natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Airports and other third parties (car rental companies, hotels, regions, etc.) are ready to pay the prices indicated in the rate card published on the AMS website.
Zračne luke i ostale treće osobe (iznajmljivači automobila, hoteli, regije itd.) bile su spremne platiti cijenu iz cjenika utvrđenog u cjenovnom rasponu objavljenom na web-mjestu društva AMS.
Some wholly private airports have also agreed to pay these amounts.
Neke potpuno privatne Zračne luke pristale su platiti te iznose.
The CCIPB stresses the added value of advertising on the ryanair.com website, citing a study by the company Planet-Work that indicated that advertising purchased on the ryanair.com website offered greater visibility, for Pau airport and its region, in terms of the number of clicks by internet users, than advertising on the voyages-sncf.com website.
CCIPB naglašava dodanu vrijednost oglasa na web-mjestu ryanair.com, pozivajući se na studiju društva Planet-Work kojom je utvrđeno da su oglasi kupljeni na web-mjestu ryanair.com nudili Zračnoj luci Pau i njezinoj regiji veću vidljivost, u pogledu klikova korisnika interneta, od oglasa na web-mjestu voyages-sncf.com.
The CCIPB therefore concludes that, for the services provided, the prices applied by AMS and paid by the CCIPB are ‘market prices’.
CCIPB iz toga zaključuje da su cijene, koje je AMS primjenjivao na pružene usluge te koje je CCIPB platio, odgovarale „tržišnim cijenama”.
Thirdly, in the CCIPB’s opinion, it does not seem that the one-off nature of the price paid for the services provided is a criterion for determining the existence of State aid.
Kao treće, sa stajališta komore CCIPB, paušalni karakter cijene plaćene za pružene usluge ne mora nužno biti odlučujući kriterij za postojanje državne potpore.
Fourthly, the sums paid under the Pau-Charleroi agreement resulted in different services from those that the CCIPB received under the Pau-London agreement.
Kao četvrto, iznosima plaćenima na temelju Ugovora Pau – Charleroi omogućeno je dobivanje usluga koje se razlikuju od onih koje je CCIPB ostvario Ugovorom Pau – London.
Accordingly, the CCIPB has not paid twice for the same service, which helps to prove that the sums paid are not subsidies for the launch of a route.
Tako CCIPB nije dvaput platio istu uslugu što pridonosi dokazivanju da plaćeni iznosi nisu bili subvencije za otvaranje linije.
The CCIPB also asserts that, if the sum had been intended to support the route’s structural operating deficit, it would have clearly been insufficient.
CCIPB tvrdi, osim toga, da, ako je cilj tog iznosa bilo smanjiti strukturni manjak od upravljanja linijom, očito je da je iznos bio nedovoljan.
The CCIPB takes the view that the sums that it paid in return for the marketing services provided by AMS do not affect competition.
CCIPB smatra da iznosi koje je uplatio za marketinške usluge koje je pružilo društvo AMS nisu utjecali na tržišno natjecanje.
The Pau destination did not spontaneously interest any airline other than Air France and, despite the airport’s efforts, only Ryanair for London and Transavia for Amsterdam submitted proposals.
Za odredište Pau ne bi se spontano zanimao nijedan zračni prijevoznik, osim društva Air France, te unatoč trudu Zračne luke, jedino su Ryanair i Transavia izrazili zanimanje za liniju s Londonom odnosno Amsterdamom.
The CCIPB notes that the arrival of low-fare routes did not affect the Air France routes, which saw their traffic from Pau increase from 2003.
CCIPB napominje da dolazak niskotarifnih linija nije utjecao na linije društva Air France koje je od 2003. povećalo svoj promet iz Zračne luke Pau.
ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN AIRLINES (‘AEA’)
UDRUGA EUROPSKIH ZRAČNIH PRIJEVOZNIKA (ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN AIRLINES, „AEA”)
The AEA considers itself to be an interested party in this case.
AEA se u ovom predmetu smatra zainteresiranom stranom.
