natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is irrelevant that these agreements may have been signed on the same date as they each have a different purpose.
Od male je važnosti što su ti ugovori sklopljeni istog dana ako su njihovi ciljevi različiti.
The airport services agreement is intended to determine the conditions under which Pau airport makes its airport facilities available to airlines and provides them with various airport services in return for remuneration.
Predmet je ugovora o uslugama zračne luke utvrđivanje uvjeta u kojima Zračna luka Pau stavlja zračnim prijevoznicima na raspolaganje svoje objekte zračne luke te im, u zamjenu za naknadu, pruža razne usluge zračne luke.
On the other hand, the marketing services agreement is intended to define the conditions under which, in return for remuneration, an airline must promote Pau airport and the tourist and business attractions of the Pau-Béarn region on its website.
Naprotiv, predmet je Ugovora o marketinškim uslugama utvrđivanje uvjeta u kojima zračni prijevoznik mora, u zamjenu za naknadu, promicati na svojem web-mjestu Zračnu luku Pau te turističke i poslovne atrakcije regije Pau i Béarn.
The two types of agreement are not therefore intrinsically linked.
Stoga te dvije vrste ugovora nisu neodvojivo povezane.
In the same way, even though the terms and conditions for airport services provided by the airport and marketing services provided by an airline or one of its subsidiaries may appear in one and the same agreement, this does not mean, however, that the legal analysis of the existence of State aid must cover both these types of service where they do not ‘balance out each other’.
Jednako tako, ako su uvjeti i okolnosti u kojima je Zračna luka pružala usluge zračne luke te u kojima je zračni prijevoznik ili jedno od njihovih društava kćeri pružio marketinške usluge navedeni samo u jednom ugovoru ne bi, međutim, značilo da pravnom analizom postojanja državne potpore moraju biti obuhvaćene te dvije vrste usluga koje se međusobno ne „nadopunjuju”.
As regards the conduct of the CCIPB and that of other public entities, the CCIPB takes the view that they should not be assessed together, at the very least in terms of the marketing services agreements (which further justifies the separate assessment of the agreements), as these agreements are negotiated and concluded by the CCIPB in a strictly independent manner, without the intervention of other public entities.
Kada je riječ o ponašanju komore CCIPB i ostalih javnih subjekata, CCIPB smatra da ih nema potrebe procjenjivati zajedno, tim manje kada je riječ o ugovorima o marketinškim uslugama (što opravdava zasebnu ocjenu ugovora), jer se o tim ugovorima pregovaralo te su se oni sklapali strogo samostalno, bez uplitanja javnih subjekata.
Marketing services agreements signed by the CCIPB
Ugovori o marketinškim uslugama koje je sklopila komora CCIPB
Imputability
Pripisivost
According to the CCIPB, the payments made under the marketing services agreements are not imputable to the State because the CCIPB is fully independent of its supervisory authorities with regard to the airport’s operation.
Prema mišljenju komore CCIPB, plaćanja izvršena na temelju ugovora o marketinškim uslugama nisu pripisiva državi jer CCIPB Zračnom lukom upravlja sasvim neovisno o svojim nadzornim tijelima.
The decisions to pay the sums to Ryanair and AMS, on the one hand, and to Transavia, on the other hand, for marketing services were taken by the CCIPB individually and independently, without any direct or indirect intervention by the State.
Komora CCIPB donijela je odluke o plaćanju iznosa, s jedne strane, društvu Ryanair, a zatim i društvu AMS te, s druge strane, društvu Transavia za marketinške usluge autonomno i samostalno bez izravnog ili neizravnog uplitanja države.
Economic advantage granted to airlines
Gospodarska prednost dodijeljena zračnim prijevoznicima
The CCIPB considers that it has clearly acted like a prudent private investor in a market economy.
Komora CCIPB smatra da je očito djelovala kao razuman privatan ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
In particular, AMS and Transavia have provided genuine commercial services, including links on their websites allowing internet users to be directed straight to the CCIPB’s website, for which the remuneration corresponds to the market price.
