 Additional Agreement.
Saksamaa oli seetõttu seisukohal, et otsus lennujaama mitte sulgeda ja seda selle asemel laiendada ja investeerida erainvestori leidmise eesmärgil taristusse oli majanduslikust seisukohast arukam lahendus.
Regarding the application of the MEO test, SGF pointed out that the positive impact of an agreement on the region should not be taken into consideration.
Tagantjärele vaadates on see tõeks osutunud, kuna erainvestor leitigi.
In that context, SGF stated that Lübeck airport had no prospects of profitability.
MÄRKUSED AIR BERLINI VASTUSTE KOHTA
SGF added that FLG could only prevent insolvency in the beginning of 2008 because of the concessions made by Infratil.
Saksamaa väitel oleks Air Berlin saanud Ryanairiga samad eelised, kui täidetud oleksid olnud samad kriteeriumid reisijate arvu ja lendude sageduse kohta.
SGF disagreed that the MEO test was fulfilled, since no private investor would have been willing to keep operating with such losses, as the exercise of Infratil's put option shows.
Selle asemel lükkas Air Berlin tagasi kõik pakkumised pidada FLGga läbirääkimisi, sest tal ei olnud kunagi kavatsust Lübecki lennujaama teenindada.
With regard to the closure of the airport, SGF argued that Hamburg is equipped with sufficient capacities to operate without Lübeck as back-up airport.
Seevastu ei vaidlustanud AirBerlin kunagi tingimusi, mille alusel Ryanair Hamburgi lennujaama teenindab.
In addition, according to SGF, the costs for closure were overestimated by FLG.
Lisaks kaebas mitu lennuettevõtjat (sealhulgas komisjonile) selle üle, et Air Berlin on kasu saanud Araabia Ühendemiraatide antud ulatuslikust riigiabist.
Table 5 was deemed more realistic, even though it may still be an overestimation according to SGF:
Air Berlin ei saa seega esitada ennast oma tähtsaima konkurendi Ryanairi ohvrina.
Table 5
Saksamaa ei nõustunud ka Air Berlini märkustega Lübecki lennujaama ja Hamburgi lennujaama vahelise konkurentsi kohta.
Costs for closure of Lübeck airport as submitted by Schutzgemeinschaft
Saksamaa võtab aluseks eelkõige asjaolu, et Hamburgil oli 2000. aastal Ryanairiga kokkuleppe allkirjastamise ajahetkel 70 korda rohkem reisijaid kui Lübecki lennujaamal.
Costs
Teiste lennujaamade kaebuste puudumine näitab, et kahe lennujaama vahel ei olnud konkurentsi.
In thousands EUR
Lisaks osutas Saksamaa sellele, et Hamburgi lennujaam ja Rostocki lennujaam 2008. aastal kasvasid, samal ajal kui Lübecki lennujaama reisijate arv vähenes 10 %.
Current losses for temporary continuation until 2010/2011
Saksamaa väitis, et Air Berlin võttis aluseks ebatäpsed arvutused ja et ainuke asjakohane kontroll turuga kokkusobivuse hindamisel on turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõte.
Social plan
Saksamaa leiab, et kokkulepetes Ryanairiga järgiti turunõudeid, sest lennujaama pikaajalised väljavaated olid 2000. aastal soodsad.
Repayment of subsidies
MÄRKUSED BDFI VASTUSTE KOHTA
Costs of auditor
Saksamaa märkis, et Air Berlin on BDFi liige, mis tingib tihedad sidemed ja sisuliselt sarnased vastused.
Additionally, the alleged duty to operate the airport as a public service is questioned by SGF, since the permit to operate the airport does not lead to a service of general economic interest.
Saksamaa ei jaganud seisukohta, et FLG tekitas ülimalt madalate hindade kaudu kunstlikult suurema nõudluse ja kaldus ühe lennuettevõtja huvides diskrimineerival viisil tasukorrast kõrvale.
Such a permit can be cancelled.
Saksamaa väitel ei olnud FLG-l mingit põhjust nõudluse suurendamiseks erinevaid lennuettevõtjaid diskrimineerida.
Ryanair argued that the difference between the put option prices agreed in 2005 and 2009 and the actual put option price paid by Hansestadt Lübeck could have been caused by a number of factors, such as trends in asset prices.
Pigem oleks suurem lennuettevõtjate arv Lübecki lennujaamas tähendanud elavamat äritegevust.
Economic conditions prevailing in 2005 were far more buoyant than in 2009, and the difference in price may have been a reflection of this.
Saksamaa väidab seetõttu, et igal lennuettevõtjal oleks olnud võimalik sõlmida leping Lübecki lennujaamaga sarnastel tingimustel, kui ta oleks esitanud Ryanairi pakkumusega võrreldava pakkumuse.
Ryanair stated that the contract with FLG was entered into on the basis of economic considerations.
HINDAMINE
Lübeck airport was seen as a viable secondary airport to Hamburg airport and Lübeck itself was regarded as valuable cultural destination.
SISSEJUHATUS
In addition, services were launched at Lübeck airport to secure a low cost base and to analyse the demographics so as to establish whether there was a sufficient hinterland surrounding a new airport.
Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaselt „on igasugune liikmesriigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, siseturuga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust“.
Ryanair explained that its services from Lübeck airport were discontinued because of commercial considerations, including cost increases and a yield lower than anticipated (as a consequence of economic recession).
Meede kujutab endast seega riigiabi ainult juhul, kui täidetud on kõik järgmised tingimused:
Ryanair stated that regional airports in the Union are in a difficult market position.
abisaaja on ettevõtja;
Therefore, airport revenues from both aeronautic and non-aeronautical activities have to be taken into consideration, which is referred to as the ‘single till approach’.
meede annab talle eelise;
Since contracts with Ryanair typically promise a large number of passengers, such business relations often help to raise the airport's recognisability and to attract other airlines as well as retails and other service providers.
meede antakse riigi ressurssidest;
In addition, Ryanair stated that there was strong evidence that the increased number of passengers would lead to a rise in non-aeronautical revenues.
eelis on valikuline;