natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to FBS, the system of charge schedules applied equally to public and private shareholders at airports and took account of the public interest in the operation of air transport, in line with legal standards.
FBS navodi da je sustav pravilnika o naknadama jednako vrijedio za javne i privatne članove društva zračnih luka i njime se javni interes u obavljanju zračnog prometa uzeo u obzir u skladu s pravnim standardima.
Besides, according to FBS, the Minister President of Brandenburg (Ministerpräsident des Landes Brandenburg), who sat in FBS’ supervisory board, could not issue instructions to the ministry responsible for approving schedules of charges.
Prema navodima FBS-a predsjednik vlade pokrajine Brandenburg, koji je bio i član nadzornog odbora FBS-a, nije bio ovlašten za izdavanje uputa nadležnom ministarstvu u pogledu odobravanja pravilnika o naknadama.
Furthermore, when it comes to the determination of charges, the legal relationship between the airport and airlines was governed purely by private law and was binding under civil law, regardless of the approval by the relevant authority.
Nadalje, pri utvrđivanju naknada pravni odnos između zračne luke i zračnih prijevoznika podliježe isključivo privatnom pravu i obvezujući je prema građanskom pravu neovisno o odobrenju nadležnog tijela.
FBS argues that owing to the differing capacity utilisation patterns at Berlin’s two main airports, with Tegel operating at close to full capacity without any significant expansion possibilities, as opposed to Schönefeld which had substantial free capacities and was in addition the future location of BER, FBS had to take measures in 2003 after the failed attempt to privatise the company, with a view to managing air transport in the Berlin conurbation on a sustainable, economically efficient basis.
FBS je obrazložio da je 2003. nakon neuspjele privatizacije zbog različite iskorištenosti kapaciteta na dvjema najvažnijim berlinskim zračnim lukama – gotovo potpuno iskorišten kapacitet na Tegelu bez znatnih mogućnosti proširenja, za razliku od znatnih slobodnih kapaciteta na Schönefeldu, budućoj lokaciji BER-a – morao poduzeti mjere za održivo i gospodarski učinkovito obavljanje zračnog prometa u aglomeracijskom području Berlina.
FBS claims in addition that it was necessary to maintain Schönefeld in operation for the future operation of BER in the interest of the FBS group.
Osim toga, FBS je obrazložio da je u interesu Grupe FBS bilo održati poslovanje na Schönefeldu s obzirom na buduće poslovanje zračne luke BER.
According to FBS, even a temporary closure of Schönefeld would have made it de facto impossible to achieve the long-term strategic goal of operating a centralised Berlin airport on the Schönefeld site.
Prema FBS-u čak i privremenim zatvaranjem Schönefelda, de facto bi se onemogućilo postizanje dugoročnog strateškog cilja – poslovanja središnje zračne luke u Berlinu na lokaciji Schönefeld.
According to FBS, it was therefore necessary to bridge, in as economically efficient a manner as possible, Schönefeld’s operation from 2003 until such time as BER would open.
Prema navodima FBS-a poslovanje na Schönefeldu od 2003. do otvorenja zračne luke BER trebalo je stoga premostiti na gospodarski najučinkovitiji mogući način.
FBS added that in order to better harness Schönefeld’s available capacities, it had launched the implementation of the LCC strategy proposed by a renowned consultancy firm.
FBS je dodao da je na prijedlog uglednog društva za poslovno savjetovanje donesena odluka o provedbi strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike radi boljeg iskorištavanja raspoloživih kapaciteta Schönefelda.
That LCC strategy would have been viewed as the economically most favourable option for FBS, since its proposed schedule of charges with embedded incentive schemes appeared likely to increase traffic at Schönefeld in the short term through targeted, degressive financial incentives.