Posebno, društva AMS i Transavia pružala su stvarne komercijalne usluge, posebno poveznice na svojim web-mjestima kojima je omogućeno da se korisnici interneta izravno preusmjere prema web-mjestima komore CCIPB te je naknada za te usluge odgovarala tržišnoj cijeni.
The CCIPB stresses in this respect the large number of visitors to the Ryanair and Transavia websites.
CCIPB naglašava u tom pogledu iznimnu posjećenost web-mjesta društava Ryanair i Transavia.
The CCIPB also notes that the prices applied by AMS are as set in a public rate card available on its website.
CCIPB napominje, nadalje, da su cijene koje je primjenjivalo društvo AMS bile utvrđene prema cjeniku iz cjenovnog raspona koji je javno dostupan na njegovu web-mjestu.
These prices are therefore applied to all airport customers of AMS without distinction, including certain fully privatised British airports.
Taj se cjenik bez razlike primjenjivao na sve zračne luke koje su bile klijenti društva AMS, uključujući određene britanske zračne luke koje su posve privatizirane.
For its part, Transavia provides marketing services to a private airport in Italy.
Transavia je marketinške usluge pružala privatnoj zračnoj luci u Italiji.
In addition, according to the CCIPB, certain French airports operated by private companies (as public service licensees) appear to have signed a marketing services agreement with AMS, including Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées airport managed by the Canadian company SNC-Lavalin.
Osim toga, prema mišljenju komore CCIPB, čini se su određene francuske zračne luke, kojima su upravljali privatni poduzetnici (u svojstvu tijela kojima su delegirane javne usluge), sklopile ugovor o marketinškim uslugama s društvom ASM, posebno Zračna luka Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées kojom upravlja kanadsko društvo SNC-Lavalin.
The CCIPB regards this as evidence that its conduct corresponds to that of a private operator.
Komora CCIPB to vidjeti kao dokaz usklađenosti njezina ponašanja s ponašanjem privatnog subjekta.
The CCIPB also notes that the one-off nature of the price paid for the services provided does not appear to be a criterion for determining the existence of State aid, and that the sums paid under the Pau-Charleroi agreement resulted in different services from those that the CCIPB received under the Pau-London agreement, as a result of which the CCIPB has not paid twice for the same service.
CCIPB napominje, nadalje, da se paušalni karakter cijene plaćene za pružene usluge ne čini odlučujućim kriterijem da bi se mjera kvalificirala kao državna potpora te da je iznosima plaćenima na temelju Ugovora Pau – Charleroi omogućeno dobivanje usluga različitih od onih koje je komora CCIPB ostvarila na temelju Ugovora Pau – London, tako da komora CCIPB nije dvaput platila istu uslugu.
The CCIPB also considers that the sums paid are insufficient to launch a route.
CCIPB smatra, nadalje, da su plaćeni iznosi nedovoljni za otvaranje zračne linije.
The CCIPB considers that, by purchasing these marketing services at the prices stated in the agreements, it has benefited from indisputable economic consideration in two respects.
Komora CCIPB smatra da je nabavom marketinških usluga po cijenama navedenima u ugovorima zauzvrat dobila neosporne gospodarske učinke, i to u dva pogleda.
Firstly, the marketing services have had a favourable impact on the airport’s operating revenue, in particular by encouraging an increased flow of passengers within the airport.
Najprije, marketinške su usluge povoljno utjecale na prihode upravljanja Zračnom lukom posebno pridonoseći većem priljevu putnika u Zračnu luku.
Secondly, and furthermore, this consideration has also benefited the entire town of Pau and its region.
Osim toga, ti su učinci usto pogodovali cijelom gradu Pauu i njegovoj regiji.
The CCIPB does not agree with the consultant’s view that Ryanair’s strategy underlying the signature of marketing services agreements is to obtain a subsidy from the airport to keep its prices low.
