natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the closure of Schönefeld would have deprived Berlin not only from a significant part of its existing traffic but also from a significant potential to increase that traffic.
Stoga se zatvaranjem Schönefelda Berlinu ne bi samo oduzeo bitan udio postojećeg prometa, već i velik udio potencijala za rast.
The prospect that the closure of an airport may give rise to a capacity shortage in the area where the airport is located and may limit the potential to increase air traffic in this area would not necessarily by itself deter a prudent market economy operator guided by profitability rather than public policy objectives from implementing that closure.
Izgledi da bi zatvaranje zračne luke dovelo do ograničenja kapaciteta na području u kojem se nalazi zračna luka i do ograničenja mogućnosti za rast zračnog prometa na tom području sami po sebi ne bi nužno trebali razboritog ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji se vodi izgledima održivosti, a ne javnim političkim ciljevima, odvratiti od zatvaranja.
However, in this case, the closure of Schönefeld and its impact on the overall capacity of airport infrastructures in the Berlin area, and consequently, on the overall air traffic in this area would have had a serious impact on the traffic of BER, as the future single airport in the Berlin area, at the outset of its operations.
U predmetnom slučaju, međutim, zatvaranje Schönefelda i njegove posljedice za ukupni kapacitet infrastrukture zračnih luka na području Berlina, a time i za ukupan zračni promet na tom području, u znatnoj bi se mjeri odrazili na promet u zračnoj luci BER, kao jedinoj budućoj zračnoj luci na području Berlina, na početku njezina poslovanja.
If Schönefeld had been closed down, BER would have started its operations in far worse business conditions than if Schönefeld had been kept in operation, that is, with a much lower traffic.
U slučaju zatvaranja Schönefelda, BER bi počeo poslovati u znatno lošijim uvjetima, odnosno sa znatno manjim prometom, nego u slučaju nastavka poslovanja Schönefelda.
This factor would have deterred a prudent market economy operator, acting in lieu of FBS, from closing Schönefeld down because of its impact on the profitability of the company.
Ta bi činjenica razboritog ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji postupa na mjestu FBS-a odvratila od zatvaranja Schönefelda jer bi se zatvaranje odrazilo na održivost poduzeća.
Moreover, if Schönefeld had been closed down before the opening of BER, it would have been necessary for FBS to create the entirety of BER’s initial traffic by convincing airlines operating from Tegel to move their operations to the new airport (instead of merely discontinuing them) and by convincing airlines not operating from Berlin to launch operations there.
Da se Schönefeld zatvorio prije otvorenja BER-a, FBS bi morao uspostaviti cjelokupan početni promet na BER-u. Usto bi zračne prijevoznike koji su poslovali na Tegelu trebalo uvjeriti da poslovanje premjeste u novu zračnu luku (umjesto da samo obustave poslovanje).
This would have been a far less favourable situation than one where Schönefeld would have still been operating when BER would open.
Osim toga, FBS bi morao uvjeriti zračne prijevoznike koji ne nude letove prema Berlinu da započnu poslovanje u Berlinu. Takva bi situacija bila znatno nepovoljnija nego da Schönefeld i dalje posluje u trenutku otvorenja BER-a.
Indeed, in this latter scenario, a significant part of the initial traffic of the new airport would be ‘naturally’ created by the airlines already operating at Schönefeld, including those attracted since 2003 through the LCC Strategy.
U potonjem scenariju znatan bi udio početnog prometa nove zračne luke nastao na „prirodan” način na temelju zračnih prijevoznika koji već posluju na Schönefeldu i zračnih prijevoznika koje bi se od 2003. privuklo u okviru strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike.
In addition, the closure of Schönefeld would have brought about a far-reaching administrative impact on the BER project.
Osim toga, zatvaranje Schönefelda donijelo bi dalekosežne administrativne posljedice za projekt BER-a.
Indeed, the closure of the airport would have triggered the cancellation of its operating license.
Zatvaranje Schönefelda značilo bi povlačenje njegove operativne licencije.
Therefore, an entirely new planning procedure and a fully new operating permit would have been necessary for the new airport.
Stoga bi za novu zračnu luku bili potrebni potpuno nov postupak planiranja i potpuno nova operativna licencija.
By contrast, should Schönefeld continue to operate, the opening of BER would only require an extension of Schönefeld’s operating permit, which would entail a far lighter administrative process, involving much lower financial expenses, less time and a far lower degree of uncertainty as to the outcome of the process.
