natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This approach is justified by the fact that an airport operator may have an objective interest in concluding a transaction with an airline where it may reasonably expect this transaction to improve its profits (or reduce its losses) compared with a counterfactual situation in which this transaction is not concluded, regardless of any comparison with the conditions offered to airlines by other airport operators, or even with the conditions offered by the same airport operator to other airlines.
Lisämarkkinointikustannuksina se on sisällyttänyt analyysiinsa kesäkautta 2004 koskevan kertaluonteisen korotuksen kaikkien matkustajien osalta (ei vain lisävuoron matkustajien).
On this last point, as the Commission noted in the new Guidelines, ‘price differentiation is a standard business practice, as long as it complies with all relevant competition and sectoral legislation.
Analyysin tulokset esitetään tässä johdanto-osan kappaleessa olevassa taulukossa 8.
Nevertheless, such differentiated pricing policies should be commercially justified to satisfy the MEO test’ (footnotes omitted).
Taulukko 8:
It should also be noted that France and the Operators have stated that Nîmes airport was the first regional airport operated by Veolia Transport.
Rekonstruktio vuoden 2004 kirjeenvaihdon ennakoivasta kustannus-hyötyanalyysista – lopputulos
If this argument were taken into account, it would mean ignoring the incremental profitability approach recommended by the guidelines and accepting that VTAN could have entered into agreements leading to negative incremental profitability, without this conduct implying any economic advantage for Ryanair.
Vuoden 2005 sopimukset
However, that argument must be rejected.
Ryanair sitoutui 10 päivänä lokakuuta 2005 tehdyssä lentoasemapalvelusopimuksessa ja samana päivänä tehdyssä markkinointipalvelusopimuksessa, jäljempänä ”vuoden 2005 sopimukset”, liikennöimään
Firstly, as previously indicated, neither France nor VTAN have provided any analysis showing that the ‘net incremental cost’ caused for Veolia Transport by the agreements signed with Ryanair/AMS, as indicated further on, would have been offset by future benefits resulting for the Veolia Transport group from this initial airport operation experience.
Lontooseen yhden päivittäisen vuoron ja lisäksi kesäkaudella 2005 yhden päivittäisen lisävuoron kuuden kuukauden ajan;
There is also nothing to say that Veolia Transport could not have acquired this initial experience at another airport where the net cost would have been lower.
Liverpooliin neljä vuoroa viikossa,
Moreover, it should be noted that VTAN’s conduct towards Ryanair/AMS must not be assessed in isolation, but in conjunction with the SMAN’s conduct.
maaliskuusta 2006 alkaen kolmatta reittiä, jonka avaamisesta ilmoitettaisiin ennen vuoden 2005 päättymistä ja jota käyttäisi vähintään [0–50000] lähtevää matkustajaa vuodessa;
This is all the more relevant as the ‘net incremental cost’ of the agreements signed with Ryanair and AMS should not actually have been borne by VTAN, but by the SMAN through the flat-rate contribution ensuring financial stability and a reasonable profit for VTAN.
huhtikuun 2006 lopusta alkaen neljättä reittiä, jonka avaamisesta ilmoitettaisiin ennen vuoden 2005 päättymistä ja jota käyttäisi vähintään [0–50000] lähtevää matkustajaa vuodessa.
However, in terms of its profitability, the SMAN did not have any interest in encouraging the signature of agreements allowing the Veolia Transport group to acquire some initial airport operation experience in order to develop its activity in this area.
Näillä sopimuksilla korvattiin 11 päivänä huhtikuuta 2000 tehty sopimus, joka näin ollen purettiin ennenaikaisesti, ja vahvistettiin täysin uudenlaiset sopimusehdot.
Veolia Transport’s interest in developing this activity cannot therefore lead to the conclusion that the SMAN behaved, in conjunction with VTAN, in the way that an MEO motivated by the prospect of profits would have done.
Vuoden 2005 lentoasemapalvelusopimuksen johdanto-osassa todettiin, että suoritettuaan ”varovaisen kokeilun” liikennöimällä päivittäin Lontooseen Ryanair aikoo aloittaa pysyvän toiminnan Nîmesin lentoasemalla ja lisätä sieltä lähteviä lentoja ”edellyttäen, että [KTK:n] esittämät tekniset ja taloudelliset ehdot ovat hyväksyttävissä ja mahdollistavat kannattavien lentoyhteyksien liikennöinnin” (lihavointi lisätty).
It should also be noted that, in their comments on the application of the MEO test to the various agreements in question, certain interested third parties referred to the fact that the conditions offered to Ryanair may or may not have been offered to other airlines likely to want to use Nîmes airport.