CCIPB ne dijeli mišljenje savjetnika prema kojem je „strategija društva Ryanair pri sklapanju Ugovora o marketinškim uslugama bila dobiti subvenciju od zračne luke kako bi moglo održati niske cijene”.
Unlike the consultant, the CCIPB takes the view that there is significant commercial interest in purchasing such services as Pau airport is a regional airport without a natural flow of passengers in a sufficient volume to balance its operating accounts.
Za razliku od savjetnika, komora CCIPB smatra da je imala veliku gospodarsku korist nabaviti takve usluge jer je Zračna luka Pau regionalna zračna luka koja nema prirodan priljev putnika u obujmu koji bi bio dovoljan za uravnoteženje dohotka.
The CCIPB indicates that, since Ryanair’s arrival at the airport and the promotional efforts made on its website, Pau airport has substantially increased its traffic.
CCIPB navodi da se od dolaska društva Ryanair u Zračnu luku te nakon promidžbenih kampanja provedenih na njegovu web-mjestu znatno povećao promet Zračne luke Pau.
Lastly, the CCIPB indicates that it refused to renew the marketing services agreement with AMS because the new prices being negotiated were too high.
Naposljetku, komora CCIPB navodi da je odbila obnoviti Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama s društvom AMS jer su nove cijene o kojima se pregovaralo bile previsoke.
This decision confirms that it was not ready to accommodate Ryanair at any cost.
Tom je odlukom dokazano da komora CCIPB nije bila spremna poslovati s društvom Ryanair po svaku cijenu.
According to the CCIPB, the sums paid in return for marketing services have in no way affected competition between either airlines or airports.
Prema mišljenju komore CCIPB, iznosi plaćeni za marketinške usluge nisu ni na koji način utjecali na tržišno natjecanje među zračnim prijevoznicima ni među zračnim lukama.
The CCIPB stresses that it must make promotional efforts as it has extreme difficulty in attracting airlines because they prefer to operate from local airports that are more attractive in terms of leisure tourism.
Komora CCIPB naglašava da je morala provesti promidžbenu kampanju s obzirom na to da je imala velikih teškoća u privlačenju zračnih prijevoznika jer su oni radije odlazili u obližnje zračne luke koje su atraktivnije zbog rekreativnog turizma.
The CCIPB cites Biarritz-Anglet-Bayonne airport, which serves a region renowned for its beaches, and Tarbes-Lourdes airport, which benefits from the religious site at Lourdes.
Komora CCIPB navodi Zračnu luku Biarritz-Anglet-Bayonne koja posluje u regiji koja je poznata po svojim plažama te Zračnu luku Tarbes-Lourdes u čijoj se blizini nalazi vjersko odredište Lourdes.
The CCIPB notes that, at Pau airport, the competition from low-fare airlines has in no way affected Air France’s operations, which continued to grow until 2008 when the financial crisis broke.
CCIPB navodi da u Zračnoj luci Pau tržišno natjecanje zbog prisutnosti niskotarifnih prijevoznika nije ni na koji način utjecalo na djelatnost društva Air France, koja nije prestala rasti do 2008. kad je izbila gospodarska kriza.
Furthermore, the CCIPB stresses that, prior to Ryanair’s arrival in 2003, no airline operated any international routes from Pau airport, and that this arrival therefore did not affect competition for existing routes.
CCIPB, nadalje, ističe da prije dolaska društva Ryanair 2003. nijedan zračni prijevoznik nije poslovao na međunarodnoj liniji iz Zračne luke Pau te da taj dolazak nije utjecao na tržišno natjecanje u pogledu postojećih linija.
Airport services agreements
Ugovori o uslugama zračne luke
The CCIPB points out that all the airport charges are strictly applied in identical fashion to all users and all airlines at Pau airport.
CCIPB podsjeća da se sve naknade zračne luke primjenjuju strogo jednako na sve korisnike te na sve zračne prijevoznike glavnog čvorišta Zračne luke Pau.
The CCIPB refutes in this respect that any discriminatory practices exist.