S druge strane, u slučaju nastavka poslovanja na Schönefeldu, za otvorenje BER-a bilo bi potrebno samo proširenje operativne licencije Schönefelda. Posljedica toga bio bi znatno jednostavniji upravni postupak s bitno nižim izdatcima, manje utrošenog vremena i daleko nižom razinom nesigurnosti u pogledu ishoda postupka.
In particular, should a fully new planning procedure and operating permits be required, significant uncertainties would affect the outcome of the assessment of the environmental impact of the project.
U slučaju potpuno novog postupka planiranja i novih operativnih licencija, nesiguran ishod procjene utjecaja projekta na okoliš predstavljao bi posebno velik čimbenik nesigurnosti.
Furthermore, it is common ground that a brand new airport project is much more delicate than a mere extension of infrastructures already in operation from a public acceptance point of view.
Osim toga, postoji jednoglasan stav o tome da je, u pogledu prihvaćanja javnosti, potpuno nov projekt zračne luke znatno osjetljivija tema od proširenja infrastruktura zračne luke koje se već upotrebljavaju.
The cessation of operations at Schönefeld would have also resulted in costs for laying off workforce and the need to hire, recruit and train new staff at a later stage, when BER would open.
Obustava poslovanja na Schönefeldu prouzročila bi i troškove u pogledu otpuštanja zaposlenika te kasnije traženje, zapošljavanje i osposobljavanje novih zaposlenika, što bi za otvorenje BER-a bilo nužno.
This would have given rise to additional costs and operational difficulties compared to a scenario where staff working at Schönefeld would have been readily available to work at the new airport as of its opening.
To bi dovelo do dodatnih troškova i operativnih poteškoća u odnosu na scenarij u kojem bi osoblje na Schönefeldu bilo izravno dostupno za rad u novoj zračnoj luci pri njezinu otvorenju.
The above aspects are very difficult to quantify in particular because they affect the economic situation of a future airport in the short, medium and long-term.
Kvantifikacija navedenih aspekata teška je ponajprije iz razloga što se oni odnose na kratkoročnu, srednjoročnu i dugoročnu gospodarsku situaciju buduće zračne luke.
However, it is clear that they would severely impact the economic conditions under which BER would open and operate, and even the viability of the project, which is of major strategic importance for FBS.
Neosporno je, međutim, da ti aspekti u velikoj mjeri utječu na gospodarske uvjete za otvorenje i poslovanje BER-a te na provedivost projekta koji je od velike strateške važnosti za FBS.
Therefore, even on a qualitative basis, these inconveniences ought to be regarded as sufficiently serious to outweigh any benefits that could be expected from a closure of Schönefeld in the form of fixed cost savings, notably in a situation in which it could be expected that a strategy aimed at increasing LCC traffic in Schönefeld would have led to positive financial results.
Stoga je te negativne okolnosti, čak i na kvalitativnoj osnovi, potrebno smatrati dovoljno ozbiljnima te one premašuju moguće prednosti u obliku uštede na fiksnim troškovima koju bi se moglo očekivati u slučaju zatvaranja Schönefelda. To posebno vrijedi u slučaju u kojem se moglo očekivati da će strategija usmjerena na proširenje prometa niskotarifnih prijevoznika na Schönefeldu dovesti do pozitivnih poslovnih rezultata.
Conclusion of the preliminary analysis
Zaključak prethodne analize
In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that from a prudent market economy operator perspective, it would not have been rational to close Schönefeld down at any point in time between 1992 and the opening of BER.
S obzirom na prethodna obrazloženja zaključeno je da sa stajališta razboritog ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu ne bi bilo opravdano zatvoriti Schönefeld ni u jednom trenutku od 1992. do otvorenja BER-a.
Furthermore, among the three strategic options available in 2003, a prudent market economy operator guided by profitability prospects would have chosen option 1, namely the LCC Strategy, rather than options 2 or 3.
Nadalje, razborit ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji se vodi izgledima održivosti između triju strateških opcija raspoloživih 2003. odlučio bi se za opciju 1., odnosno za strategiju za niskotarifne prijevoznike, a ne za opcije 2. ili 3.
As part of this strategy, it would have offered attractive airport charges (and/or financial incentives mitigating the costs of airport charges) to LCCs in order to attract them to Schönefeld.