Tämä tekstikohta viittaa siihen, että jollei KTK olisi hyväksynyt vuoden 2005 sopimusten ehtoja, Ryanair olisi uhannut lopettaa kaiken toimintansa Nîmesin lentoasemalla sillä perusteella, että Lontoo-reitti ei ollut taloudellisesti kannattava.
This argument is without merit.
Harkitseva markkinataloussijoittaja olisi epäilemättä suhtautunut tähän uhkaukseen vakavasti etenkin, koska huhtikuun 2000 sopimus ei sisältänyt Ryanairin selkeää ja peruuttamatonta sitoutumista Lontoo-reitin liikennöintiin sopimuksen mukaisten 10 vuoden ajan.
For an airport operator motivated by the prospect of profits, objective factors can justify different conditions being offered to different airlines.
KTK:n asemassa oleva harkitseva markkinataloussijoittaja olisi todennäköisesti katsonut, että kyseisten sopimusten tekemättä jättäminen johtaisi siihen, että Ryanair lopettaisi kaiken toimintansa Nîmesin lentoasemalla.
These factors may include the expected volume of traffic, the number and type of routes and associated frequencies, or even the nature of the services requested by the airline.
Vuoden 2005 sopimuksiin liittyvä lisäliikenne koostuu siis odotetusta liikenteestä kaikilla sopimuksissa mainituilla reiteillä ja vuoroilla.
The extent to which the conditions offered to Ryanair by the CCI and VTAN were or could have been offered to other airlines is therefore irrelevant in the context of the MEO test.
Komissio on edellä esitettyjen syiden ja etenkin Ryanairin tarjoamien markkinointipalvelujen vuoksi olettanut kaikkien näiden reittien kuormituskertoimeksi 85 prosenttia.
In the light of all the above, the Commission considers that the approach generally recommended in the new Guidelines for applying the MEO test to relationships between airports and airlines, namely the ex ante incremental profitability analysis, must be applied to the present case.
Koska kolmannen ja neljännen reitin vuorot eivät olleet tiedossa sopimuksia tehtäessä, komissio on määrittänyt ne suhteessa matkustajien vähimmäismäärään, johon Ryanair sitoutui vuoden 2005 sopimuksissa, rekonstruoidessaan olettamia, jotka harkitseva markkinataloustoimija olisi tehnyt.
This approach is justified by the fact that an airport operator may have an objective interest in concluding a transaction with an airline where it may reasonably expect this transaction to improve its profits (or reduce its losses) compared with a counterfactual situation in which this transaction is not concluded, regardless of any comparison with the conditions offered to other airlines or with the conditions offered by other airport operators.
Komissio on edellä esitettyjen periaatteiden mukaisesti sisällyttänyt analyysiinsa tämän lisämatkustajamäärän sekä siihen liittyvät lisätulot ja -kustannukset.
Conclusion on the terms for applying the market economy operator test
Se on sisällyttänyt siihen myös 10 päivänä lokakuuta 2005 tehdyn lentoasemapalvelusopimuksen 8 artiklassa määrättyjen taloudellisten ”kannustimien” kustannukset, eli KTK:n Ryanairille suorittaman maksun, joka oli […] euroa lähtevää matkustajaa kohden ja […] euroa rotaatiolta.
It is clear from all the above that, in order to apply the MEO test to the agreements in question, the Commission must analyse each marketing services agreement together with the corresponding airport services agreement, and must assess whether a hypothetical MEO, motivated by the prospect of profits and operating Nîmes airport, would have signed these agreements.
Taulukko 9:
To this end, it is necessary to determine the incremental profitability of the agreements as it would have been assessed by the MEO at the time of their signature, by estimating, for the entire period of application of the agreements:
Rekonstruktio 10 päivänä lokakuuta 2005 tehtyjen sopimusten ennakoivasta kustannus-hyötyanalyysista – lopputulos
the future incremental traffic expected from the implementation of these agreements, possibly taking into account the effects of the marketing services on the load factors of the routes covered by the agreements,
[200000–250000]
the future incremental revenues expected from the implementation of these agreements, including revenues from airport charges and ground handling services, generated by the routes covered by these agreements, as well as non-aeronautical revenue from the additional traffic generated by the implementation of these agreements,
[250000–300000]
the future incremental costs expected from the implementation of these agreements, including operating costs and any incremental investment costs generated by the routes covered by these agreements, as well as the costs of marketing services.
[300000–350000]
These calculations should provide the future annual flows corresponding to the difference between incremental revenues and costs, to be discounted, if necessary, by a rate reflecting the cost of capital for the airport operator.