Tu se strategiju za niskotarifne prijevoznike smatralo gospodarski najpovoljnijim rješenjem za FBS jer je ocijenjeno vjerojatnim da će se predloženim pravilnikom o naknadama sa sustavom ciljanih financijskih poticaja koji se postupno smanjuju kratkoročno dovesti do povećanja prometa na Schönefeldu.
According to FBS, the LCC strategy had been highly successful.
Prema FBS-u strategija za niskotarifne prijevoznike bila je izrazito uspješna.
The number of passengers at Schönefeld soared, with no decrease in passenger volumes at the other Berlin airports.
Broj putnika na Schönefeldu naglo se povećao, a broj putnika na ostalim berlinskim zračnim lukama nije se smanjio.
FBS emphasised that the increased traffic led to increased revenues and the economic difficulties were quickly overcome.
FBS je naglasio da je povećani promet doveo do rasta prihoda i da su se gospodarske poteškoće brzo mogle prevladati.
Already in 2006 the operating results (EBIT) of FBS were positive for the first time.
Već 2006. rezultati poslovanja (EBIT) FBS-a prvi su put bili pozitivni.
According to FBS this positive trend was set to continue, and this was particularly significant for the financing capability of the new airport.
Prema FBS-u moglo se očekivati da će se ta pozitivna kretanja nastaviti, što je bilo posebno važno za sposobnost financiranja nove zračne luke.
FBS argues that the strategic change initiated in 2003 had been essential for economic reasons and that FBS had behaved like a prudent market economy operator in taking that step.
FBS je naveo da je strateška promjena pokrenuta 2003. zbog gospodarskih razloga bila neophodna te je tako FBS postupao kao razborit ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
On the basis of the business plan underpinning the LCC Strategy, FBS would have been in a position to assume that the airport’s operations would not continue to be unprofitable.
Na temelju poslovnog plana na kojem se temeljila strategija za niskotarifne prijevoznike FBS je mogao izraditi prognozu kojom se pokazalo da poslovanje zračne luke neće ostati neodrživo. FBS je uputio na studiju za čiju je provedbu angažirano revizorsko društvo […] („Studija prvog stručnjaka”).
FBS referred to the study that it commissioned to auditing firm […] (‘the first expert study’), which was finalised in 2007 and which would have confirmed that from the perspective of a market economy operator, it was rational to implement the LCC Strategy and put in place a corresponding schedule of charges.
Tom studijom dovršenom 2007. potvrđeno je da su provedba strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike i uvođenje odgovarajućeg pravilnika o naknadama opravdani sa stajališta ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
FBS claims that the individual agreements concluded with certain LCCs before the date of application of the 2004 schedule of charges had been necessary for the implementation of the LCC strategy in order to offer airlines an incentive to base themselves at Schönefeld.
FBS je objasnio da su posebni ugovori sklopljeni s određenim niskotarifnim prijevoznicima prije stupanja na snagu Pravilnika o naknadama iz 2004. bili nužni kako bi se zračne prijevoznike potaknulo na dolazak na Schönefeld.
All these individual agreements with the different airlines would have been concluded on the basis of purely economic considerations with a view to improving FBS’s economic situation in the short term.
Svi pojedini ugovori s različitim zračnim prijevoznicima sklopljeni su na temelju isključivo gospodarskih promišljanja u cilju kratkoročnog poboljšanja gospodarske situacije FBS-a.
With regard to the 2003 easyJet agreement, FBS maintained that it had been an essential component of the implementation of the LCC strategy and that it did not involve State aid.
U pogledu Ugovora s prijevoznikom easyJet iz 2003. FBS smatra da je pritom bila riječ o bitnom sastavnom dijelu provedbe strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike i da on time ne predstavlja državnu potporu.
The LCC strategy would have created an incentive for easyJet — one of the leading LCCs in Europe — to establish a base at Schönefeld.
Na temelju strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike easyJet, jedan od vodećih niskotarifnih prijevoznika u Europi, dobio je poticaj za dolazak na Schönefeld.
