natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, two principles underlie the analysis of the airport's investments: ‘genuine’ cash flows must be used, and the effect of time must be taken into account by updating those cash flows.
U tom je pogledu Zračna luka svoju analizu ulaganja temeljila na dva načela: „stvarni” tokovi sredstava i vrijednosti vremena putem diskontiranja tih tokova sredstava koje je uzela u obzir.
France considers that the construction of Terminal mp2 has had the following effects in particular:
Francuska smatra da su posljedice izgradnje terminala mp2 bile sljedeće:
Certain costs have been pooled between the two terminals, thus reducing the costs of the main terminal.
podjela troškova između dvaju terminala, čime su smanjeni troškovi glavnog terminala,
Certain investments with a cost affecting the IRR have been postponed, such as the construction of the Europe check-in area and the Europe/International departure hall.
odgoda određenih ulaganja čiji trošak utječe na USP, poput izgradnje prostora za registraciju putnika i prtljage na europskim letovima i dvorane za ukrcavanje putnika na europskim i međunarodnim letovima
The pooling of costs and the delay of certain investments as a result of the new Terminal mp2 have had an effect on the charges adopted for the latter and the turnover included in the IRR calculation.
Podjela troškova i odgoda određenih ulaganja, do čega dolazi zbog novog terminala mp2, utječu na razinu cijene koja će se primijeniti u potonjem terminalu kao i na promet uključen u izračun USP-a.
France therefore takes the view that the approach adopted by the airport corresponds to the choice that would have been made by a private operator.
Stoga Francuska smatra da bi se za pristup koji je primijenila Zračna luka odlučio i privatni subjekt.
Accordingly, it considers that the analysis conducted by PwC is incorrect in so far as the latter criticises France for not having produced a business plan ‘built on assumptions specific to mp2’, although this phrase is not explained by PwC.
Zapravo, tvrdi da je analiza koju je proveo ured PwC pogrešna jer je potonji ured zamjerio Francuskoj što nije sastavila poslovni plan „utemeljen na pretpostavkama u pogledu terminala mp2”, što ured nije dodatno pojasnio.
France notes in this respect that the allocation of costs between the various users of the different terminals is covered by the airport's differentiated charges analysis, and not by the profitability study for the new terminal project.
Francuska u tom pogledu podsjeća da su pitanja o podjeli troškova među različitim korisnicima različitih terminala proizašla iz analize određivanja različitih cijena Zračne luke, a ne iz studije profitabilnosti projekta novog terminala.
Air France maintains that, although the subsidies granted for upgrading the airport's infrastructure have benefited all carriers present at Marseille Provence Airport, the investment subsidies specifically for Terminal mp2 have had the potential to distort competition between the airlines using each of the two terminals.
Društvo Air France tvrdi da, iako su subvencije dodijeljene za usklađenje infrastrukture Zračne luke s normama pogodovale svim prijevoznicima prisutnima u čvorištu Marseille-Provence, subvencije za ulaganje namijenjene terminalu mp2 mogle su narušiti tržišno natjecanje među zračnim prijevoznicima koji se služe obama terminalima.
Air France disputes the Commission's assessment in the opening decision that access to Terminal mp2 has been equal and non-discriminatory.
Osporava ocjenu koju je Komisija iznijela u odluci o pokretanju postupka prema kojoj je pristup terminalu mp2 jednak i nediskriminirajući.
The CCIMP's decision to reserve Terminal mp2 for ‘point-to-point’ traffic would have forced Air France, which also operates international flights and in particular carries connecting passengers, to split its operations from Marseille between the two terminals, as a result of which Air France refrained from using Terminal mp2.
Odluka CCIMP-a da se sav promet terminala mp2 ograniči na izravne letove primorala je Air France, koji upravlja i međunarodnim letovima te koji, među ostalim, prevozi transferne putnike, da svoje letove iz Marseillea podijeli između dvaju terminala, zbog čega je Air France odustao od poslovanja u terminalu mp2.
