natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The varying numbers used for the calculation with regard to investments/CAPEX further contribute to a different risk assessment of both studies.
Komission puolesta
In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that Purchase Price II as specified in the 2005 Participation Agreement complies with the market conditions and that no economic advantage has been granted to Infratil.
EUVL C 287, 29.11.2007, s. 27.
Conclusion on the overall profitability of the deal
EUVL C 295, 7.12.2007, s. 29 ja EUVL C 241, 10.8.2012, s. 56.
It follows from the assessment of the measure set out above that Hansestadt Lübeck was faced with the decision to either close the airport, to continue its loss-making operation or to sell Lübeck airport.
Infratil on uusiseelantilainen infrastruktuuri-investointeihin keskittyvä sijoitusyhtiö.
Hansestadt Lübeck chose the most economic option available when deciding to sell the airport.
Se investoi energia-alaan, lentoasemiin ja julkiseen liikenteeseen.
When assessing the concrete terms of the 2005 Participation Agreement, the interrelation of the two scenarios (i.e. Purchase Price I and the put option and Purchase Price II) needs to be taken into account.
Sen omistuksessa olivat muun muassa seuraavat lentoasemat, joiden toiminnasta se myös vastasi: Wellingtonin kansainvälinen lentoasema Uudessa-Seelannissa sekä Glasgow'n Prestwickin lentoasema ja Kentin kansainvälinen lentoasema Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa.
As it has been found that it was reasonable from an ex ante perspective to consider both the payment of Purchase Price II and the exercise of the put option as possible, the risks for both parties resulting from this have to be considered.
Se on nyttemmin luopunut sijoituksistaan eurooppalaisiin lentoasemiin.
Especially with regard to the potential financial losses of Infratil resulting from the exercise of the put option, the Commission considers it unlikely that a private seller in the stead of Hansestadt Lübeck would have been able to negotiate a more favourable agreement.
Ryanair on irlantilainen lentoyhtiö ja Euroopan halpalentoyhtiöiden liiton jäsen.
The Commission therefore concludes that Hansestadt Lübeck acted like a MEO when negotiating the 2005 Participation Agreement.
Lentoyhtiö harjoitti liiketoimintaa toissijaisilla alueellisilla lentoasemilla.
As a result, the measure did not grant Infratil any economic advantage and did not constitute State aid.
Lentoyhtiö lentää tällä hetkellä noin 160 Euroopan kohteeseen.
The 2009 Additional Agreement and the renegotiation of the put option — Takeover of losses, investments and other costs of FLG in 2009
Ryanairilla on tasarakenteinen kalusto, joka sisältää 272 kappaletta 189-paikkaisia Boeing 737–800 -ilma-aluksia.
As stated above, the 2009 Additional Agreement signed on 12 November 2008 did not modify the amounts payable for the put option under the 2005 Participation Agreement, but included the takeover of losses, agreed investments and other costs related to the operation of Lübeck airport in 2009, resulting in a total put option price of EUR […] (see recital 90).
Menettelyn aloittamista koskevan päätöksen tekoajankohtana vuonna 2007 Ryanair liikennöi Lyypekin lentoasemalta 23:a lentoa viikossa viiteen Euroopan kohteeseen.
In its 2012 Opening decision, the Commission had opened investigations into two separate measures:
Kyseiset kohteet ovat Lontoon Stanstedin lentoasema Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa, Milanon Bergamon lentoasema ja Pisan lentoasema Italiassa, Palma de Mallorcan lentoasema Espanjassa sekä Tukholman Skavstan lentoasema Ruotsissa.
the takeover of losses, investments and other measures of FLG in 2009,
EUVL C 295, 7.12.2007, s. 29.
the difference between the put option price agreed in 2005 and the actual put option price paid.
Peter C. Klanowski ja Horst Conrad.
However, on the basis of the information received, the Commission finds that these two issues concern the same measure, namely the 2009 Additional Agreement between Hansestadt Lübeck and Infratil.
Neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 659/1999, annettu 22 päivänä maaliskuuta 1999, Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 108 artiklan soveltamista koskevista yksityiskohtaisista säännöistä (EYVL L 83, 27.3.1999, s. 1.)
To determine whether the put option price under the 2009 Agreement included an economic advantage for Infratil, the Commission needs to apply the MEO test.
Komission tiedonanto – Suuntaviivat valtiontuesta lentoasemille ja lentoyhtiöille (EUVL C 99, 4.4.2014, s. 3).
In order to be able to determine whether Hansestadt Lübeck chose the financially most advantageous option available, the Commission has to place itself in the position of a private shareholder at the time when the agreement was signed [56].
EUVL C 113, 15.4.2014, s. 30.
The Commission finds that after Infratil announced its intention to exercise its put option in 2009, Hansestadt Lübeck was faced with the following options:
Kyseessä on yleisön osallistumisesta tiettyjen ympäristöä koskevien suunnitelmien ja ohjelmien laatimiseen sekä neuvoston direktiivien 85/337/ETY ja 96/61/EY muuttamisesta yleisön osallistumisen sekä muutoksenhaku- ja vireillepano-oikeuden osalta 26 päivänä toukokuuta 2003 annetun Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivin 2003/35/EY (EUVL L 156, 25.6.2003, s. 17) säännösten mukaisesti rekisteröity kansalaisjärjestö.
close the airport;
Ennen menettelyn aloittamista toimenpiteet tutkittiin asioissa CP 31/2009 (SA.27585) ja CP 162/2010 (SA.31149).
search for a new private operator and meanwhile
EUVL C 241, 10.8.2012, s. 56.
resume the operation of the airport; or
Saksan kaupallisten lentoasemien liitto (Bundesverband der deutschen Verkehrsflughäfen).
sign the 2009 Additional Agreement so that Infratil would continue the operation of the airport until a new operator was found.
Yasmina oli luonnollisen henkilön, saudiarabialaisen Adel Mohammed Saleh M. Alghanmin, omistaman sijoitusyhtiö 3 Y Logistic und Projektbetreuung GmbH:n, jäljempänä ’3Y’, kokonaan omistama tytäryhtiö.
The option of closing the airport (option a) would have required Hansestadt Lübeck to pay the put option price of EUR […] (see recital 238) immediately and to initiate the procedure for closing the airport, facing additional costs (see the Berenberg study, presented in Table 9).
Yasmina perustettiin Lyypekin lentoaseman ostamista ja sen toiminnan harjoittamista varten.
In the first subscenario of option b (Hansestadt Lübeck resumes operation of the airport until a new private investor is found), Hansestadt Lübeck would have had to pay the put option price to Infratil laid down in the 2005 Participation Agreement and to cover all costs arising from the operation of the airport until a new investor would be found.
Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 9.9.2014, Hansestadt Lübeck v. Euroopan komissio, T-461/12, ECLI:EU:T:2014:758.
Deriving from the put option price paid in 2009 (see Table 3), the costs for operating losses, investment, the planning approval process and legal costs alone would have amounted to EUR […].
Unionin tuomioistuimen tuomio 21.12.2016, komissio v. Hansestadt Lübeck, C-524/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:971.
Therefore, already by October 2009, Hansestadt Lübeck would have faced costs of approximately EUR […] (put option price according to 2005 Participation Agreement plus operating costs for November 2008 to October 2009).
Ks. Lyypekin lentoaseman verkkosivusto osoitteessa http://www.flughafen-luebeck.de/images/02-unternehmen/06-zahlen_fakten_daten/02-monatsstatistik/ab2000.pdf (tiedot haettu 22. toukokuuta 2015).
Germany submitted that a resale of FLG to a new private investor would have required a new Union wide tender procedure, which is estimated to take a minimum of 12 months.
Lyypekin kaupunginvaltuusto koostuu kaupungin kansalaisten edustajista.