On the basis of the successful conclusion of the 2003 easyJet agreement easyJet (viewed as an ‘anchor tenant’), FBS would have been able to attract other airlines to Schönefeld.
Na temelju uspješnog sklapanja ugovora s prijevoznikom easyJet (koji se smatrao „glavnim korisnikom”) FBS je mogao i druge zračne prijevoznike uvjeriti u dolazak na Schönefeld.
The contractual relationship with easyJet (including the latter’s obligation to base a minimum number of aircraft at Schönefeld) would have ensured a high level of planning certainty on both sides and would have significantly contributed to increasing Schönefeld’s profitability.
Ugovornim odnosom s prijevoznikom easyJet (uključujući obvezu zračnog prijevoznika da na Schönefeldu smjesti određeni najmanji broj zrakoplova) obje su strane dobile veliku sigurnost u pogledu planiranja te je to znatno pridonijelo rastu održivosti Schönefelda.
FBS argues that the 2003 easyJet agreement did not fundamentally deviate from the 2004 Schedule and entailed no undue granting of advantages.
FBS je obrazložio da se Ugovorom s prijevoznikom easyJet iz 2003. ne odstupa uvelike od Pravilnika o naknadama iz 2004. i ne povlači nedopušteno odobravanje koristi.
FBS also pointed out that the 2007 easyJet amending agreement explicitly referred to the 2006 Schedule, which was applicable at the time.
FBS je uputio i na činjenicu da se u Ugovoru o izmjenama s prijevoznikom easyJet iz 2007. upućuje isključivo na Pravilnik o naknadama iz 2006., koji je bio na snazi u tom trenutku.
FBS further stressed that the individual contracts with LCCs had been signed before the 2005 Aviation Guidelines were adopted and, at least for some agreements, even before the adoption of the Charleroi decision of the Commission [31].
FBS je nadalje naglasio da su pojedinačni ugovori s niskotarifnim prijevoznicima sklopljeni prije donošenja Smjernica za zračni promet iz 2005. Potpisivanje nekih ugovora dogodilo se još i prije prihvaćanja Odluke Komisije o Charleroiu [31].
Besides, according to FBS, renting facilities at Terminal B to easyJet conferred no specific advantage on it.
Osim toga, prema mišljenju FBS-a uzimanjem u zakup prostorija na terminalu B easyJet nije ostvario posebnu korist.
The allocation of a separate terminal to easyJet would have been done on economic and practical grounds because of that airline’s high passenger throughput at Schönefeld. easyJet would have paid a normal market price, which would have been agreed on the basis of existing rents at Schönefeld.
Do dodjele cjelokupnog terminala prijevozniku easyJet došlo je zbog gospodarskih i praktičnih razloga, tj. zbog velikog broja putnika tog zračnog prijevoznika na Schönefeldu. Prijevoznik easyJet plaćao je uobičajenu tržišnu cijenu dogovorenu na temelju iznosa zakupa koji su već naplaćeni na Schönefeldu.
The allocation of terminal areas was common practice at German and international airports.
Dodjela prostora terminala uobičajena je praksa na njemačkim i međunarodnim zračnim lukama.
Furthermore, there would be no advertising rights giving easyJet an advantage over other airlines, since easyJet would have been given branding rights in its check-in area only, in the same way as any other airline.
Osim toga, prijevozniku easyJet nisu odobrena nikakva prava na oglašavanje zbog kojih bi on imao prednost pred ostalim zračnim prijevoznicima jer je easyJet – baš kao svi ostali zračni prijevoznici – dobio prava na isticanje svojeg znaka samo u vlastitom prostoru za registraciju putnika.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
PRIMJEDBE NJEMAČKE
State influence
Uplitanje države
Germany argued that FBS’s resources are not under State control, and that their use could not be attributed to the State.
Njemačka je navela da država nije kontrolirala sredstva FBS-a i da se njihova upotreba ne može pripisati državi.
