natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It suggests that the ‘cash flow’ approach would be better.
Kuten liikenne-ennusteiden kohdalla, ennakoidut markkinointimaksut eivät välttämättä vastaa todellisuudessa maksettuja määriä, sillä alun perin sovituista määristä on voitu poiketa sopimusten tekemisen jälkeisten tapahtumien vuoksi.
In particular, the study states:
Näin kävi esimerkiksi silloin, kun sopimus purettiin ennenaikaisesti.
‘The capitalisation approach should only take into account the proportion of marketing expenditure that is attributable to the intangible asset base of an airport.
Näitä tapahtumia ei kuitenkaan pidä ottaa huomioon markkinataloustoimijatestiä sovellettaessa, koska ne ajoittuvat sopimusten tekemisen jälkeiseen aikaan.
However, it may be difficult to identify the proportion of marketing expenditure that is targeted towards generating expected future revenues for the airport (i.e., an investment in the intangible asset base of the airport) as opposed to generating current revenues for the airport’.
Lisäinvestointikustannuksista on todettava, että Ranskan mukaan Paun lentoasemalla ei tarvinnut tehdä lainkaan investointeja nyt tarkasteltavien sopimusten vuoksi.
It also stresses that ‘In order to implement the capitalisation-based approach, it is necessary to estimate the average length of time that an airport would be able to retain a customer due to the AMS marketing campaign.
Koska asiakirja-aineistossa mikään ei viittaa siihen, että markkinataloustoimija olisi olettanut joutuvansa toteuttamaan tiettyjä investointeja muodollisen tarkastelumenettelyn kohteena olevien yhden tai useamman sopimuksen vuoksi, tässä analyysissa ei ole otettu huomioon lisäinvestointikustannuksia.
In practice, it would be very difficult to estimate the average period of customer retention following an AMS campaign due to insufficient data’.
Sopimusten tekohetkillä ennakoitavissa olleet lisätoimintakustannukset ovat vaikeimmin käsiteltävä luokka, koska sopimuksia vastaavia liiketoimintasuunnitelmia ei ollut laadittu.
The study of 31 January 2014 proposes a practical application of the ‘cash flow’ approach.
Toimintakustannuksiin ei voida soveltaa lentoliikenteeseen liittymättömiin tuloihin sovellettua lähestymistapaa, jossa lentoliikenteeseen liittymättömät matkustajakohtaiset lisätulot päätellään lentoaseman lentoliikenteeseen liittymättömien kokonaistulojen perusteella.
In this approach, the benefits of the marketing services agreements and airport services agreements that last even after the marketing services agreement has expired are expressed as a ‘terminal value’ calculated on the agreement’s expiry date.
Jos näin tehtäisiin, lentoaseman yhteenlasketut matkustajakohtaiset toimintakustannukset katsottaisiin lisäkustannuksiksi.
This terminal value is calculated based on the incremental profits expected from the airport service and marketing services agreements in the final year of application of the airport services agreement.
Huomattava osa lentoaseman kustannuksista on kuitenkin kiinteitä, mikä tarkoittaa, että yhteenlasketut matkustajakohtaiset toimintakustannukset ovat useimmissa tapauksissa todennäköisesti selvästi korkeammat kuin lisäkustannukset, joita liittyy lisäliikennettä synnyttävän uuden sopimuksen tekemiseen.
This method involves taking the incremental profit expected in the final year of application of the airport services agreement and projecting it into the future for the same period as the term of the airport services agreement, but adjusted by the growth rate of the air transport market in Europe and a probability factor deemed to reflect the capacity of the airport services agreement and marketing services agreement to contribute to the airport’s profits beyond their expiry.
Lisätoimintakustannusten arvioimiseksi komission on turvauduttava lentoaseman pitäjän omaan arvioon sisältyviin tietoihin, koska se ei kykene itse arvioimaan, miten tietty sopimus voi vaikuttaa lentoaseman eri kustannuseriin.
According to the study of 31 January 2014, this capacity to produce lasting benefits depends on various factors ‘… including greater prominence and a stronger brand, alongside network externalities and repeat passengers’, although no details are given about these factors.
Komissio huomauttaa, että CCIPB laati kyseisen laskelman ennen kuin se teki suurimman osan muodollisen tarkastelumenettelyn kohteena olevista sopimuksista Ryanairin ja AMS:n kanssa.