Firstly, it has one member airline operating at Pau airport (Air France).
Naime, AEA u svoje članove ubraja zračne prijevoznike koji posluju u Zračnoj luci Pau (Air France).
The AEA considers that the two agreements that the CCIPB signed with Ryanair and its wholly-owned subsidiary AMS, namely (1) the airport services agreement for the London Stansted-Pau route and (2) the web marketing services agreement under which AMS receives a one-off sum of EUR 437 000 per year, raise serious concerns.
AEA smatra da postoji dobar razlog za zabrinutost u pogledu oba Ugovora koja je CCIPB potpisao s društvima Ryanair i AMS, njegovim društvom kćeri u stopostotnom vlasništvu, odnosno u pogledu (1.) Ugovora o uslugama zračne luke koji se odnosi na liniju London Stansted – Pau i (2.) Ugovora o internetskim marketinškim uslugama na temelju kojeg je AMS godišnje primao paušalni iznos od 437 000 EUR.
In its opinion, the fact that Ryanair is the only airport user to benefit from a special airport services agreement is a more than questionable practice.
Prema mišljenju udruge AEA, činjenica da je Ryanair jedini korisnik Zračne luke koji je sklopio poseban ugovor za usluge zračne luke predstavlja više nego spornu praksu.
Furthermore, it considers that Ryanair should not be exempt from parking and lighting charges and that, when Ryanair’s turnarounds exceed two hours, it should be subject to the same charges as other airlines.
Osim toga, AEA smatra da se društvo Ryanair nije smjelo izuzeti od plaćanja naknada za parkiranje i rasvjetu te da, kad zrakoplovi prijevoznika provode više od dva sata u zračnoj luci, prijevoznik bi trebao snositi jednake naknade kao i ostali zračni prijevoznici.
The AEA claims that it has been broadly acknowledged by various French courts that the marketing services agreement signed with AMS created conditions that were excessively favourable to Ryanair.
AEA tvrdi da su različiti francuski sudovi uvelike priznali da su Ugovorom o marketinškim uslugama potpisanim s društvom AMS stvoreni uvjeti koji suviše pogoduju društvu Ryanair.
It notes that expressions such as ‘imbalance’ were also used by Pau Administrative Court in a May 2005 judgment, which could only conclude that this type of agreement constituted financial aid to Ryanair.
AEA tvrdi da se Upravni sud u Pauu u presudi donesenoj u svibnju 2005. služio izrazima poput „neravnoteža” te da je mogao samo zaključiti da je ta vrsta ugovora predstavljala financijsku potporu u korist društva Ryanair.
The AEA does not question the practice of marketing services per se, but doubts that normal market conditions have been respected in these particular contractual arrangements.
AEA ne dovodi u pitanje uporabu samih marketinških usluga, ali sumnja da su uobičajeni tržišni uvjeti bili ispunjeni u dotičnim ugovornim odredbama.
Ryanair argues that the terms and conditions of the 2005 airport services agreement correspond to market conditions and that the agreement does not confer any selective advantage on Ryanair and does not therefore distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Ryanair tvrdi da su pravila i uvjeti iz Ugovora o uslugama zračne luke iz 2005. u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima i da Ugovorom prijevozniku nije dodijeljena nikakva selektivna prednost te se stoga njime nije narušilo tržišno natjecanje niti se utjecalo na trgovinu među državama članicama.
Ryanair points out that it is paying the standard airport charges and taxes applicable at Pau airport, in addition to commission on ticket sales and excess baggage.
Prijevoznik naglašava da je plaćao standardne zrakoplovne naknade i pristojbe na snazi u Zračnoj luci Pau uz proviziju od prodaje karata i dodatne prtljage.
It notes that these charges are similar to those applied at other comparable airports, as well as to other airlines operating at Pau airport.
Navodi da su naknade slične naknadama koje se primjenjuju u ostalim usporedivim zračnim lukama ili na ostale zračne prijevoznike koji obavljaju djelatnosti u Zračnoj luci Pau.