CCIPB odbacuje u tom pogledu postojanje bilo kakvih diskriminirajućih praksa.
Furthermore, the CCIPB does not agree with the consultant’s view that the non-regulated charges vary from one airline to another without just cause.
S druge strane, CCIPB ne dijeli mišljenje savjetnika prema kojem se neregulirane naknade neopravdano razlikuju od jednog do drugog zračnog prijevoznika.
According to the CCIPB, the charges for non-regulated services are negotiated with each airline according to its specific situation.
Prema mišljenju komore CCIPB, cijene nereguliranih naknada predmet su pregovora sa svakim od zračnih prijevoznika ovisno o posebnosti njihove situacije.
The CCIPB concludes from these arguments that none of the airport services agreements examined by the Commission contains any element of State aid.
CCIPB iz tih argumenata zaključuje da nijedan ugovor o uslugama zračne luke koji Komisija ispituje ne sadržava nijedan element državne potpore.
Subsidies to the airport
Subvencije Zračnoj luci
The CCIPB takes the view that none of the ‘subsidies’ received by Pau airport over the 2000-2010 period and examined in the formal investigation procedure contains any element of State aid.
CCIPB smatra da nijedna od „subvencija” koje je Zračna luka Pau primila od 2000. do 2010. te koje su obuhvaćene formalnim istražnim postupkom ne sadržava element državne potpore.
Sovereign task subsidies
Subvencije za državne zadatke
According to the CCIPB, the subsidies of EUR 3 521 000 mentioned in Section 4.3.1 were intended to finance tasks entrusted by law to airport operators, but that normally fall under State responsibility in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority.
Prema mišljenju komore CCIPB, subvencije u iznosu od 3,521 milijuna EUR navedene u odjeljku 4.3.1. bile su namijenjene financiranju zadataka povjerenih upraviteljima zračne luke, za koje je inače odgovorna država kao tijelo javne vlasti.
Accordingly, these tasks are not economic in nature and the subsidies in question therefore do not fall within the scope of State aid rules.
Tako ti zadatci nisu gospodarske naravi i, prema tome, dotične subvencije nisu obuhvaćene područjem primjene pravila o državnim potporama.
Equipment subsidies
Subvencije za opremu
The CCIPB takes the view that the equipment subsidies granted by the syndicat mixte and local authorities do not contain any element of State aid.
CCIPB smatra da subvencije za opremu koje su dodijelili Mješoviti sindikat i lokalne vlasti ne sadržavaju element državne potpore.
These sums have been used to finance investments made by the owners of the airport infrastructure in maintaining and improving that infrastructure, or, in other words, developing their own assets.
Ti su iznosi poslužili za financiranje ulaganja koje su proveli vlasnici infrastrukture Zračne luke za njezino održavanje i unaprjeđenje, odnosno radi povećanja vrijednosti vlastite imovine.
These investments have therefore been made solely for the benefit of their owners.
Ta su ulaganja stoga provedena samo u korist njihovih vlasnika.
These sums have not, however, conferred any economic advantage on the CCIPB because they have not reduced the operating costs that it must normally bear as airport operator.
Tim iznosima, naprotiv, komori CCIPB nije dodijeljena nikakva gospodarska prednost jer njima nisu pokriveni troškovi upravljanja koje uobičajeno snosi CCIPB kao upravitelj Zračne luke.
These sums have simply ‘passed through’ the CCIPB given that, in its capacity as operator of the public equipment, it is responsible for carrying out this maintenance, upgrading and improvement work.
Ti su iznosi tek „prešli” preko komore CCIPB kojoj su, u svojstvu upravitelja objekata na javnom dobru, povjereni zadatci provedbe radova održavanja, usklađivanja s normama i unaprjeđenja.
As a result, according to the CCIPB, in paying equipment subsidies, the concession authority and local authorities have acted quite naturally, in their capacity as owners of the airport infrastructure and under the public equipment concession, to ensure that work to maintain, upgrade and improve the airport public service is carried out with a view to developing their assets.