Moreover, this method takes into account a discount rate that reflects capital costs.
Se oli siis käytettävissä näiden sopimusten tekohetkellä.
The study suggests a probability factor of […] %, which it considers prudent.
Ainoat poikkeukset ovat Ryanairin ja AMS:n kanssa vuosina 2003 ja 2005 tehdyt sopimukset, joita käsitellään johdanto-osan 425 ja 426 kappaleessa.
Lastly, it does not in any way base itself on the specific content of the marketing services set out in the various agreements with AMS when analysing to what extent these services may influence the factors mentioned above.
Joulukuussa 2005 laadittu laskelma on siis riittävän lähellä arviota, jonka markkinataloustoimija olisi tehnyt kesäkuussa 2005 harkitessaan Ryanairin ja AMS:n kanssa tehtävien sopimusten tarkoituksenmukaisuutta.
Moreover, it does not prove that there is any likelihood that, on the expiry of an airport services agreement and marketing services agreement, the profits generated by these agreements for the airport operator in the final year of their application will continue in the future.
Vuoden 2003 sopimus puolestaan tehtiin lähes kolme vuotta ennen Transaviaa koskevan liiketoimintasuunnitelman laatimista.
Likewise, it provides no evidence that the growth rate of the air transport market in Europe is a useful indicator for measuring the impact of an airport services agreement and a marketing services agreement for a given airport.
Lentoaseman liikennerakenteessa tai toiminnassa ei kuitenkaan tapahtunut merkittäviä muutoksia näiden kolmen vuoden aikana.
A ‘terminal value’ calculated using the method suggested by Ryanair would therefore be highly unlikely to be taken into account by a prudent MEO when assessing the value of entering into an agreement.
Komissio katsoo näin ollen paremman vaihtoehdon puuttuessa, että keskimääräiset matkustajakohtaiset […] euron lisätoimintakustannukset indeksoituina kahdella prosentilla suhteessa vuoteen 2009 on asianmukainen määrä, jota voidaan käyttää myös analysoitaessa vuoden 2003 sopimusta.
The study of 31 January 2014 therefore shows that the ‘cash flow’ approach would lead only to very imprecise and unreliable results, as would the ‘capitalisation’ method.
Komissio toteaa, että Ranskan esittämät lisätoimintakustannukset ([…] euroa matkustajaa kohden), jotka perustuvat vuosina 2003–2011 todettuihin keskimääräisiin matkustajakohtaisiin toimintakustannuksiin, ovat selvästi korkeammat kuin komission käyttämät matkustajakohtaiset lisäkustannukset, joita komissio pitää asianmukaisempina edellä esitetyistä syistä.
Moreover, as stated above, the marketing services considered by the formal investigation procedure clearly target people likely to use the routes covered by the marketing services agreements.
Koska komissio on määrittänyt kunkin sopimuksen osalta kaikki lisätulot ja lisäkustannukset, jotka markkinataloustoimija olisi ennakoinut, se voi päätellä lisätuotot (tulot miinus kustannukset), joita kultakin sopimukselta olisi voitu odottaa kunakin vuonna koko niiden keston ajan.
If these routes are not renewed on the expiry of the airport services agreement, it is unlikely that the marketing services will continue to have a positive effect on passenger traffic at the airport after the expiry date.
Tulokset esitetään jäljempänä taulukoissa 6–11.
It is very difficult for an airport operator to assess the likelihood of an airline continuing to operate a route on the expiry of the term to which it has committed itself in the airport services agreement.
Komissio huomauttaa jäljempänä olevista taulukoista ilmenevän, että kaikkien sopimusten ja Pau–Lontoo-reittiä koskevaan vuoden 2005 sopimukseen liittyvän, 16 päivänä kesäkuuta 2009 tehdyn lisäsopimuksen kaikki vuotuiset lisätuotto-odotukset ovat negatiiviset siitä huolimatta, että etenkin lisäliikennemääriä ja lisäkustannuksia koskevat komission oletukset olivat Ryanairille edullisia.
Low-fare airlines in particular have proven to be very dynamic in terms of launching and withdrawing routes.