[750–800]
A positive net present value indicates in principle that the agreements in question do not confer an economic advantage, whereas a negative net present value reveals the presence of such an advantage.
[800–850]
It should be noted that, in this assessment, the arguments of Ryanair and the Operators that the price of the marketing services purchased by the Operators is equivalent to or less than what may be regarded as a ‘market price’ for such services are without merit.
[850–900]
A hypothetical MEO motivated by the prospect of profits would not be prepared to purchase such services, even at a price at or below ‘market price’, if it were predicted that, despite the positive effect of such services on passenger traffic on the air routes concerned, the incremental costs generated by the agreements would exceed the incremental revenues at present value.
[900–950]
In such a scenario, the ‘market price’ would be higher than the hypothetical MEO was prepared to pay, and the services in question would therefore logically be rejected.
Taloudelliset kannustimet
For the same reasons, the fact that the prices set in the airport services agreement may be equivalent to or higher than the prices invoiced by even slightly comparable airport operators would be irrelevant in this assessment if these prices were not expected to generate sufficient incremental revenues to cover the incremental costs.
Tammikuun 30 päivänä 2006 tehty lisäsopimus
Application of the market economy operator test
Lisäsopimuksesta, jotka tehtiin 30 päivänä tammikuuta 2006, ja Ranskan sitä koskevista selityksistä käy ilmi, että lisäsopimuksella vain pidettiin voimassa vuoden 2005 sopimukset (joiden oli määrä pysyä voimassa vuoden 2009 loppuun) siihen asti, kunnes KTK lopettaa Nîmesin lentoaseman pitämisen.
During the procedure, the Commission invited France to submit incremental cost, revenue and profitability estimates for the various agreements, which may have been produced prior to the signature of these agreements.
Lokakuun 17 päivänä 2006 tehdystä lisäsopimuksesta ja Ranskan sitä koskevista selityksistä käy ilmi, että kyseisellä lisäsopimuksella vähennettiin vuoden 2006 markkinointipalvelujen määrää, koska KTK ei kyennyt toimittamaan markkinointimateriaalia, jota oli tarkoitus käyttää Ryanairin sivustolla, ja koska markkinointipalvelujen toimittaminen keskeytyi lähes puoleksi vuodeksi.
The only information provided by France in response to this invitation appears in a business plan prepared by Veolia Transport in September 2006 (‘the VTAN business plan’), a few months before it became the new airport operator, in order to assess the financial stability of the new public service delegation.
Tilanne johtui siitä, ettei KTK kyennyt toimittamaan tekstejä, jotka oli tarkoitus lisätä Ryanairin internet-sivustolle.
This business plan was not linked to one or more specific agreements, but detailed the projected costs and revenues for the entire airport operation for the whole term of the new public service delegation (2007-2011).
Markkinointipalvelut alkoivat siis myöhässä, ja ne toteutettiin vuoden 2006 jälkipuolella, minkä vuoksi vuoden 2006 markkinointimaksuja alennettiin.
France has also provided the contents of a study conducted for VTAN by an economic adviser (‘the VTAN study’), which aims to estimate, based on the VTAN business plan, the extent to which the additional traffic generated by a new agreement would influence the various cost and revenue items, except for the costs incurred by the marketing services agreements.
Koska myöhästyminen johtui KTK:sta, jolle AMS kuitenkin myönsi alennusta vuoden 2005 sopimukseen perustuvista markkinointimaksuista, KTK toimi tässä tapauksessa harkitsevan markkinataloussijoittajan tavoin.
With regard to the airport operator’s revenues, it is clear from the VTAN study that, due to its very nature, the aeronautical revenue, which stems from airport charges and ground handling services, varies according to the additional traffic, just like the commercial non-aeronautical revenue (associated with the activity of shops, restaurants and car parks situated within the airport zone).
Lokakuun 17 päivänä 2006 tehdyllä lisäsopimuksella ei näin ollen annettu Ryanairille taloudellista etua, eikä se siksi ole valtiontukea.
On the other hand, the property-related non-aeronautical revenue (typically, fixed rents received by the Nîmes airport operator from various businesses present at the airport site) is not influenced by traffic variations and should not therefore be taken into account in an incremental analysis.
Tammikuun 2 päivänä 2007 tehdyt sopimukset
As regards costs, the study indicates that certain items of expenditure, such as office and structural costs, are not influenced by traffic variations, whereas others, such as purchases, are directly linked to traffic.