To its knowledge, the CCIPB is not treating Ryanair more favourably than other airlines.
Prema njegovu saznanju, komora CCIPB prema njemu nije postupala na način koji bi mu pogodovao u odnosu na ono na što zračni prijevoznici inače imaju pravo.
Ryanair stresses that the terms and conditions offered to it are not secret and that, contrary to standard industry practice, the 2005 airport services agreement expressly authorises the CCIPB to reveal its contents to other airlines.
Ryanair ističe da načini i uvjeti koji su mu ponuđeni nisu tajni i da je, suprotno čestim praksama u sektoru, Ugovorom o uslugama zračne luke iz 2005. komora CCIPB izričito ovlaštena za otkrivanje njegova sadržaja drugim zračnim prijevoznicima.
Ryanair maintains that it did not receive any unlawful advantage from the CCIPB under the 2005 airport services agreement and that the transparent relationship covered by the agreement lacks the selectivity that is an essential condition (although not sufficient by itself) for classifying a measure as State aid.
Ryanair smatra da na temelju Ugovora o uslugama zračne luke iz 2005. nije primio nikakvu nezakonitu prednost od komore CCIPB te da se transparentan odnos utvrđen u Ugovoru odlikuje nepostojanjem selektivnosti, što je ključan kriterij (iako nedovoljan) da bi se neka mjera mogla smatrati državnom potporom.
It also asserts that the other conditions necessary for State aid to exist (effect on trade between Member States and distortions of competition, for example) are not met by the measures in question.
Ističe, osim toga, da ostali uvjeti koji su potrebni da bi državna potpora postojala (na primjer, učinak na trgovinu među državama članicama i narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja) nisu ispunjeni dotičnom mjerom.
AMS indicates that it offers advertising space on the Ryanair website under standard market conditions at prices based on a rate card published on its own website.
AMS napominje da nudi oglasne prostore na web-mjestu društva Ryanair po uobičajenim tržišnim uvjetima i po cijenama objavljenima na vlastitom web-mjestu.
AMS considers that the web marketing services (WMS) agreement with the CCIPB falls outside the scope of EU transport rules, since it is a standard commercial advertising agreement, similar to those routinely entered into with newspapers, television and radio broadcasters, outdoor media providers, and so on.
Društvo smatra da Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama na internetu (WMS) sklopljen s komorom CCIPB nije obuhvaćen područjem primjene pravila Unije u području prijevoza jer je riječ o klasičnom ugovoru o komercijalnom oglašavanju, nalik ugovorima koji se sklapaju s novinama, televizijskim kućama, radijskim postajama, pružateljima vanjskih oglasnih prostora itd.
According to AMS, the conditions for the purchase of advertising space on the Ryanair website by the CCIPB reflect and correspond to market conditions.
Prema mišljenju društva AMS, uvjeti u kojima je CCIPB zakupio oglasne prostore na web-mjestu društva Ryanair odražavaju tržišne uvjete te su s njima usklađeni.
With regard to the value of advertising space on the Ryanair website, AMS stresses that its pricing of this space reflects the increasing commercial success of this website and its unique ability to address advertising to a highly targeted audience.
Kada je riječ o vrijednosti oglasnih prostora na web-mjestu društva Ryanair, AMS naglašava da cijene utvrđene za te prostore odražavaju rastući komercijalni uspjeh tog web-mjesta te njegovu nemjerljivu sposobnost za isticanje oglasnih poruka koje se obraćaju iznimno ciljanoj javnosti.
AMS argues that the Ryanair website is much more desirable as an advertising space than any other travel site of any general portal used as a benchmark by the Commission.
AMS ističe da je oglasni prostor web-mjesta društva Ryanair mnogo cjenjeniji od oglasnih prostora drugih web-mjesta o putovanjima bilo kojeg općeg portala koje je Komisija uzela za usporedbu.
It stresses that the Ryanair website records in excess of 300 million page views per month.