The Commission notes that a private operator would indeed have taken into account the estimated duration of the tender procedure.
EUVL 2012/S 156–261107, 16.8.2012 (http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:261107-2012:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1).
In this scenario, assuming that Infratil would exercise its put option in October 2009, Hansestadt Lübeck would have had to pay the put option price under the 2009 Additional Agreement.
Useat osapuolet ovat riitauttaneet oikeudessa Lyypekin lentoaseman kehittämisen mahdollistavan rakennuslupapäätöksen, joka tehtiin 20 päivänä tammikuuta 2005 ja kattoi useita infrastruktuuritoimenpiteitä.
As this price consists of the put option price of the 2005 Participation Agreement and additional costs relating to the operation of the airport in 2009, the potential costs for Hansestadt Lübeck are comparable to those of the second scenario.
Välitoimimenettelyssä on annettu kaksi lainvoimaista ylioikeuden päätöstä: Schleswigin hallintoylioikeuden (OVG) 18 päivänä heinäkuuta 2005 antama päätös 4 MR 1/05 ja Schleswigin hallintoylioikeuden (OVG) 21 päivänä lokakuuta 2005 antama päätös 101/05.
The 2009 Additional Agreement had however an advantage for HL in so far as it provided Hansestadt Lübeck with the time to prepare a tender to find a new investor.
Näiden päätösten perusteella rakennuslupa evättiin.
Furthermore, the immediate departure of Infratil carried the risk of causing Ryanair to reduce its services at Lübeck airport, and thereby to potentially enlarge future operating losses.
Luottamuksellinen tieto.
In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that signing the 2009 Additional Agreement was the most advantageous option available and that Hansestadt Lübeck therefore acted like a MEO.
Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 16.5.2002, Ranska v. komissio (Stardust Marine), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294.
In view of the comparison of the different options and the related costs, it can be concluded that the 2009 Additional Agreement was in line with the MEO principle, since it constituted the least financially burdensome and most economically forward looking option at the time.
Unionin tuomioistuimen määräys 7.11.2011, Bundesverband deutscher Banken v. komissio (Helaba I), T-163/05, ECLI:EU:T:2010:59.
This has proven to be true from an ex post perspective, since a new investor was only found in 2012.
Oxeran raportti: Economic MEOP assessment: Lübeck airport, 6. helmikuuta 2015.
Like the 2005 Participation Agreement, the 2009 Additional Agreement also contains a limit for the operating losses and investment costs to be paid by Hansestadt Lübeck.
Yhteisöjen ensimmäisen oikeusasteen tuomioistuimen tuomio 17.12.2008, Ryanair v. komissio (”Charleroi”), T-196/04, ECLI:EU:T:2008:585.
On the basis of those considerations, the Commission concludes that there was no economic advantage granted to Infratil and thus the measure did not constitute State aid.
Komission päätös, tehty 12 päivänä marraskuuta 2008, valtiontuki N 510/2008 – Italia – Alitalian omaisuuserien myynti (EUVL C 46, 25.2.2009, s. 6).
Economic advantage
Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 8.5.2003, Italia ja SIM 2 Multimedia v. komissio, yhdistetyt asiat C-328/99 ja C-399/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:252; komission päätös, tehty 17 päivänä syyskuuta 2008, valtiontuki N 321/2008, N 322/2008 ja N 323/2008 – Kreikka – Vente de certains actifs d'Olympic Airlines / Olympic Airways Services (EUVL C 18, 23.1.2010, s. 9); komission päätös, tehty 12 päivänä marraskuuta 2008, valtiontuki N 510/2008 – Italia – Alitalian omaisuuserien myynti (EUVL C 46, 25.2.2009, s. 6); komission päätös, annettu 4 päivänä huhtikuuta 2012, valtiontuki SA.34547 – Ranska – Reprise des actifs du groupe SERNAM dans le cadre de son redressement judiciaire (EUVL C 305, 10.10.2012, s. 5).