Komissio toteaa lisäksi, että päätelmä pätisi vuosien 2007, 2008, 2009 ja 2010 sopimuksiin, vaikka lisätoimintakustannuksia ei otettaisi lainkaan huomioon ja lisäkustannuksiksi oletettaisiin vain markkinointipalvelujen hankinnasta koituvat kustannukset.
Therefore, when entering into a transaction such as those being examined in this formal investigation procedure, a prudent MEO could not rely on an airline being willing to extend the operation of the route in question on the expiry of the agreement.
Näin ollen on selvää, että CCIPB:n Ryanairin ja AMS:n kanssa tekemät sopimukset ja Lontoon reittiä koskevaan vuoden 2005 sopimukseen liittyvä, 16 päivänä kesäkuuta 2009 tehty lisäsopimus, jotka ovat tämän tarkastelun kohteena, tuottavat taloudellista etua Ryanairille ja/tai AMS:lle.
Furthermore, it should be noted that a terminal value calculated using the method proposed by Ryanair in the study of 31 January 2014 will be positive (and therefore will have a positive effect on the projected return on the airport services agreement and marketing services agreement) only where the incremental profit expected from these agreements in the final year of application of the airport services agreement is positive.
Koska tämä etu johtuu Ryanairin tai AMS:n kanssa tehdyn sopimuksen nimenomaisista määräyksistä, se on valikoiva.
This method involves taking the incremental profit expected in the final year of application of the airport services agreement and projecting it into the future by applying two factors.
Pau–Charleroi-yhteyttä koskevaan vuoden 2007 sopimukseen liittyvä, 16 päivänä kesäkuuta 2009 tehty lisäsopimus, jossa markkinointipalvelujen hinta korotetaan palveluja muuttamatta […] eurosta […] euroon vuodessa 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2009 alkaen, tuottaa myös valikoivan edun Ryanairille ja AMS:lle, koska CCIPB ei saanut mitään vastineeksi […] euron vuosittaisesta lisämaksusta eikä etenkään voinut odottaa liikenteen lisääntyvän.
The first factor is the overall growth in the European air transport market and reflects the expected growth in traffic.
Taulukko 6
The second factor is a rate of […] % that basically represents the likelihood of agreements that are now expiring encouraging the signature of similar agreements in the future, resulting in similar financial flows.
Matkustajat (”(k)” = kausiluonteinen)
The study of 31 January 2014 very briefly considers this scenario, by simply indicating in a footnote, without any comments or explanations, that ‘… no terminal value can be calculated if incremental profits net of AMS payments are negative in the last year of the period under consideration’.
Lentoja viikossa
However, as will be proven further on, all the agreements in this case involve projected incremental flows that have a negative net present value each year, and not just overall.
Lentoja vuodessa
As a result, for these agreements, a ‘terminal value’ calculated using the method proposed by Ryanair would be zero, if not negative.
Sopimuksen/sopimusten allekirjoituspäivä
Taking this terminal value into account would not therefore call into question the conclusion that the various agreements involve an economic advantage.
Tosiasiallinen aloittamispäivä
In conclusion, it is clear from the above that the only tangible benefit that a prudent MEO would expect from a marketing services agreement, and that it would take into account and quantify when assessing the value of entering into such an agreement, together with an airport services agreement, would be that the marketing services would have a possible positive effect on the number of passengers using the routes covered by the agreements in question for the operating period of those routes, as set out in the agreements.
Alkuperäinen päättymispäivä
Any other benefits would be deemed too uncertain to be taken into account and quantified, and there is nothing to suggest that they were taken into account by the CCIPB.
Lontoo 2003
Relevance of comparing the terms of the airport services agreements covered by the formal investigation procedure with the airport charges invoiced at other airports
Lontoo 2005
According to the new Guidelines, when applying the MEO test, aid to an airline using an airport can, in principle, be excluded where:
Bristol 2008 (k)
the price charged for the airport services corresponds to the market price;
Bristol 2009 (k)
it can be demonstrated through an ex ante analysis, i.e. based on available information and foreseeable developments at the time when the measure was granted, that the airport/airline arrangement will lead to a positive incremental profit contribution for the airport.
Lontoon-sopimuksen (2005) lisäsopimus (2009)
Furthermore, according to the new Guidelines, ‘When assessing airport/airline arrangements, the Commission will also take into account the extent to which the arrangements under assessment can be considered part of the implementation of an overall strategy of the airport expected to lead to profitability at least in the long term’.