Kao dio te strategije niskotarifnim prijevoznicima ponudio bi povoljne naknade zračne luke (i/ili financijske poticaje za smanjenje troškova povezanih s naknadama zračne luke) kako bi ih uvjerio u dolazak na Schönefeld.
Assessment of the control and profit transfer agreement (measure 1)
Ocjena Ugovora o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti (Prva mjera)
In the opening decision, the Commission doubted that FBS had acted like a prudent market economy operator when it offset the losses generated by Schönefeld at the level of the FBS group with profits from operations at Tegel and Tempelhof given the persisting losses generated by Schönefeld [49].
U Odluci o pokretanju postupka Komisija se pitala je li FBS u pogledu stalnih gubitaka na Schönefeldu postupio kao razborit ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu kad je gubitke na razini Grupe FBS nastale na Schönefeldu nadoknadio s pomoću dobiti nastale iz poslovanja na Tegelu i Tempelhofu. [49]
The temporal scope of the Commission’s investigation with respect to this measure is thus limited to the period running from 12 December 2000 until the date of the opening of the formal investigation procedure.
Vremenski okvir istrage Komisije u pogledu te mjere stoga je ograničen na razdoblje koje počinje 12. prosinca 2000. i završava na dan pokretanja službenog istražnog postupka.
As stressed by Germany, concluding control and profit transfer agreements within groups is a standard business practice, in particular for considerations relating to corporate tax law.
Njemačka je objasnila da je sklapanje ugovorâ o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti unutar grupe društava uobičajena poslovna praksa, posebno sa stajališta propisa o porezu na dobit.
Moreover, the ‘compensation’ of losses and profits generated by various companies within a group is also usual, and can take the form of a transfer agreement as well as mere payments of dividends by subsidiaries to their parent companies.
Nadalje, „nadoknađivanje” gubitaka i dobiti nastalih u različitim društvima jedne grupe jednako je tako uobičajeno. To se može učiniti u obliku ugovora o prijenosu dobiti ili kao isplata dividendi društava kćeri matičnim društvima.
The mere fact that the FBS group put in place a control and profit transfer agreement in 1992 and has maintained it since then cannot as such give rise to State aid.
Sama činjenica da je Grupa FBS 1992. sklopila ugovor o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti i otad ga održala ne može se stoga smatrati državnom potporom.
As already stated by the Commission concerning the market economy operator test, ‘a wide margin of judgement must come into entrepreneurial investment decisions. The principles [of the market economy operator test] have however to be applied when it is beyond reasonable doubt that there is no other plausible explanation for the provision of public funds other than considering them as State aid. This approach will also have to be applied to any cross-subsidisation by a profitable part of a public group of undertakings of an unprofitable part. This happens in private undertakings when either the undertaking in question has a strategic plan with good hopes of long-term gain, or that the cross-subsidy has a net benefit to the group as a whole. In cases where there is cross-subsidisation in public holding companies the Commission will take account of similar strategic goals.’ [53]
Komisija je u pogledu načela ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu već objasnila sljedeće: „[…] da je potreban velik diskrecijski prostor za donošenje odluka o ulaganjima u poduzeća. Međutim, načela [načelo ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu] moraju se primijeniti kad je u potpunosti sigurno da ne postoji drugo vjerojatno objašnjenje za osiguranje javnih sredstava od onog da ih se smatra dodijeljenom potporom. Primjenjuju se i onda kad se u državnom holding društvu neodrživi dijelovi poduzeća financiraju održivim dijelovima poduzeća. To se događa u privatnim poduzećima kad predmetno poduzeće primjenjuje strateški plan s izgledima za dugoročnije ostvarivu dobit ili kad unakrsno financiranje predstavlja korist za cijelu grupu poduzeća. U slučaju unakrsnog subvencioniranja u državnim holding društvima Komisija će uzimati u obzir slične strateške ciljeve.” [53]
Therefore, in this case, the cross-subsidisation cannot be deemed to confer an economic advantage on Schönefeld if it is part of a strategic plan with long-term gains or if it is overall beneficial for the FBS group.
Stoga se u tom slučaju unakrsno financiranje ne može smatrati stavljanjem Schönefelda u povlašten položaj ako je ono dio strateškog plana s dugoročnije ostvarivom dobiti ili ako ono predstavlja korist za cijelu Grupu FBS.
For all the reasons mentioned in section 7.2.2, it was clear at least since 1992, and therefore well before the ‘Aéroports de Paris’ judgment [54], that it was rational to maintain Schönefeld in operation instead of closing it down even if it generated losses for many years.