Where an airport has public resources at its disposal, aid to an airline can, in principle, be excluded where the relationship between the airport and the airline satisfies the MEO test.
Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 28.3.2012, Ryanair Ltd v. komissio, T-123/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:164.
Under the 2014 Aviation Guidelines [57], the existence of aid to an airline using a particular airport can, in principle, be excluded if the price charged for the airport services corresponds to the market price (‘first approach’), or if it can be demonstrated through an ex ante analysis — that is to say one founded on information available when the aid is granted and on developments foreseeable at the time — that the airport/airline arrangement will lead to a positive incremental profit contribution for the airport and is part of an overall strategy leading to profitability at least in the long term (‘second approach’).
Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 28.3.2012, Ryanair Ltd v. komissio, T-123/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:164, 156 kohta.
The second approach means that it must be assessed whether, at the date when an agreement was concluded, a prudent market economy operator would have expected the agreement to be incrementally profitable.
Neuvoston direktiivi 2001/23/EY, annettu 12 päivänä maaliskuuta 2001, työntekijöiden oikeuksien turvaamista yrityksen tai liikkeen taikka yritys- tai liiketoiminnan osan luovutuksen yhteydessä koskevan jäsenvaltioiden lainsäädännön lähentämisestä (EYVL L 82, 22.3.2001, s. 16).
This to be measured by the difference between the incremental revenues expected to be generated by the agreement (that is, the difference between the revenues that would be achieved if the agreement were concluded and the revenues that would be achieved in the absence of the agreement) and the incremental costs expected to be incurred as a result of the contract (that is, the difference between the costs that would be incurred if the agreement were concluded and the costs that would be incurred in the absence of the agreement), the resulting cash flows being discounted with an appropriate discount rate.
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB], 18.8.1896, 613a §, 242.
As regards the first approach (a comparison with the ‘market price’), the Commission does not consider that, at the present time, an appropriate benchmark can be identified to establish a true market price for services provided by airports [58].
Due diligence -prosessi on yleensä ostajan suorittama sulautuman, yritysoston, yksityistämisen tai vastaavan yritystoimintaan liittyvän liiketoimen kohteen tarkastelu.
It therefore considers an ex ante incremental profitability analysis to be the most relevant approach for the assessment of arrangements concluded by airports with individual airlines.
Komission tiedonanto Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 107 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitetusta valtiontuen käsitteestä (EUVL C 262, 19.7.2016, s. 1), johdanto-osan 94 kappale.
It should be noted that, in general, the application of the MEO principle based on an average price on other, similar markets may prove helpful if such a price can be reasonably identified or deduced from other market indicators.
Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 13.9.2010, Kreikka v. komissio, T-415/05, ECLI:EU:T:2010:386, 146 kohta.
Moreover, the liberalisation of the air transport market complicates any purely comparative analysis.
Unionin tuomioistuimen tuomio 11.12.2012, komissio v. Espanja, C-610/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:781, 106 kohta.
As can be seen in this case, commercial practices between airports and airlines are not always based exclusively on a published schedule of charges.
Maksukyvyttömyydestä 5 päivänä lokakuuta 1994 annettu laki (Insolvenzordnung) (BGBl.
Rather, these commercial relations vary to a great extent.
I S. 2866), jota on viimeksi muutettu 20 päivänä marraskuuta 2015 annetun lain (BGBl.
They include sharing risks with regard to passenger traffic and any related commercial and financial liability, standard incentive schemes and changing the spread of risks over the term of the agreements.
I S. 2010) 16 §:llä.
Consequently, one transaction cannot really be compared with another based on a turnaround price or price per passenger.
Ks. komission päätös, tehty 27 päivänä helmikuuta 2008, valtiontuesta C 46/07 (ex NN 59/07), jonka Romania on myöntänyt Automobile Craiovalle (entiselle Daewoo Românialle) (EUVL L 239, 6.9.2008, s. 12).