According to Air France, the launch in October 2006 of international flights operated by Ryanair from Terminal mp2 proves the preferential treatment given to this operator by the CCIMP.
Otvaranjem terminala mp2 međunarodnim letovima društva Ryanair od listopada 2006. dokazano je, prema mišljenju društva Air France, da je CCIMP povlašteno postupao prema tom subjektu.
Moreover, Air France notes that Terminal mp2 offered services only for aircraft with fewer than 200 seats, which excluded the Airbus A321, and that an application was lodged by Air Méditerranée with Marseille Administrative Court seeking recognition of the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of this clause in the rules governing use of Terminal mp2.
Usto, Air France podsjeća da je terminal mp2 nudio samo usluge zrakoplovima s najviše 200 mjesta, zbog čega su bili isključeni zrakoplovi tipa Airbus 321 te da je prijevoznik Air Méditerranée podnio tužbu Upravnom sudu u Marseilleu s namjerom dokazivanja da je ta odredba pravilnika o upotrebi terminala mp2 arbitrarna i diskriminirajuća.
Air France maintains that the eligibility conditions for Terminal mp2 imposed initially by the CCIMP seem to have been solely intended to prevent it from seeking to use the new terminal, even though the economic equilibrium of the platform would have no doubt been assured if Air France could have transferred all its operations to Terminal mp2, where the level of charges was significantly lower.
Air France tvrdi da se čini da je jedini cilj uvjeta prihvatljivosti za poslovanje u terminalu mp2 koje je prvotno nametnuo CCIMP osigurati da se to društvo ne može služiti novim terminalom, dok ekonomske ravnoteže čvorišta zasigurno ne bi bilo da je Air France mogao svoje cjelokupno poslovanje prenijeti u terminal mp2, u kojem je razina naknada bila znatno smanjena.
OPERATING SUBSIDIES FOR THE CCIMP
OPERATIVNE SUBVENCIJE CCIMP-A
Air France claims that the level of airport tax, collected on behalf of the State but paid back in full to the airport operator, may not have corresponded to the costs actually incurred by the airport in financing measures falling under the responsibility of the public authorities, and may therefore have constituted an operating subsidy for Marseille Provence Airport.
Air France tvrdi da je postojala mogućnost da razina pristojbe zračne luke, koja se naplaćivala za račun države, ali se zatim u cijelosti uplaćivala upravitelju zračne luke, ne odgovara stvarnim troškovima koje je snosila Zračna luka za financiranje mjera obuhvaćenih ovlastima javnih tijela te da bi tako mogla predstavljati operativnu subvenciju u korist Zračne luke Marseille Provence.
AID GRANTED BY MARSEILLE PROVENCE AIRPORT TO CERTAIN AIRLINES
POTPORE KOJE JE ZRAČNA LUKA MARSEILLE PROVENCE DODIJELILA ODREĐENIM ZRAČNIM PRIJEVOZNICIMA
Reduced passenger charges for national flights
Smanjenje naknade po putniku za nacionalne letove
Air France does not dispute the Commission's finding in its opening decision that the creation of a low-cost terminal may meet a market demand.
Air France ne osporava tvrdnju koju je Komisija iznijela u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka prema kojoj se otvaranjem niskotarifnog terminala moglo odgovoriti na tržišnu potražnju.
However, Air France notes that the airport operator must ensure that this project is profitable.
Međutim, Air France podsjeća da je na upravitelju zračne luke da osigura profitabilnost tog projekta.
Air France disputes the Commission's assertion that it seems normal for a private airport operator to try and demand higher charges for the transport of passengers of those airlines that choose to offer a more comfortable service, whose customers are characterised as having a greater ‘willingness to pay’.
Air France osporava tvrdnju Komisije da se čini uobičajenim da privatni upravitelj zračne luke traži plaćanje troškova koji su veći zbog prijevoza putnika zračnih prijevoznika koji su odlučili ponuditi udobniju uslugu, a čija klijentela ima veću „sposobnost plaćanja”.