Tako je, prema mišljenju komore CCIPB, sasvim prirodno da koncedent i lokalne vlasti koji, u svojstvu vlasnika infrastrukture zračne luke, plaćaju subvencije za opremu na temelju koncesije za uporabu objekata na javnom dobru, u svrhu izvedbe radova radi usklađivanja s normama, radova održavanja i unaprjeđenja javne usluge zračne luke u cilju povećanja vrijednosti njihove imovine.
These are therefore investments that are naturally the responsibility of the public equipment owner and not its operator.
Stoga je bila riječ o ulaganjima za koja je prirodno bio zadužen vlasnik objekta na javnom dobru, a ne upravitelj.
The CCIPB further notes that, at the end of the concession (end of 2015), it must return this airport infrastructure to its owners, together with the investments made.
Komora CCIPB napominje, usto, da će nakon isteka koncesije (krajem 2015.) morati dotične infrastrukture zračne luke u koje je uložila vratiti njihovim vlasnicima.
In addition, the subsidies in question have in no way distorted competition with other neighbouring airports (Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées and Biarritz-Anglet-Bayonne) because these have also received similar subsidies from their concession authorities.
Nadalje, dotične subvencije nisu ni na koji način narušile tržišno natjecanje s drugim obližnjim Zračnim lukama (Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées i Biarritz-Anglet-Bayonne) jer su i one od svojih koncedenata primile slične subvencije.
With regard to the sum of EUR 38 000 received from Gaz de France in 2003, the CCIPB notes that this measure is not imputable to the State, but was taken independently by Gaz de France.
U pogledu iznosa od 38 000 EUR koji je 2003. platilo društvo Gaz de France, CCIPB napominje da ta mjera nije pripisiva državi jer ju je samostalno poduzelo društvo Gaz de France.
In addition, this decision has not conferred any economic advantage on Pau airport because Gaz de France has acted as a prudent private investor in a market economy.
Tom odlukom, nadalje, Zračnoj luci Pau nije dodijeljena nikakva gospodarska prednost jer je društvo Gaz de France djelovalo kao razuman privatni ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
The CCIPB notes that Commission Decision 2005/842/EC (hereinafter the ‘2005 SGEI Decision’) applies to the measures in question.
CCIPB napominje da se Odluka Komisije 2005/842/EZ (dalje u tekstu: „Odluka o uslugama od općeg gospodarskog interesa iz 2005.”) primjenjuje na ispitivane mjere.
The CCIPB stresses that the scope of this Decision includes ‘public service compensation for airports … for which average annual traffic during the two financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned does not exceed 1 000 000 passengers, in the case of airports’ and ‘which receive annual compensation for the service in question of less than EUR 30 million’ (Article 2).
CCIPB ističe da su područjem primjene te Odluke, naime, obuhvaćene „naknade za javne usluge dodijeljene zračnim lukama […] čiji je prosječni godišnji promet manji od 1 000 000 putnika za zračne luke […] tijekom dvije poslovne godine koje prethode pružanju usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa” te čija „godišnja naknada za dotičnu uslugu iznosi manje od 30 milijuna EUR” (članak 2.).
As a result, according to the CCIPB, which takes the view that it has been entrusted with providing an airport public service, if the subsidies paid to the airport do constitute aid, this aid is compatible and exempt from the prior notification obligation based on the 2005 SGEI Decision.
Tako u pogledu komore CCIPB, koja se smatra zaduženom za pružanje javne usluge zračne luke, napominje da, ako su subvencije u korist zračne luke predstavljale potpore, te su potpore bile spojive i bile su izuzete od obveze prethodne prijave na temelju Odluke o uslugama od općeg gospodarskog interesa iz 2005.
Compatibility based on the 2005 Guidelines
Spojivost na temelju smjernica iz 2005.
The CCIPB argues, in the alternative, that the subsidies received by Pau airport and the CCIPB meet the compatibility criteria laid down by the 2005 Guidelines.