Lontooseen yksi vuoro päivässä,
In terms of maintenance and repair expenditure, the study states that, with the infrastructure being used by both Ryanair and other airport users (training school, businesses located at the site, civil security), most of the corresponding costs are fixed and do not therefore vary according to the traffic.
Charleroihan neljä vuoroa viikossa,
However, according to the study, a limited part of this expenditure (estimated at 8 % of the total servicing and maintenance expenditure) can be imputed to Ryanair.
East Midlandsiin kolme vuoroa viikossa.
With regard to staff costs, the study takes account of the fact that part of these costs was independent of traffic, as only those costs associated with aircraft and passenger handling staff and part of the costs associated with administrative staff were imputable to the Ryanair traffic.
Komissio on edellä esitettyjen periaatteiden mukaisesti sisällyttänyt analyysiinsa tämän lisämatkustajamäärän sekä siihen liittyvät lisätulot ja -kustannukset ja käyttänyt edellä esitetyistä syistä 85 prosentin kuormituskerrointa.
The study therefore estimates that, over the entire period covered, the staff costs imputable to Ryanair accounted for [40-50] % of the total staff costs.
Se on sisällyttänyt siihen myös 2 päivänä tammikuuta 2007 tehdyn lentoasemapalvelusopimuksen 8 artiklassa määrättyjen taloudellisten ”kannustimien” kustannukset, eli VTAN:n Ryanairille suorittaman maksun, joka perustui lähtevien matkustajien määrään ja nousi asteittain sen mukaan.
The study also considers the taxes paid by the airport operator.
Taulukko 10:
It notes that property tax, which depends only on the extent of the property managed by the airport operator, is independent of traffic, whereas business tax depends in particular on turnover, and therefore on traffic, and payroll tax is directly linked to the staff costs mentioned above.
Rekonstruktio 2 päivänä tammikuuta 2007 tehtyjen sopimusten ennakoivasta kustannus-hyötyanalyysista – lopputulos
Finally, the study considers that [40-50] % of the marketing study costs, funded by the airport operator and covering commercial passenger traffic, development of the airport through new routes or new activities and development of the industrial hub, were imputable to the Ryanair traffic.
[700000–750000]
For each revenue and cost item in the VTAN business plan, the study therefore estimates a percentage to be applied in order to determine the part attributable to the Ryanair traffic, which therefore varies according to the traffic.
Elokuun 1 päivänä 2007 tehty lisäsopimus
Finally, the study uses the traffic forecasts contained in the VTAN business plan to determine, item by item, the projected incremental costs and revenues per passenger for the entire period.
Tammikuun 2 päivänä 2007 tehtyyn markkinointipalvelusopimukseen 1 päivänä elokuuta 2007 tehdyssä lisäsopimuksessa, jäljempänä ”1 päivänä elokuuta 2007 tehty lisäsopimus”, määrättiin, että VTAN maksaa AMS:lle […] euron suuruisen lisämarkkinointimaksun 1 päivän syyskuuta 2007 ja 28 päivän helmikuuta 2008 väliseltä ajalta.
The Commission takes the view that the VTAN business plan and the VTAN study provide reliable information that can be taken into account when applying the MEO test.
Ranskan mukaan ”lisäsopimuksen ehtona oli, että Ryanair jatkaa lentoja Charleroihan talvikaudella 2007–2008.
The facts on record actually show that the VTAN business plan was the result of a very thorough analysis, which is all the more reliable because this business plan served as the basis for determining the flat-rate contribution ensuring the financial stability of the airport’s operation.
VTAN:lle oli erityisen tärkeää säilyttää tämä lentoyhteys, koska i) Ryanair oli sen tärkein lentoyhtiö/asiakas ja ii) Nîmesin lentoasemaa koskeva toimilupa oli ensimmäinen Veolia-konsernille myönnetty toimilupa.
Moreover, this business plan is not likely to have been biased by the present procedure, given that the Commission initiated its action on the basis of a complaint that was only received in January 2010.
Ryanair ’pakotti’ VTAN:n hyväksymään […] euron lisämaksun, koska VTAN ei markkinoiden uutena tulokkaana ollut riittävän vahva neuvottelemaan sen alentamisesta.”
The examination of this business plan and associated documents has not revealed any rash or unrealistic assumptions among those used by Veolia Transport to produce this plan.
Lisäliikenne, joka liittyy 1 päivänä elokuuta 2007 tehtyyn lisäsopimukseen, koostuu siis liikenteestä kyseisenä ajanjaksona liikennöidyillä neljällä viikoittaisella vuorolla, jotka olisi menetetty ilman kyseistä lisäsopimusta.