Air France maintains that it has played no part in determining the service quality level offered in the ‘comfortable’ terminal, and wonders whether the criteria applied by the airport operator for access to the new terminal dedicated to the new low-cost operators have been truly non-discriminatory.
Tvrdi da nije pridonio određivanju razine kvalitete usluge u terminalu, a koja je opisana kao „udobna”, te podsjeća da je upitno jesu li kriteriji koje primjenjuju upravitelji zračne luke za pristup novom terminalu namijenjenom novim niskotarifnim prijevoznicima stvarno nediskriminirajući.
Air France claims that airlines having historically used certain terminals are often captives of these infrastructures.
Air France navodi da su prijevoznici koji se dugo služe terminalima često zatočenici tih infrastruktura.
Air France takes the view that, as airport operators have a monopoly over their airports, they can unfairly increase their charges to such captive customers in order to offer lower charges to customers using the low-cost terminals, with the latter being capable of easily moving their operations from one airport platform to another.
Smatra da upravitelji zračne luke, s obzirom na to da imaju monopol u zračnu luku, mogu nepošteno povećati svoje cijene koje naplaćuju toj zatočenoj klijenteli kako bi ponudili atraktivne cijene klijenteli koja se služi niskotarifnim terminalima, koja svoje poslovanje može lako prebaciti s jednog zračnog čvorišta na drugo.
Air France considers that the charges applied at Marseille Provence Airport stem from accounting treatment choices that have the sole logic of favouring those airlines using Terminal mp2.
Air France smatra da cijene primijenjene na Zračnu luku Marseille Provence proizlaze iz odabrane računovodstvene obrade čiji je jedini cilj bio pogodovati prijevoznicima koji se služe terminalom mp2.
According to Air France, the method of allocating the overheads allows the passenger charge applicable to Terminal mp2 to be artificially reduced.
Metoda podjele općih troškova omogućila je, prema mišljenju društva Air France, umjetno snižavanje cijene naknade po putniku koja je primjenjiva u terminalu mp2.
Air France would like the Commission to include in its reasoning the fact that airports are ‘essential infrastructures’ as far as airlines are concerned and that, as a result, an airport operator must apply charges reflecting the cost of the service provided (obligation also imposed by Directive 2009/12/EC).
Air France želi da Komisija pri svojem razmatranju uzme u obzir činjenicu da su zračne luke zračnim prijevoznicima „nužne infrastrukture” i da je upravitelj zato dužan primjenjivati cijene koje odražavaju trošak pružene usluge (obveza koja se nalaže i Direktivom 2009/12/EZ).
Air France underlines that, to its knowledge, the CCIMP has never taken any steps to recover the additional charges due as a result of the retroactive reassessment of the passenger charges at Terminal mp2.
Air France ističe da, prema njegovu saznanju, CCIPM nije nikad poduzeo mjeru kako bi vratio dodatne naknade koje duguje na temelju retroaktivne ponovne procjene cijena naknade po putniku u terminalu mp2.
Air France notes that, although, through its interim ruling of 28 July 2009, the Council of State suspended payment of 20 % of the passenger charge applied to Terminal mp1, the CCIMP did not, however, increase the passenger charge applicable to Terminal mp2.
Naglašava da iako je, nakon rješenja od 28. srpnja 2009., Državno vijeće koje je odlučivalo o zahtjevu za privremenu pravnu zaštitu obustavilo primjenu 20 % iznosa naknade po putniku u terminalu mp1, CCIMP svejedno nije ispravio iznos naknade po putniku na snazi u terminalu mp2.
Air France points out that, as the Council of State did not annul the charges applicable to Terminal mp1 (decision of 27 June 2011), the entire 20 % suspended under the interim ruling was eventually paid to the CCIMP.