Navodi da društvo Ryanair svaki mjesec na svojem web-mjestu zabilježi više od 300 milijuna ispisanih stranica.
It indicates that private airport operators ([…] and […], for example) signed agreements with AMS that were similar to the agreement entered into with the CCIPB.
Društvo navodi da su privatni upravitelji zračnih luka (na primjer, […] i […]) s društvom AMS potpisali ugovore koji su slični Ugovoru sklopljenim s komorom CCIPB.
AMS argues that it is irrelevant whether or not the agreement in question was needed, as raised by the Commission in the opening decision:
AMS osporava relevantnost kriterija potrebe dotičnog Ugovora, kao što je to Komisija iznijela u odluci o pokretanju postupka:
‘… the Commission wonders whether the CCIPB needs the marketing services in question and whether the marketing services agreement was not concluded solely in order to subsidise the Pau-London Stansted route’.
„[…] Komisija se pita jesu li ugovorene marketinške usluge potrebne komori CCIPB te nije li Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama sklopljen samo radi subvencioniranja linije Pau – London Stansted”.
According to AMS, this type of transaction carried out under market conditions precludes the existence of aid and there is no legal precedent for the assessment of this ‘need’.
Naime, prema mišljenju društva AMS, tom se vrstom radnje provedene u tržišnim uvjetima isključuje postojanje potpore te ne postoji pravni presedan u pogledu procjene kriterija „potrebe”.
However, if the Commission insists on questioning this need, AMS points out that the CCIPB is responsible for both promoting the Pau-Béarn region and operating Pau airport.
Međutim, AMS podsjeća da, s obzirom na to da je Komisija ustrajala u dovođenju u pitanje karaktera potrebe, komora CCIPB ujedno je nadležna i za promidžbu regije Pau-Béarn i za upravljanje Zračnom lukom Pau.
It considers that advertising on the Ryanair website makes commercial sense in terms of both these objectives.
AMS smatra da je, s obzirom na ta dva cilja, s komercijalnog stajališta oglašavanje na web-mjestu društva Ryanair logičan korak.
With regard to purchasing advertising space to promote the region, AMS stresses that French CCIs are in competition with each other and have to use ‘territorial marketing’ so that their region comes out ahead of competing regions.
Kada je riječ o zakupu oglasnog prostora radi promicanja regije, AMS naglašava da se francuske trgovačke i industrijske komore međusobno tržišno natječu te moraju pribjeći „regionalnom marketingu” kako bi njihova regija nadjačala svoje konkurente.
AMS considers that advertising space purchased on the Ryanair website increases the visibility of Pau airport.
AMS smatra da je zakupom oglasnog prostora na web-mjestu društva Ryanair omogućen porast vidljivosti Zračne luke Pau.
In its opinion, the CCIPB has a direct commercial interest in taking this approach because the resulting increase in passengers attracts ancillary businesses to the airport and increases airport revenue.
Prema mišljenju društva AMS, komora CCIPB ima izravan komercijalni interes djelovati na navedeni način jer će porastom broja putnika koji iz tog djelovanja proizlazi privući dodatne poduzetnike u Zračnu luku i povećati njezine prihode.
AMS claims that the CCIPB is not advertising on the Ryanair website in order to subsidise the Pau-London route, rather that the space on the Ryanair website that AMS is making available to the CCIPB constitutes a valuable resource for which there is proven alternative demand, including from the private sector.
AMS ističe da komora CCIPB nije postavila oglas na web-mjesto društva Ryanair kako bi subvencionirala liniju Pau – London, nego je taj prostor na web-mjestu društva Ryanair, koji AMS stavlja na raspolaganje komori CCIPB, traženo sredstvo za koji se zanimaju i ostali oglašivači, uključujući i oglašivače iz privatnog sektora.
It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the sale of such space as a mere pretext for the payment of subsidies.
Stoga je netočno prodaju tog prostora opisati kao jednostavnu izliku za plaćanje subvencija.
According to AMS, the web marketing services agreement does not constitute aid because its conditions correspond to those of a standard commercial agreement and do not confer any advantage on AMS (or Ryanair).