In addition, benchmarking is not an appropriate method to establish market prices if the available benchmarks have not been defined with regard to market considerations or the existing prices are significantly distorted by public interventions.
Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 29.4.1999, Espanjan kuningaskunta v. komissio, C-342/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, 41 kohta; yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 11.7.1996, Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) ym. v. La Poste ym., C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, 60 kohta.
Such distortions appear to be present in the aviation industry, for reasons explained in paragraphs 57 to 59 of the 2014 Aviation Guidelines:
Ks. esimerkiksi: Yhteisöjen ensimmäisen oikeusasteen tuomioistuimen tuomio 12.12.2000, Alitalia v. komissio, T-296/97, ECLI:EU:T:2000:289; yhteisöjen ensimmäisen oikeusasteen tuomioistuimen tuomio 6.3.2003, WestLB v. komissio, T-228/99 ja T-233/99, ECLI:EU:T:2003:57; yhteisöjen ensimmäisen oikeusasteen tuomioistuimen tuomio 29.3.2007, Scott SA v. komissio, T-366/00, ECLI:EU:T:2007:99; yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 8.5.2003, Italia ja SIM 2 Multimedia v. komissio, yhdistetyt asiat C-328/99 ja C-399/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:252; yhteisöjen ensimmäisen oikeusasteen tuomioistuimen tuomio 12.12.1996, Air France v. komissio, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194.
‘Publicly owned airports have traditionally been considered by public authorities as infrastructures for facilitating local development and not as undertakings operating in accordance with market rules.
Kahdeskymmeneskolmas kilpailupolitiikkaa koskeva kertomus (1993), s. 255.
Those airports' prices consequently tend not to be determined with regard to market considerations and in particular sound ex ante profitability prospects, but essentially having regard to social or regional considerations.
Komission päätös C(2013) 3546 final, annettu 19 päivänä kesäkuuta 2013, SA.36197(N/2013) – Portugalin suorittama ANA:n yksityistäminen – Aeroportos de Portugal, EUVL C 256, 5.9.2013, s. 3; Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 10.2.1986, C-40/85, Belgia v. komissio, ECLI:EU:C:1986:305.
In those circumstances, the Commission has strong doubts that at the present time, an appropriate benchmark can be identified to establish a true market price for services provided by airports.
Arvonmäärityksen suoritti Berenberg Consult GmbH (Hamburger Privatbank Berenbergin tytäryhtiö).
Ryanair essentially argued that the MEO test can be applied based on a comparison with the commercial arrangements of other European airports.
Ks. vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivat, 59 kohta.
In particular, it compared charges paid by Ryanair at Bournemouth, Grenoble, Knock, Maastricht, Nîmes and Prestwick airports with the charges paid by Ryanair under the agreements at Lübeck airport.
Ks. komission päätös 2011/60/EU, annettu 27 päivänä tammikuuta 2010, valtiontuesta C 12/2008 (ex NN 74/07) – Slovakia – Bratislavan lentoaseman ja Ryanairin välinen sopimus (EUVL L 27, 1.2.2011, s. 24), johdanto-osan 88 ja 89 kappale.
The study did not assess whether the sample of benchmark airports fulfilled all the criteria spelled out in the 2014 Aviation guidelines, as it only assessed traffic volumes, type of airport traffic and prosperity of the surrounding area [62].
Ks. vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivat, 57–59 kohta.
In its 2012 Opening decision, the Commission compared the charges laid down in the March and October 2010 Side letters with charges at Hamburg airport, which led to doubts as to the market conformity of the charges laid down in the Side letters.
Vertailuanalyysista käyttämällä vertailukohtana alan kannattavuutta (eikä hinnoittelua) ks. unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 3.7.2014, Espanja ja Ciudad de la Luz v. komissio, yhdistetyt asiat T-319/12 ja T-321/12, ECLI:EU:T:2014:604, 44 kohta.
The Commission notes that traffic volume in Lübeck is much lower than in Hamburg airport.