Air France podsjeća da je, s obzirom na to da Državno vijeće nije ukinulo cijene primjenjive u terminalu mp1 (Odluka od 27. lipnja 2011.), ukupan iznos od 20 % primijenjen na temelju rješenja o privremenoj pravnoj zaštiti konačno isplaćen CCIMP-u.
Air France notes that, in an earlier decision [32], the Commission concluded that an aid scheme involving a system for differentiating between airport charges according to the flight destination (national/international) was incompatible with the internal market.
Air France ističe da je Komisija u prethodnoj odluci [32] zaključila da je program potpore nespojiv sa zajedničkim tržištem u pogledu sustava razlikovanja naknada zračne luke ovisno o odredištu leta (nacionalni/međunarodni).
Air France points out that, as France took steps to abolish this system, the Commission did not want to adopt any further appropriate measures.
Podsjeća da, s obzirom na to da je Francuska poduzela mjere kojima se ukida taj sustav, Komisija nije željela poduzeti odgovarajuće dodatne mjere.
Air France therefore concludes that the Commission's earlier decision means that any new investigation into this aid scheme is pointless.
Air France iz toga zaključuje da je Komisija prethodnom odlukom sve nove istrage o tom sustavu ocijenila bespredmetnima.
Charges in relation to new routes
Naknade za uvođenje novih linija
Although Air France accepts that every airport has to adopt this type of approach, the airline points out, however, that the airport must prove that it has acted as a market economy operator.
Iako Air France priznaje da svaka zračna luka treba poduzeti takvu mjeru, zračni prijevoznik ipak podsjeća da je i na zračnoj luci da dokaže da je djelovala kao razuman subjekt u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
In this respect, it must prove that the measure aims to achieve an eventual return on investment.
U tom je pogledu potrebno dokazati da se mjerom dugoročno želi ostvariti povrat ulaganja.
The objective must therefore be to improve its own revenues and not to increase the region's tourist numbers.
Stoga cilj mora biti poboljšanje vlastitih prihoda, a ne povećanje turističke posjećenosti regije.
Air France adds that, in order to be acceptable, this type of measure must be transparent, non-discriminatory, degressive and time-limited so that it does not constitute public financing of the operating costs of the carrier benefiting from the measure.
Air France dodaje da, kako bi bila prihvatljiva, takva mjera treba biti transparentna, nediskriminirajuća, degresivna i vremenski ograničena kako ne bi predstavljala javno financiranje operativnih troškova prijevoznika koji je prima.
Ryanair maintains that the investment subsidies granted for the construction of Terminal mp2 reflect the conduct of a market economy operator.
Ryanair tvrdi da subvencije za ulaganje dodijeljene za izgradnju terminala mp2 ukazuju na ponašanje razumnog subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
According to Ryanair, the Commission's analysis should take into account the non-aeronautical revenue generated by Terminal mp2 through vehicle rentals, car park charges and additional commercial revenue generated by sales to Terminal mp2 passengers, who are likely to go to the shops in the main terminal, which is situated less than one minute's walk from Terminal mp2.
Prema mišljenju društva Ryanair, Komisijinom analizom potrebno je uzeti u obzir izvanzrakoplovne prihode koje ostvaruje terminal mp2, u okviru najma vozila, naknade za upotrebu parkirališta i dodatnih komercijalnih prihoda od prodaje putnicima u terminalu mp2, koji imaju pristup trgovinama glavnog terminala koji je od terminala mp2 udaljen manje od jedne minute hoda.
Ryanair concludes that the non-aeronautical revenue generated by Terminal mp2 passengers makes a significant contribution to the profitability of the main terminal.
Ryanair iz toga zaključuje da izvanzrakoplovni prihodi koje stvaraju putnici u terminalu mp2 znatno pridonose profitabilnosti glavnog terminala.
The airport's closure, which would have resulted in additional costs (redundancy and decontamination costs, opportunity costs of investments already made) when the airport's sale price was likely to be low if not negative, was not an economically appropriate alternative in 2006.