Prema mišljenju društva AMS, Ugovor o internetskim marketinškim uslugama ne predstavlja potporu jer su njegovi uvjeti u skladu s uvjetima klasičnog komercijalnog ugovora te se njime ne dodjeljuje nikakva prednost društvu AMS (ni društvu Ryanair).
It considers that this agreement does not therefore distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Društvo smatra da se tim Ugovorom ne narušava tržišno natjecanje te se ne utječe na trgovinu među državama članicama.
From Pau airport, Air France offers around five daily flights to Paris Orly airport, three daily flights to Paris Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport, and four daily flights to Lyon airport (through a subsidiary).
Air France iz Zračne luke Pau nudi oko pet dnevnih letova prema Zračnoj luci Pariz Orly, tri dnevna leta prema Zračnoj luci Pariz Roissy Charles de Gaulle i četiri dnevna leta prema Zračnoj luci Lyon (putem društva kćeri).
Air France states that the advantages granted to Ryanair and its subsidiary AMS, from which Air France does not benefit, have the effect of significantly reducing Ryanair’s operating costs.
Air France tvrdi da je posljedica prednosti danih prijevozniku Ryanair te njegovu društvu kćeri AMS, koju Air France nije ostvario, znatno smanjenje troškova upravljanja društva Ryanair.
According to Air France, this not only affects the direct competition between Ryanair and Air France for flights offered to and from Pau airport, but also the competition for all intra-Community routes.
Prema mišljenju društva Air France, to stoga izravno utječe na tržišno natjecanje između društava Ryanair i Air France u pogledu letova ponuđenih iz Zračne luke Pau i u nju, ali i na tržišno natjecanje svih linija unutar Zajednice.
Trade between Member States is therefore directly affected.
Time se izravno utjecalo na trgovinu među državama članicama.
Airport charges
Zrakoplovne naknade
Air France notes that, according to the 2007 price brochure published by the CCIPB, the public rate for the parking charge is set at EUR 0,16 tonne/hour.
Air France napominje da je, na temelju cjenovne brošure koju je 2007. objavila komora CCIPB, javna cijena naknada za parkiranje utvrđena na 0,16 EUR po toni i po satu.
This charge applies when an aircraft is parked for at least two hours on the tarmac.
Ta se naknada primjenjuje na zrakoplov koji je najmanje dva sata parkiran na stajanki.
Air France does not find it odd that Ryanair does not pay this charge for a 25-minute turnaround, but, when a turnaround exceeds two hours, Ryanair should be required to pay this charge.
Air France ne smatra neobičnim da Ryanair ne plaća tu naknadu za boravak u zračnoj luci od 25 minuta, nego da, svaki puta kad boravi više od dva sata, Ryanair mora platiti naknadu.
Air France notes that, according to the 2007 price brochure published by the CCIPB, the public rate for the lighting charge is set at EUR 35,18 per aircraft movement.
Air France napominje da je, na temelju cjenovne brošure koju je 2007. objavila komora CCIPB, javna cijena naknada za rasvjetu utvrđena na 35,18 EUR po kretanju zrakoplova.
This charge is payable when lighting equipment is used for an ‘aircraft movement’, namely a landing or takeoff, both during the day and at night.
Ta je naknada obvezna kad je oprema za rasvjetu korištena za „kretanje zrakoplova”, odnosno slijetanje ili polijetanje, kako danju, tako i noću.
Not applying this charge to Ryanair on the pretext that it operates only daytime flights does not therefore comply with the general conditions for the application of this charge.
Stoga neprimjena te naknade na prijevoznika Ryanair pod izlikom da on posluje samo na dnevnim letovima nije u skladu s općim uvjetima primjenjivima na tu naknadu.
Air France stresses that these public charges are usually reviewed over time and it considers that Ryanair — like other carriers flying to and from Pau airport — should be subject to any variations in these charges.