S obzirom na sve razloge navedene u odjeljku 7.2.2. barem od 1992., a time i davno prije presude u predmetu Aéroports de Pariz [54], jasno je da je bilo opravdano održati poslovanje na Schönefeldu umjesto da se zračna luka zatvori, čak i ako bi se gubitci bilježili godinama. Zatvaranjem Schönefelda čak bi se zračnoj luci BER (koja bi kao buduća jedina zračna luka u Berlinu barem dugoročno trebala bilježiti dobit) nanijela ozbiljna gospodarska šteta i ugrozila provedivost tog važnog strateškog projekta. Odluka o izgradnji jedinstvene zračne luke u Berlinu nije se temeljila samo na razmatranjima u pogledu iskorištenosti površine i okoliša, nego se odnosila i na očekivani porast prometa i povećane prihode.
Indeed, Schönefeld’s closure would have caused serious economic harm to BER airport (which as the future single Berlin airport was expected to generate profits at least in the long term, and even put the viability of this major strategic project into question. Indeed, the decision to build a sole airport in Berlin was not only driven by land planning or environmental considerations, but also with the view to absorbing potential increase in traffic and increasing revenues. As recognised by the 2009 Commission decision approving the aid to the financing of the BER airport, the success of the project relied on the expected traffic growth in Berlin [55] in a single airport [56]. In order to maintain Schönefeld in operation, possibly with a view to transforming Schönefeld into a profitable airport (first by inviting airlines to relocate at Schönefeld and later by implementing the LCC strategy), it was necessary to ensure its economic viability by using part of the profits generated by Tegel and Tempelhof to finance it. Therefore, the cross-subsidisation occurring in this case is part of ‘a strategic plan with good hopes of long-term gain’, and in any event, it is beneficial to the FBS group as a whole in the long run compared to a counterfactual situation where Schönefeld would be closed down. These long-term benefits – the successful opening and profitable operation of a new single airport for the Berlin agglomeration (plus the expected profits from the operations of Schönefeld after some years of implementing the LCC strategy) – could be expected by FBS to exceed the losses accumulated by Schönefeld before the opening of BER.
Kako je navedeno u odluci Komisije o odobrenju potpora za zračnu luku BER, uspjeh očekivanog porasta broja putnika u Berlinu [55] ovisio je o samo jednoj zračnoj luci [56]. Kako bi se održalo poslovanje Schönefelda i ispunio kasniji cilj pretvaranja Schönefelda u održivu zračnu luku (tako što bi se najprije potaknulo zračne prijevoznike da se premjeste na Schönefeld, a potom i provela strategija za niskotarifne prijevoznike), bilo je potrebno osigurati održivost Schönefelda upotrebom dijela dobiti ostvarene na Tegelu i Tempelhofu za financiranje Schönefelda. Zbog toga je unakrsno financiranje u tom slučaju dio „strateškog plana s izgledima za dugoročnije ostvarivu dobit” i u svakom slučaju za cijelu Grupu FBS predstavlja dugoročnu korist, za razliku od hipotetske situacije u kojoj bi se Schönefeld zatvorio. FBS je mogao očekivati da će se tim dugoročnim koristima – uspješnim otvorenjem i isplativim poslovanjem jedinstvene nove zračne luke za šire područje Berlina (kao i očekivanom dobiti iz poslovanja Schönefelda nakon nekoliko godina praktične primjene strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike) – premašiti gubitci koje je Schönefeld bilježio prije otvorenja BER-a.
Therefore, by concluding and maintaining in place the control and profit transfer agreement and maintaining Schönefeld in operation, the FBS group has not conferred any economic advantage on Schönefeld [57].
Prema tome, Grupa FBS sklapanjem i obnovom Ugovora o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti te održavanjem poslovanja Schönefelda za zračnu luku Schönefeld nije stvorila gospodarsku korist.
The conclusion and implementation of the control and profit transfer agreement since 12 December 2000 thus does not involve State aid.
Sklapanje Ugovora o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti i njegova provedba od 12. prosinca 2000. stoga ne predstavljaju državnu potporu.
Agreements between FBS and various airlines: preliminary remarks
Ugovori između FBS-a i različitih zračnih prijevoznika: uvodne napomene
Before the agreements between FBS and various airlines are assessed, it is useful to make various preliminary remarks, notably in light of the judgment of the General Court in the Charleroi case (the ‘Charleroi judgment’) [58], which was issued after the formal investigation procedure was opened in the present case.