According to Germany, the incentives and rebates in question were not financed through public resources, but were the result of the business activities of an undertaking operating under private law.
Njemačka tvrdi da predmetni poticaji i popusti nisu bili financirani iz javnih sredstava, nego su rezultat poslovanja poduzeća koje posluje u skladu s privatnim pravom.
Germany argued in this context that FBS and its subsidiaries, though partially state-owned, were not integrated into the public administration, but had been explicitly made subject to the principles of competition and free market.
Njemačka je u tom pogledu objasnila da FBS i njegova društva kćeri, unatoč vlasnicima udjela koji su u državnom vlasništvu, nisu bili pod javnom upravom, nego su svjesno podvrgnuti načelima tržišnog natjecanja i slobodnog tržišta.
Germany added that the public shareholders expected FBS to yield profits.
Njemačka je dodala da su vlasnici udjela u državnom vlasništvu od FBS-a očekivali da će ostvariti dobit.
The control and profit transfer agreement (measure 1)
Ugovor o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti (Prva mjera)
Germany took the view that the control and profit transfer agreement did not involve any cross-subsidisation giving rise to State aid.
Njemačka je smatrala da Ugovor o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti ne sadržava unakrsno financiranje koje bi moglo predstavljati državnu potporu.
Germany pointed out that in public law terms, as well as under EU legislation [32], Berlin’s airports were interlinked in such a way as to form a single ‘airport system’.
Njemačka je naglasila da su u pogledu javnog prava i prema pravnoj stečevini Europske unije [32] berlinske zračne luke bile povezane tako da su činile jedinstven „sustav zračnih luka”.
The purpose of such an airport system would be to treat different airports as a single airport with multiple runways.
Svrha je takvog sustava zračnih luka da se različite zračne luke promatraju kao jedna jedina zračna luka s većim brojem uzletno-sletnih staza.
FBS and BFG would thus have to be viewed as a single undertaking.
FBS i BFG stoga je potrebno smatrati jednim poduzećem.
Germany stressed that the Commission itself had referred to a control and profit transfer agreement, a joint IT structure, centralised key functions and unified company plans as criteria for considering individual companies within a group as non-autonomous [33].
Njemačka je stoga uputila na činjenicu da je sama Komisija navela Ugovor o kontroli i prijenosu dobiti, zajedničku IT strukturu, centralizirane ključne funkcije i jedinstvene poslovne planove kao kriterije prema kojima se pojedina poduzeća unutar grupe mogu svrstati u neautonomna. [33]
According to Germany, the transfer of profits would not involve transferring the costs of Schönefeld to Tegel and Tempelhof.
Prema stajalištu Njemačke prijenos dobiti nije predstavljao prijenos troškova sa Schönefelda na Tegel i Tempelhof.
It would have no impact on airport charges at Tegel.
To nije utjecalo na naknade zračne luke na Tegelu.
The charges levied at all three airports would be based on the underlying costs at each site.
Naknade naplaćene na svim trima zračnim lukama temeljile su se na troškovima koji se odnose na svaku pojedinu zračnu luku.
Moreover, Germany pointed out that FBS, like any other private undertaking, was following a strategic plan with a view to making long-term profits.
Osim toga, Njemačka je navela da je FBS, kao svako drugo privatno poduzeće, primjenjivao strateški plan za dugoročno ostvarivanje dobiti.
The main feature of this plan would be the creation of a single airport for Berlin on the Schönefeld site.
Glavna je značajka tog plana uspostava jedinstvene zračne luke za Berlin na lokaciji Schönefeld.
Legal validity of the 2004 Schedule
Valjanost Pravilnika o naknadama iz 2004.
According to Germany, the provisional conclusion reached by the Commission in the opening decision, according to which schedules of charges that have not been unconditionally approved by the competent regional authority are not valid [34], would not correctly reflect the legal situation prevailing in Germany.