Lontoo, Charleroi (k) ja Beauvais (k) 2010
However, with regard to the first approach (comparison with a ‘market price’), the Commission has strong doubts that, at the present time, an appropriate benchmark can be identified to establish a true market price for the services provided by airports.
Taulukko 7
The Commission considers ex ante incremental profitability analysis to be the most relevant criterion for the assessment of arrangements concluded by airports with individual airlines.
Pau–Lontoo-lentoyhteyttä koskeva vuoden 2003 sopimus
It should be noted in this regard that, in general, the application of the MEO test based on an average price observed in other similar markets may prove helpful where a market price can be reasonably identified or deduced from other market indicators.
(euroa)
However, this method may not be as relevant in the case of airport services.
Saapuvien ja lähtevien matkustajien kokonaismäärä
The revenue and cost structure tends to differ significantly from airport to airport.
Rotaatioita vuodessa
These costs and revenues depend on the airport’s state of development, number of airlines operating from/to the airport, available capacity in terms of passenger traffic, state of the infrastructure, the regulatory burden, which may vary from Member State to Member State, and historical debts and obligations of the airport.
Laskeutumismaksu
Moreover, the liberalisation of the air transport market complicates any purely comparative analysis.
Matkustajamaksu
As the present case amply demonstrates, commercial arrangements between airports and airlines are not necessarily based on a list of public prices for individual services.
Maahuolintatuotot
These commercial relationships vary widely.
[0–99 999]
They include the sharing of risks in terms of traffic and of correlative commercial and financial responsibilities, the generalised use of incentive mechanisms (for example, in the form of discounts connected with the number of links or passengers carried), and variations in the distribution of risk over the term of contracts.
Lentoliikenteeseen liittyvät tulot yhteensä
As a result, it is difficult to compare transactions based on a price per rotation or per passenger.
[100 000–299 999]
In its study of 9 April 2013, Ryanair essentially argues that the MEO test can be applied based on a comparison with the commercial arrangements of other European airports.
[300 000–599 999]
It should firstly be noted that, during the procedure, neither France nor any interested third party has suggested to the Commission a sample of comparison airports that may be used in this case and that are sufficiently comparable to Pau airport in terms of traffic volume, type of traffic, type and level of airport services provided, proximity of the airport to a large city, number of inhabitants in the catchment area, prosperity of the surrounding area, and different geographical areas from which passengers could be attracted.
Lentoliikenteeseen liittymättömät tulot
Even if such a sample of airports had been available, a comparative method would have been totally unworkable in this case.
Tulot yhteensä
As proven above, the transactions to be analysed are complex packages consisting of an airport services agreement and a marketing services agreement (sometimes combined within the same legal medium).
Toimintakustannukset (henkilöstö, erilaiset hankinnat jne.)
These transactions involve several ‘prices’, namely the various airport charges, price of the groundhandling services and price of the marketing services, some of which depend on the number of passengers and others on the number of aircraft movements, with others involving fixed amounts.
Markkinointikustannukset
Each of these transactions therefore leads to a complex set of financial flows between the airport operator and the airline and its subsidiaries, consisting of the revenue from the airport charges, revenue linked to the groundhandling services and revenue linked to the marketing services.
Kustannukset yhteensä
Accordingly, a comparison between just the airport charges invoiced by the CCIPB to the airlines concerned and the airport charges invoiced at the comparison airports would not provide any useful indication as to whether the MEO test was satisfied.
[600 000–999 999]
At the very least, in order to validly compare the transactions covered by this assessment, it would be necessary to identify, for the airports in the comparison sample, a set of comparable transactions, which must particularly include equivalent marketing services and equivalent groundhandling services.
Lisätuotot (tulot miinus kustannukset)
Identifying such a sample of comparable transactions would prove impossible, given that the transactions covered by this assessment are so complex and specific, and all the more so as the prices of groundhandling services and marketing services are rarely made public and would be difficult to obtain in order to form a basis for comparison.
[- 100 000–- 299 999]
Lastly, assuming that it could be established, based on a valid comparative analysis, that the ‘prices’ applied in the various transactions covered by this assessment were equivalent to or higher than the ‘market prices’ established using the sample of comparison transactions, the Commission could not, however, conclude that those transactions corresponded to the market price if it proved that, on their conclusion, the airport operator may have expected them to lead to incremental costs higher than the incremental revenues.