Prije ocjene ugovora sklopljenih između FBS-a i različitih zračnih prijevoznika korisne su neke uvodne napomene, posebno u svjetlu presude Općeg suda u predmetu Charleroi (dalje u tekstu: „presuda Charleroi”) [58], donesene nakon pokretanja službenog istražnog postupka u ovom predmetu.
Application of the market economy operator principle to the agreements between FBS and various airlines
Primjena načela ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu na ugovore sklopljene između FBS-a i različitih zračnih prijevoznika
Certain third parties argued in substance that the agreements at issue confer an economic advantage on the airlines concerned because the conditions offered through these agreements would deviate from the general rules applicable to airport charges at Schönefeld or because the same conditions are not offered equally to all airlines.
Neke zainteresirane strane načelno su tvrdile da su predmetni ugovori stvorili gospodarsku korist predmetnim zračnim prijevoznicima jer uvjeti ponuđeni u okviru tih ugovora nisu bili u skladu s općim odredbama o naknadama zračne luke važećima na Schönefeldu, odnosno jer nisu svim zračnim prijevoznicima bez iznimke ponuđeni jednaki uvjeti.
The crucial question raised by these arguments is the following. If there is a system of published charges at a given airport run by a public company and if the airport manager offers discounts to these charges or financial incentives having the same effect as such discounts [59], do such discounts and incentives [60] confer by themselves and in all circumstances an economic advantage on the airlines concerned?
Bitno pitanje koje se nameće na temelju tih argumenata glasi: Ako za zračnu luku čiji je upravitelj javno poduzeće vrijedi javni sustav naknada, i ako upravitelj zračne luke nudi popuste na te naknade ili financijske poticaje s jednakim učinkom kao što ga imaju ti popusti [59], stvaraju li ti popusti i poticaji [60] sami po sebi i u svim okolnostima gospodarsku korist za predmetne zračne prijevoznike?
The answer to this question is no. Indeed, in the Charleroi judgment which concerned in particular a discount offered by the Walloon region to an airline at an airport for which the region was responsible for setting airport charges, the General Court stated: ‘The mere fact that, in the present case, the Walloon Region has regulatory powers in relation to fixing airport charges does not mean that a scheme reducing those charges ought not to be examined by reference to the private investor principle, since such a scheme could have been put in place by a private operator.’ [61] It follows from this statement that discounts to airport charges (or financial incentives which reduce the net financial flows from the airlines to the airport manager) do not automatically confer an economic advantage.
Na ovo pitanje potrebno je odgovoriti negativno. U presudi Charleroi, u kojoj je posebno bila riječ o tome da je regija Valonija ponudila popust zračnom prijevozniku u zračnoj luci u kojoj je regija bila ovlaštena određivati naknade zračne luke, sud je obrazložio: „Unatoč okolnosti da regija Valonija u ovom predmetu raspolaže ovlastima određivanja naknada zračne luke, ispitivanje sustava popusta za te naknade, s obzirom na to da ga može uvesti privatan gospodarski subjekt, i dalje se mora provesti prema načelu ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu.” [61] Iz toga proizlazi da popusti na naknade zračne luke (ili financijski poticaji kojima se umanjuje neto novčani tok od zračnih prijevoznika prema upravitelju zračne luke) ne predstavljaju automatski gospodarsku korist.
In order to determine whether they do so, it is necessary to assess whether a prudent market economy operator guided by profitability prospects would have accepted to grant similar discounts and incentives to the particular carrier concerned [62].
Kako bi se odredilo je li riječ o takvom slučaju, potrebno je provjeriti bi li razborit ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji se vodi izgledima održivosti predmetnom zračnom prijevozniku odobrio slične popuste i poticaje [62].
For a prudent market economy operator running an airport, there can be many reasons for not offering the same conditions to all airlines.
Razborit ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji je upravitelj zračne luke može iz različitih razloga ne ponuditi iste uvjete svim zračnim prijevoznicima.
In particular, it can be rational to offer specific financial incentives (including in the form of marketing grants) and specific discounts to the published airport charges to airlines that bring a high number of passengers to the airport.
Posebno može biti opravdano zračnim prijevoznicima koji zračnoj luci donose velik broj putnika odobriti određene financijske poticaje (i u obliku dodataka za marketing) i posebne popuste na objavljene naknade zračne luke.