Zatvaranje Zračne luke, koje bi uzrokovalo dodatne troškove (otkazi, dekontaminiranje, oportunitetni trošak već provedenih ulaganja), iako bi prodajna cijena Zračne luke mogla biti niska odnosno negativna, nije bila ekonomski prihvatljiva alternativa u 2006.
SETTING OF THE PASSENGER CHARGES FOR TERMINAL MP2
ODREĐIVANJE NAKNADA PO PUTNIKU ZA TERMINAL MP2
Ryanair maintains that the decision setting the passenger charge applicable to Terminal mp2 is not imputable to the State, in accordance with the criteria explained by the Stardust Marine judgment [33].
Ryanair tvrdi da odluka o određivanju naknade po putniku primjenjive na terminal mp2 nije pripisiva državi, u skladu s kriterijima navedenima u sudskoj praksi iz predmeta Stardust Marine [33].
Ryanair underlines that the CCIs are regarded by French law as belonging to a specific category of public entities, characterised by a lack of subordination to the State [34].
Ističe da se trgovačke i industrijske komore, u skladu s francuskim zakonodavstvom, smatraju posebnom kategorijom javnih tijela koja nisu podređena državi [34].
Ryanair therefore challenges the Commission's view, which simply presumes that the measures in question are imputable to the State due to the fact that the CCIMP is under state control, and points out that the Commission should examine, in each case, the specific circumstances determining whether or not the measure is imputable to the State.
Ryanair stoga osporava stav Komisije koja je samo pretpostavila pripisivost predmetnih mjera jer se CCIMP nalazi pod kontrolom države te podsjeća da Komisija treba u pojedinim slučajevima ispitati posebne okolnosti koje su dovele do eventualnog utvrđivanja pripisivosti mjere.
Ryanair adds that, in the case of the CCIMP, France could not have initiated, or acted in such a way as to encourage, the adoption by the airport of the measures in question.
Ryanair dodaje da u slučaju CCIMP-a Francuska nije mogla potaknuti zračnu luku niti ju je poticala da poduzme osporavane mjere.
Ryanair maintains that, on the contrary, the DGAC repeatedly rejected the charges adopted by the CCIMP [35].
Naprotiv, Ryanair tvrdi da je DGAC opetovano odbijao cijene koje je primjenjivao CCIMP [35].
In the alternative, Ryanair maintains that the passenger charges for Terminal mp2 were set in accordance with the market economy operator test.
Podredno, Ryanair navodi da je određivanjem naknade po putniku u terminalu mp2 poštovan test razumnog subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
Ryanair claims that, in its analysis, the Commission did not correctly apply the prudent operator test, as required by the Court of Justice [36], for a number of reasons.
Ryanair tvrdi da Komisija u svojoj analizi iz više razloga nije pravilno primijenila test razumnog subjekta, kao što to zahtijeva Sud [36],
Firstly, the Commission omitted to make a primary comparison between the charges applicable at Marseille Provence Airport and the market price.
Kao prvo, Komisija nije najprije usporedila naknade primijenjene u Zračnoj luci Marseille Provence s tržišnom cijenom.
Ryanair has submitted a study that maintains that the market price for airport services can be established on the basis of a comparison with the prices paid at comparable private airports throughout Europe.
Ryanair je dostavio studiju u kojoj je utvrđeno da je tržišnu cijenu za usluge zračne luke moguće utvrditi na temelju usporedbe s cijenama koje su se plaćale sličnim privatnim zračnim lukama diljem Europe.
The airline uses a comparison with Luton, East Midlands, Prestwick and Liverpool airports.
Prijevoznik je proveo usporedbu sa zračnim lukama Luton, Eastern Midlands, Prestwick i Liverpool.
It alleges that those airports are operated without State aid or public intervention and that the prices that it pays at those airports are, on average, three times lower than those at Marseille Provence Airport.