[- 1–- 99 999]
An MEO would not in fact be interested in offering goods or services at the ‘market price’ if this led to an incremental loss.
Taulukko 8
The Commission considers it appropriate to reiterate in the context of this analysis that, following the adoption of the new Guidelines, both France and the interested parties were invited to submit comments on the application of those guidelines to the present case (see recitals 22 and 23).
Pau–Lontoo-lentoyhteyttä koskeva vuoden 2005 sopimus
In the event, neither France nor the interested parties disputed in substance the Commission’s approach according to which, where an appropriate benchmark cannot be identified to establish a true market price for the services provided by airports to airlines, the most relevant criterion for assessing the arrangements concluded between these two parties is an ex ante incremental profitability analysis.
Taulukko 9
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 to 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.
Taulukko 10
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.
Pau–Charleroi-lentoyhteyttä koskeva vuoden 2007 sopimus
Nevertheless, such differentiated pricing policies should be commercially justified to satisfy the MEO test’ (footnotes omitted).
Taulukko 11
In this regard, it should be noted that the comments of certain third parties that basically criticise the CCIPB for not having applied its general pricing system uniformly to all airlines are not relevant with regard to the application of the MEO test.
Pau–Bristol-lentoyhteyttä koskevat vuoden 2008 ja 2009 sopimukset sekä Pau–Lontoo-, Pau–Charleroi- ja Pau–Beauvais-lentoyhteyksiä koskevat vuoden 2010 sopimukset
For example, Air France’s comment, summarised in recital 169, that the CCIPB should have invoiced Ryanair for the ‘lighting charge’ under certain circumstances is without merit.
Bristol-sopimus 2008
An airport operator does not necessarily confer an economic advantage on an airline by negotiating conditions with that airline that fall outside its general pricing system, or even by negotiating a different pricing system from this general system.
Bristol-sopimus 2009
Joint assessment of the conduct of the airport operator and the CCIPB as a whole
Lontoo-, Charleroi- ja Beauvais-sopimukset 2010
In the opening decision, the Commission considered, as a preliminary observation, that the conduct of the CCIPB as a whole should be assessed together with that of the airport operator and, where applicable, with that of the State or other public authorities supervising the airport operator or involved in its financing.
[1 000 000—1 499 999]
France indicated its agreement to the joint assessment of the conduct of the service operating the airport, the CCIPB as a whole and other public authorities.
[- 600 000–- 999 999]
In applying the MEO test, the conduct of the CCIPB as a whole, and not just that of its service operating the airport, should be taken into account.
Markkinataloustoimijatestin soveltaminen Transavian kanssa tehtyyn sopimukseen
France also indicates in this respect that the CCIPB directly covered these costs.
Sillä ei myöskään ole syytä kyseenalaistaa asetettuja oletuksia lukuun ottamatta arvioinnissa käytettyä aikajännettä, jota käsitellään jäljempänä.
The Commission therefore takes the view that the conduct of the airport operator and the CCIPB as a whole must be assessed together, in terms of their relations with the airlines and their subsidiaries, in order to apply the private operator in a market economy test.
Komissio toteaa liiketoimintasuunnitelman johtavan ”vuositulokseen” (joka vastaa Ryanairin ja AMS:n kanssa tehtyjen sopimusten analyysissa käytettyjä lisätuottoja (tulot miinus kustannukset)), joka on negatiivinen kaudella 2006–2008 ja sen jälkeen positiivinen kaudella 2009–2012 (ks. taulukko 12 jäljempänä).
Conclusion on the terms for applying the market economy operator test
Transaviaa koskevan liiketoimintasuunnitelman mukaan investointi (sijoituksen tuotto) alkaa kannattaa (kumulatiivisesti) vasta seitsemäntenä vuonna.
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 Pau airport in place of the CCIPB, would have entered into these transactions.
Suunnitelmassa ei toisin sanoen sovelleta diskonttokorkoa ennakoituihin vuotuisiin rahavirtoihin niiden nettonykyarvon laskemiseksi eli sen tarkistamiseksi, kompensoivatko tarkastellun kauden lopun positiiviset rahavirrat alkukauden negatiiviset rahavirrat, jolloin lentoasema olisi kannattava.