CCIPB podredno ističe da subvencije koje su primile Zračna luka Pau i komora CCIPB ispunjavaju kriterije spojivosti predviđene smjernicama iz 2005.
Ryanair argues that the Commission has wrongly fused AMS’s and Ryanair’s separate agreements with the CCIPB into a single alleged State aid case.
Ryanair ističe da je Komisija krivo postupila kad je Ugovore koje je komora CCIPB sklopila s društvima Ryanair i AMS spojila u jedan predmet u pogledu pretpostavljene državne potpore.
Ryanair further states that the investigation into the relationship between AMS and Pau airport flies in the face of the commercial success of the Ryanair offering, and that AMS has a large range of customers, not just airports, and its model is increasingly being replicated on other airline websites.
Zračni prijevoznik dodaje da je studija o odnosu između društva AMS i Zračne luke Pau suprotna komercijalnom uspjehu ponude društva Ryanair, brojnim klijentima koje AMS ima (ne samo u zračnim lukama) te činjenici da se njezin model sve češće preuzima na web-mjestima drugih zračnih prijevoznika.
Consultant’s report of 30 March 2011
Izvještaj savjetnika od 30. ožujka 2011.
Ryanair disputes some of the findings in the consultant’s report, in particular the following three claims:
Ryanair osporava određene zaključke izvješća savjetnika, posebno tri sljedeće tvrdnje:
‘The Ryanair website therefore primarily seems to be comparable to the websites of other airlines that generally host only a limited amount of paid advertising, with airports not featuring among the advertisers.’ Ryanair states that it is wrong to claim that other airlines do not offer paid advertising on their websites.
„Čini se stoga da je web-mjesto društva Ryanair ponajprije usporedivo s web-mjestima ostalih zračnih prijevoznika na kojima se općenito nalazi vrlo malo plaćenih oglasa te na kojima se zračne luke ne oglašavaju”. Ryanair smatra da je netočno tvrditi da drugi zračni prijevoznici na svojim web-mjestima ne nude plaćene oglase.
It argues that this practice is increasingly widespread and that regional airports, which suffer from low demand, are increasingly seeing the websites of their low-fare airline customers as the best place to advertise.
Ryanair ističe da je ta praksa sve raširenija i da regionalne zračne luke, koje imaju slabu potražnju, sve češće smatraju web-mjesta niskotarifnih zračnih prijevoznika, koji su njihovi klijenti, najboljim mjestom za oglašavanje.
Ryanair is also an example of an airline advertising parking services, on its website, for a hub airport from which it operates.
Ryanair je i sam primjer zračnog prijevoznika koji na svojem web-mjestu oglašava usluge parkiranja zračne luke kategorije I. čiji je klijent.
Ryanair maintains that it is incorrect to argue that airports are not comparable to other advertisers on its website, in so far as the airport services provided to Ryanair’s passengers cannot be dissociated from the services provided to passengers by Ryanair itself.
Ryanair smatra da je netočno tvrditi da zračne luke nisu usporedive s ostalim oglašivačima na njegovu web-mjestu jer se usluge koje zračne luke pružaju svojim putnicima ne mogu odvojiti od usluga koje Ryanair pruža svojim putnicima.
Ryanair argues that potential passengers seeing an advertisement for an airport on its website will generate income for the airport whether or not they fly with Ryanair.
Prijevoznik tvrdi da će potencijalni putnici koji vide oglas za neku zračnu luku na njegovu web-mjestu pridonijeti prihodu zračne luke, bilo da lete s društvom Ryanair ili ne.
It therefore maintains that the position of airports advertising on its website is, contrary to the Commission’s opinion, similar to that of other advertisers such as hotels and car rental companies.
Ryanair stoga smatra da je situacija zračnih luka koje se oglašavaju na njegovu web-mjestu, suprotno mišljenju Komisije, nalik situaciji ostalih oglašivača, poput hotela ili iznajmljivača automobila.