Tvrdi da se tim zračnim lukama upravljalo bez državnih potpora i bez intervencije javnih tijela te da su cijene koje on njima plaća u prosjeku tri puta niže od cijena Zračne luke Marseille Provence.
Ryanair therefore concludes that the price that it pays at Marseille Provence Airport for the airport services is not below the market price for those services and that the price paid does not therefore include elements of State aid.
Ryanair iz toga zaključuje da cijena koju on plaća Zračnoj luci Marseille Provence za usluge zračne luke nije niža od tržišne cijene tih usluga i da plaćena cijena stoga ne sadržava elemente državne potpore.
Secondly, the Commission included sunk costs in its calculations, instead of basing its assessment on incremental costs alone.
Kao drugo, Komisija je u svoje izračune uključila nepovratne troškove umjesto da svoju ocjenu temelji samo na graničnim troškovima.
Ryanair notes in this respect that Marseille Provence Airport was constructed in 1922 and was used in particular, before the liberalisation of air transport, for regional traffic funded by the State in the form of a public service and as a base for forest firefighting aircraft.
Ryanair u tom pogledu podsjeća da je Zračna luka Marseille Provence izgrađena 1922. te da se, prije liberalizacije zračnog prijevoza, upotrebljavala uglavnom za regionalni promet koji je država financirala u obliku javne usluge te kao baza za zrakoplove za gašenje šumskih požara.
Ryanair adds that, in order to address the drop in traffic recorded between 2001 and 2003, the airport implemented a strategy to open up to low-cost airlines by creating a terminal specifically designed for their use.
Dodaje da je Zračna luka, kako bi se nosila s padom prometa zabilježenim od 2001. do 2003., razvila strategiju otvaranja niskotarifnim prijevoznicima tako što je izgradila terminal posebno namijenjen njihovoj upotrebi.
Ryanair points out that, for a number of years, it has accounted for over 40 % of the traffic at Terminal mp2.
Ryanair podsjeća da je on nekoliko godina ostvarivao 40 % prometa u terminalu mp2.
Ryanair maintains that regional airports are less attractive to airlines, which can legitimately expect to negotiate lower charges with the airport given the high volume of passengers that they bring.
Tvrdi da su regionalne zračne luke slabo privlačne zračnim prijevoznicima koji mogu od pregovora sa zračnom lukom opravdano očekivati niže cijene ovisno o broju putnika koje dovode u zračnu luku.
Ryanair notes that, when deciding on the existence of aid, the Commission is required to take into account the situation that prevailed at the time when the measure was granted to the beneficiary.
Ryanair podsjeća da je Komisija dužna pri zaključivanju o postojanju potpore uzeti u obzir situaciju koja je prevladavala u trenutku u kojem je mjera dodijeljena korisniku.
Ryanair maintains in this case that, on the date when it started to operate from Marseille Provence Airport, given the contractual undertakings that it had made regarding the volume of passengers carried, the airport operator could legitimately have expected a significant increase in traffic due to Ryanair's presence at the airport.
Tvrdi da je upravitelj Zračne luke u ovom slučaju, uzimajući u obzir ugovorne obveze koje je Ryanair preuzeo u pogledu broja prevezenih putnika, na dan kada je Ryanair počeo poslovati u Zračnoj luci Marseille Provence mogao opravdano očekivati znatan porast prometa zahvaljujući prisutnosti društva Ryanair u čvorištu.
Ryanair asserts that, as the economic situation at small regional airports with overcapacity is different from that analysed by the Court of Justice in the Charleroi judgment, the cost analysis, if applicable to them, must be adapted.
Ryanair navodi da, s obzirom na to da je gospodarska situacija malih regionalnih zračnih luka s prekomjernim kapacitetima drukčija od one koju je Sud analizirao u presudi Charleroi, pod uvjetom da je na njih primjenjiva analiza po troškovima, tu je analizu potrebno prilagoditi.