Air France naglašava da se te javne cijene uobičajeno provjeravaju s vremena na vrijeme te smatra da bi se na društvo Ryanair, kao i na ostale prijevoznike koji lete u Zračnu luku Pau i iz nje, trebale primjenjivati eventualne izmjene iznosa naknada.
Groundhandling services
Usluge podrške zračne luke
Air France stresses that Pau Administrative Court, in its judgment of 3 May 2005, found that an unjustified discount granted to Ryanair on the groundhandling charges constituted State aid that, due to not having been notified, should be regarded as unlawful.
Air France naglašava da je Upravni sud u Pauu u svojoj presudi od 3. svibnja 2005. smatrao da neopravdan popust na cijene zemaljskih usluga koji je dodijeljen društvu Ryanair predstavlja državnu potporu koju je, s obzirom na to da nije prijavljena, potrebno smatrati nezakonitom.
Air France notes that it offers significantly more services to and from Pau airport than Ryanair.
Društvo Air France napominje da ono nudi znatno više usluga iz Zračne luke Pau i u nju od prijevoznika Ryanair.
Under these circumstances, Air France believes that the charges applied by the CCIPB to Ryanair for groundhandling services should not be more advantageous than those offered to Air France.
U tim uvjetima, društvu Air France čini se da cijene koje je komora CCIPB odobrila prijevozniku Ryanair za usluge podrške zračne luke ne bi trebale biti povoljnije od onih koje plaća Air France.
Air France notes that this type of agreement between the airport operator and the Ryanair subsidiary AMS seems to be a common practice for Ryanair at airports from which it decides to launch routes.
Air France tvrdi da se čini da je ta vrsta ugovora između upravitelja zračne luke i društva AMS, društva kćeri prijevoznika Ryanair, ustaljena praksa društva Ryanair u zračnim lukama u kojima odluči otvoriti zračne linije.
Air France indicates that the French administrative courts have already rejected this type of measure where the alleged promotional services have not been provided or have been provided under conditions that are excessively favourable to Ryanair.
Air France napominje da su francuski upravni sudovi već sankcionirali taj tip mjere jer te navodne promidžbene usluge nisu bile pružene ili su bile pružene u uvjetima koji su suviše pogodovali društvu Ryanair.
Air France does not dispute the fact that certain ‘marketing’ aid may be acceptable under the Community rules.
Air France ne osporava činjenicu da bi određene „marketinške” potpore mogle biti prihvatljive u odnosu na pravila Zajednice.
However, Air France considers it unlikely that the ‘marketing services’ agreement meets the conditions required to be compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Međutim, Air France smatra da je malo vjerojatno da bi dotični Ugovor o „marketinškim uslugama” mogao ispuniti uvjete spojivosti s unutarnjim tržištem na temelju članka 107. stavka 3. točke (c) UFEU-a.
Air France asks for an end to the payments that, in its opinion, are undue and that Ryanair has received from Pau airport since 2005, and that the recovery of the unlawful aid received by Ryanair be ordered.
Air France želi da se prekinu plaćanja koja je Ryanair, prema njegovu mišljenju, neopravdano primao od Zračne luke Pau od 2005. te da se društvu Ryanair naredi povrat nezakonite potpore.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES FOLLOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
PRIMJEDBE KOJE SU IZNIJELE TREĆE ZAINTERESIRANE OSOBE NAKON PROŠIRENJA FORMALNOG ISTRAŽNOG POSTUPKA
The CCIPB believes that the marketing services agreements and airport services agreements that it has signed with the airlines and/or their subsidiaries do not contain any element of State aid.
Komora CCIPB smatra da ugovori o marketinškim uslugama i ugovori o uslugama zračne luke koje je sklopila sa zračnim prijevoznicima i/ili njihovim društvima kćeri ne sadržavaju nikakve elemente državne potpore.
The CCIPB notes that the nature and purpose of these agreements are radically different and must be analysed separately.
CCIPB tvrdi da su cilj i predmet tih ugovora izrazito različiti te da se moraju analizirati odvojeno.