Prema navodima Njemačke u privremenom zaključku Komisije u Odluci o pokretanju postupka prema kojem pravilnici o naknadama koje nadležno pokrajinsko tijelo nije odobrilo bez rezerve nisu valjani [34] ne odražava se pravilno pravna situacija koja vlada u Njemačkoj.
Approval by the competent authority of the region (Land) in accordance with Section 43a of the Air Traffic Licensing Order [35] would not be a pre-requisite for the legal validity of the schedule of charges.
Odobrenje nadležnog pokrajinskog tijela [35] prema članku 43.a njemačkog Zakona o dozvolama u zračnom prometu (Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung) nije preduvjet za valjanost pravilnika o naknadama.
According to Germany, in the judgment of 20 October 2004, referred to by the Commission at paragraph 22 of the opening decision [38], the Potsdam Regional Court (Landgericht Potsdam), misconstrued the circumstances. Moreover, Germany indicated that this judgment had been appealed.
Njemačka smatra da su u presudi Pokrajinskog suda u Potsdamu od 20. listopada 2004., na koju se Komisija pozvala u uvodnoj izjavi 22. Odluke o pokretanju postupka [38], poveznice pogrešno prepoznate.
In that context, the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court (Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht) had issued judicial guidance (‘richterlicher Hinweis’) according to which the judgment of the Potsdam Regional Court (Landgericht Potsdam) ought not to be upheld.
Osim toga, protiv te presude uložena je žalba. U tom pogledu Vrhovni sud pokrajine Brandenburg izdao je naputak da presuda Pokrajinskog suda u Potsdamu nije održiva.
Germany pointed out that subsequently, the complaint at the root of the proceedings had been withdrawn as part of a settlement between the parties to the dispute.
Njemačka je objasnila da je nakon toga tužba u okviru nagodbe u glavnom postupku između strana koje su sudjelovale u pravnom sporu povučena.
The ruling by the Potsdam Regional Court (Landgericht Potsdam) would thus have never taken effect and would have been rendered inoperative by the withdrawal of the complaint, even though it was not explicitly annulled.
Presuda Pokrajinskog suda u Potsdamu time nikad nije bila valjana te zbog povlačenja tužbe nema učinka, čak i ako nije izričito ukinuta.
Germany indicated that the Potsdam Regional Court (Landgericht Potsdam) would have subsequently revised its interpretation of the law and in a very similar subsequent case, dismissed a complaint about Schönefeld’s schedule of charges.
Njemačka je uputila na činjenicu da je Pokrajinski sud u Potsdamu u međuvremenu izmijenio mišljenje i u gotovo jednakom predmetu koji je uslijedio odbio tužbu u pogledu pravilnika o naknadama Zračne luke Schönefeld.
Individual agreements between FBS and certain airlines (measures 2 and 3)
Pojedinačni ugovori koje je FBS sklopio s određenim zračnim prijevoznicima (Druga i Treća mjera)
Germany stated that the system of charges and individual contractual arrangements with various airlines at Schönefeld should be viewed in the context of the implementation of the LCC strategy.
Njemačka je objasnila da je sustav naknada i pojedine sporazume s različitim zračnim prijevoznicima u zračnoj luci Schönefeld potrebno promatrati u kontekstu provedbe strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike.
Germany argued that in that context, as Berlin’s airports form a single ‘airport system’, they are not in competition against one another.
Njemačka je navela da u tom kontekstu berlinske zračne luke kao jedinstven „sustav zračnih luka” nisu bile u međusobnoj konkurenciji.
It would not have brought about any reduction in passenger numbers at Tegel.
Ta strategija nije dovela do smanjenja broja putnika na Tegelu.
Rather, passenger numbers at both airports would have risen considerably in the years preceding the opening of the formal investigation procedure.
Štoviše, obje su zračne luke u godinama prije pokretanja službenog istražnog postupka uspjele znatno povećati broj putnika.