Muista arvioitavista kriteereistä ks. vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivojen 60 kohta.
In fact, Hamburg is the airport with the most traffic in Northern Germany.
Ks. vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivat, 59 ja 63 kohta.
Hamburg is used for all segments of air transport, whereas Lübeck was specialised in low cost carriers which required fewer check-incounters and facilities for transfer passengers, no passenger busses, less luggage handling personnel and facilities, less cleaning personnel, and allowed for a shorter circulation time.
Ks. vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivat, 63 kohta.
In addition to those considerations, the airport infrastructure must be open to all airlines and not dedicated to a specific airline in order to exclude that the advantage resulting from compatible aid to the airport operator is passed on to a specific airline.
Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 21.3.1991, Italian tasavalta v. Euroopan yhteisöjen komissio (”Alfa Romeo”), C-305/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:142.
The Commission also notes in this context that price differentiation is a standard business practice.
Raportti on mainittu edellä Lyypekin kaupungin ja Infratilin välisen sopimuksen kannattavuutta koskevassa jaksossa 7.3.1.1.
Such differentiated pricing policies should, however, be commercially justified.
Vrt. päätös (EU) 2015/1226.
The Commission considers that arrangements concluded between airlines and an airport can be deemed to satisfy the MEO test when they incrementally contribute, from an ex ante point of view, to the profitability of the airport.
Päätös (EU) 2015/1584.
The airport should demonstrate that, when setting up an arrangement with an airline (for example, an individual contract or an overall scheme of airport charges), it is capable of covering all costs stemming from the arrangement, over the duration of the arrangement, with a reasonable profit margin on the basis of sound medium-term prospects [64].
Oxeran raportti: Economic MEOP assessment: Lübeck airport, 1. syyskuuta 2014.
In order to assess whether an arrangement concluded by an airport with an airline satisfies the MEO test, expected non-aeronautical revenues stemming from the airline's activity must be taken into consideration together with airport charges, net of any rebates, marketing support or incentive schemes.
Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 7.3.2012, RENV British Aggregates Association v. komissio, T-210/02, ECLI:EU:T:2012:110, 82 ja 83 kohta; unionin tuomioistuimen tuomio 15.11.2011, komissio ja Espanja v. Government of Gibraltar ja Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta, yhdistetyt asiat C-106/09 P ja C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, 74 ja 75 kohta: unionin tuomioistuimen tuomio 14.1.2015, Eventech v. The Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:9, 54 ja 55 kohta.
Similarly, all expected costs incrementally incurred by the airport in relation to the airline's activity at the airport have to be taken into account.
Unionin tuomioistuimen tuomio 21.12.2016, komissio v. Hansestadt Lübeck, C-524/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:971, 62 kohta.
Such incremental costs may encompass all categories of expenses or investments, such as incremental personnel, equipment and investment costs induced by the presence of the airline at the airport [65].
Komissio sai vuosina 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 ja 2006 Air Berlin -lentoyhtiöltä, eräältä ympäristöalan kansalaisjärjestöltä (Bund Umwelt und Naturschutz) ja yksityishenkilöiltä useita kanteluja väitetystä valtiontuesta Flughafen Lübeck GmbH:lle, jäljempänä ’FLG’, Infratil Limitedille, jäljempänä ’Infratil’ [3] ja Ryanair-lentoyhtiölle [4].
The Commission considers in its constant decision making practice that costs which the airport would have to incur anyway, independently from the arrangement with the airline, should not be taken into account in the MEO test [66].
Komissio pyysi 7 päivänä marraskuuta 2005 Saksalta tietoja, jotka Saksa toimitti 7 päivänä helmikuuta 2006.
According to the Charleroi judgement [67] when assessing the measures in question the Commission has to take into account all the relevant features of the measures and their context.
Lisätietoja pyydettiin 22 päivänä maaliskuuta 2006 päivätyllä kirjeellä, johon Saksa vastasi 12 päivänä kesäkuuta 2006.