The VTAN study is also based on reasonable assumptions.
Taulukko 11:
It has therefore been taken into account by the Commission in its analysis, as will be indicated below.
Rekonstruktio 1 päivänä elokuuta 2007 tehdyn lisäsopimuksen ennakoivasta kustannus-hyötyanalyysista – lopputulos
Aside from the VTAN business plan, the only economic assessment provided by France is a study of the economic impact of Nîmes airport, carried out in 2006.
Talvikausi 2007–2008
This study focuses on the economic impact of the airport’s activity, and particularly the routes operated by Ryanair from this airport, on the region’s economy.
[100–150]
It is not therefore relevant for the purpose of applying the MEO test, in relation to which only the airport’s profitability is important.
Marraskuun 1 päivänä 2007 tehdyt sopimukset
According to Ryanair, the lack of a business plan when agreements such as those covered by the formal investigation procedure are signed cannot be used as evidence that the MEO test is not satisfied.
Lontooseen kesäkaudella yksi päivittäinen vuoro ja talvikaudella neljä vuoroa viikossa,
The Commission considers that the lack of a business plan, or more generally any profitability analysis carried out prior to the signature of an agreement, is a serious indication that the agreements signed by the CCI with Ryanair and AMS do not satisfy the MEO test, particularly as neither France nor the CCI has been able to provide, in respect of these agreements, any profitability analysis, even incomplete, that was carried out before the agreements were signed.
Charleroihan neljä vuoroa viikossa ympäri vuoden,East Midlandsiin kesäkaudella kaksi vuoroa viikossa.
This observation is also largely valid for VTAN, which, although it produced a solid and detailed business plan for the entire airport operation, did not subsequently carry out, according to the facts on record, any specific profitability analysis of the various agreements signed with Ryanair and AMS prior to their signature, even though it could have used the aforementioned business plan for this purpose.
Se on sisällyttänyt siihen myös 1 päivänä marraskuuta 2007 tehdyn lentoasemapalvelusopimuksen 8 artiklassa määrättyjen taloudellisten ”kannustimien” kustannukset, eli VTAN:n Ryanairille suorittaman maksun, joka perustui lähtevien matkustajien määrään ja nousi asteittain sen mukaan.
According to France, ‘the operator in place initially made its decisions based on traffic growth prospects that allowed the launch of new services to be envisaged, not to mention a direct economic impact potentially resulting for the airport, in the light of the expected economic impact on the region’.
Taulukko 12:
This further suggests that the agreements with Ryanair and AMS do not satisfy the MEO test.
Rekonstruktio 1 päivänä marraskuuta 2007 tehtyjen sopimusten ennakoivasta kustannus-hyötyanalyysista – lopputulos
This is also clearly indicated by the fact that, just before becoming the airport operator, Veolia Transport took the view that the Ryanair traffic was likely to erode the airport’s profitability.
Talvi 2007–2008
As stated previously, the documents that Veolia Transport submitted in the invitation to tender procedure thus indicate that: ‘Moreover, in the long term, the replacement of Ryanair’s activity (company benefiting from particularly favourable conditions at the airport) could have been positively offset by the arrival of companies likely to accept less economically burdensome conditions for the airport operator …’; ‘The transfer of the risk, above […] %, by the Delegating Authority was justified by the strategic nature for the Gard economy of the tourist traffic brought by Ryanair; in fact, as we explained in our tender, the arrival of this company (under particularly advantageous conditions) had negative economic implications for the airport’s operation, but quite clearly positive implications for the local economy’; ‘Ryanair typically chooses small or medium-sized airports, particularly in France, with which the company negotiates extremely advantageous material and/or financial conditions’; ‘All in all, adding together the main agreement and the Airport Marketing Services agreement, the operations with Ryanair resulted in a negative turnover (between EUR […] thousand and EUR […] thousand according to the bid and traffic configurations, i.e. an average cost to the airport per outbound passenger of around EUR […] to EUR […] excluding tax per head)’.
Kesä 2008
As explained further on, these various indications are confirmed by the Commission’s assessment of the profitability analysis that a hypothetical MEO would have carried out.
[250–300]
In response to this invitation, France provided a reconstruction of the projected incremental costs and revenues associated with each agreement signed with Ryanair and AMS.
[800000–850000]
With regard to the CCI operating period, this analysis is mainly based on ex post data, i.e. data observed after the agreements were signed.
Edellisessä johdanto-osan kappaleessa olevasta taulukosta 12 käy ilmi, että markkinataloustoimijan lisätuotto-odotukset olisivat olleet negatiiviset.