Besides, given the geographical distance involved, Berlin’s airports would not be competing against Leipzig, Dresden, Hamburg or Lübeck, particularly with respect to cost sensitive LCC passengers.
Osim toga, berlinske zračne luke na temelju zemljopisne udaljenosti, posebno u pogledu štedljivih putnika niskotarifnih prijevoznika, nisu konkurenti zračnim lukama Leipzig, Dresden, Hamburg ili Lübeck.
According to Germany, it would have been essential for the implementation of the LCC Strategy to get an airline as an anchor tenant to use Schönefeld as a hub.
Njemačka navodi kako je za provedbu strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike bilo važno imati zračnog prijevoznika kao glavnog korisnika koji bi Schönefeldu služio kao temelj za daljnji razvoj poslovanja.
This would have been the first step towards establishing a large volume of traffic at that airport and would have made the latter more attractive to other airlines.
To je prvi korak u ostvarivanju velikog prometa u toj zračnoj luci, što bi Schönefeld učinilo privlačnijim za druge zračne prijevoznike.
It would have been impossible to attract such an anchor tenant if the same conditions had applied at Schönefeld as at Tegel, as shown by experiences with failed attempts to persuade airlines to move from Tegel to Schönefeld in the 1990s.
Da su za Schönefeld vrijedili isti uvjeti kao za Tegel, bilo bi nemoguće dobiti takvog glavnog korisnika, što pokazuju neuspjeli pokušaji iz 1990-ih godina da se zračne prijevoznike potakne na premještaj s Tegela na Schönefeld.
To divert traffic and use Schönefeld’s capacity efficiently, it was necessary to attract air traffic to that airport.
Za preusmjeravanje prometa i učinkovitu upotrebu kapaciteta Schönefelda bilo je nužno stvoriti poticaje za zračni promet u zračnoj luci Schönefeld.
Airlines were given an appropriate incentive through the implementation of the LCC strategy, which involved a schedule of charges with embedded volume discounts and other financial incentives.
Provedbom strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike zračni prijevoznici dobili su odgovarajuće poticaje, među koje je spadao i pravilnik o naknadama koji je sadržavao popuste na količinu i druge financijske poticaje.
It would have been necessary to implement the LCC strategy through individual agreements with several airlines prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Schedule, so as to limit the losses incurred by Schönefeld as quickly as possible and to obtain a favourable position on the then fast-growing LCC market.
Bilo je nužno provesti strategiju za niskotarifne prijevoznike prije stupanja na snagu Pravilnika o naknadama iz 2004. posebnim ugovorima s više zračnih prijevoznika kako bi se gubitci Schönefelda ograničili što je prije moguće i kako bi se zauzeo povlašten položaj na tržištu niskotarifnih prijevoznika koje se tada brzo povećavalo.
In that respect, Germany pointed out that a formal amendment to an airport’s schedule of charges entailed extensive administrative work and that it could therefore not have been completed quickly enough to start implementing the LCC Strategy as soon as possible, namely by the end of 2003.
U tom pogledu Njemačka je navela da bi službena izmjena pravilnika o naknadama zračne luke uzrokovala znatne administrativne troškove i ne bi se mogla dovoljno brzo donijeti kako bi se što prije započelo s provedbom strategije za niskotarifne prijevoznike, tj. krajem 2003.
Germany argued that FBS had acted like a market economy operator in adopting the measures under assessment, since its business decisions were based on the LCC Strategy and the individual agreements had been concluded on the basis of a solid business plan developed by the consultant.
Njemačka je obrazložila da je FBS poduzimanjem predmetnih mjera postupao kao ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu jer su se poslovne odluke FBS-a temeljile na strategiji za niskotarifne prijevoznike i pojedini ugovori sklopljeni su na temelju dobrog poslovnog plana koji je izradilo društvo za poslovno savjetovanje.