natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Secondly, Brussels Airlines points out that the development of activities at Charleroi airport, to the detriment of Brussels airport and Brussels Airlines, has seemingly had a negative social and economic impact.
kao drugo, Brussels Airlines ističe da je razvoj djelatnosti Zračne luke Charleroi na štetu djelatnosti Zračne luke Bruxelles-National i društva Brussels Airlines imao negativan socijalni i gospodarski utjecaj.
Whilst the number of passengers at Charleroi airport substantially increased between 2007 and 2009, unlike at Brussels airport, the level of direct and indirect employment did not increase to the point of compensating for the loss of jobs at Brussels airport.
Dok se, za razliku od Zračne luke Bruxelles-National, broj putnika u Zračnoj luci Charleroi znatno povećao od 2007. do 2009., broj izravnih i neizravnih radnih mjesta nije se povećao dovoljno da bi nadoknadio smanjenje radnih mjesta u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles,
Finally, according to Brussels Airlines, the absorption phenomenon has had a negative impact on the profitability of traditional airlines to the benefit of the low-cost airlines, whose profitability is mainly due to subsidies.
naposljetku, Brussels Airlines smatra da je pojava razgradnje imala negativan utjecaj na profitabilnost tradicionalnih prijevoznika u korist niskotarifnih prijevoznika čija se profitabilnost uglavnom temelji na subvencijama.
Brussels Airlines states that, whereas the average profitability of the AEA (Association of European Airlines) was low and even negative over the entire period in question (profits before interest and taxes were EUR 0,9 billion in 2000, with a loss of EUR 0,4 billion in 2012), the figure for Ryanair was substantial (profits before interest and taxes were EUR 84 million in 2000 and EUR 617 million in 2012).
Brussels Airlines smatra da, iako je prosječna profitabilnost Udruge europskih zračnih prijevoznika (AEA, Association of European Airlines) bila niska, odnosno negativna tijekom cijelog predmetnog razdoblja (dobit prije oporezivanja i kamata 2000. iznosila je 0,9 milijardi EUR, a 2012. – 0,4 milijardi EUR), profitabilnost društva Ryanair bila je znatna (dobit prije kamata i oporezivanja 2000. iznosila je 84 milijuna EUR, a 2012. 617 milijuna EUR).
However, according to Brussels Airlines, this profitability was increased by the subsidies received from the airports.
Ipak, Brussels Airlines smatra da se ta profitabilnost povećala subvencijama primljenima u zračnim lukama.
Brussels Airlines states that, without this aid (calculated at EUR 720 million in 2011), Ryanair's profitability would have been substantially lower, and even negative.
Brussels Airlines tvrdi da bi bez tih potpora (procijenjenih na 720 milijuna EUR u 2011.) profitabilnost društva Ryanair bila znatno manja, odnosno negativna.
In addition, Brussels Airlines points out that the operating aid was granted to Charleroi airport even though (i) this airport is located in the same catchment area as Brussels airport and (ii) the latter still had available capacity.
Osim toga, Brussels Airlines ističe činjenicu da su operativne potpore dodijeljene Zračnoj luci Charleroi i. iako se ta Zračna luka nalazi na istom prihvatnom području kao Zračna luka Bruxelles-National i ii. iako je potonja imala još raspoloživih kapaciteta.
Consequently, according to Brussels Airlines, a business plan based on cargo and passenger traffic forecasts should have identified the potential impact of this airport's development on traffic at Brussels airport.
Prema tome, Brussels Airlines smatra da je u poslovnom planu koji se temelji na predviđanjima teretnog i putničkog prometa trebalo utvrditi potencijalni utjecaj razvoja te Zračne luke na promet Zračne luke Bruxelles-National.
Brussels Airlines stresses that such an assessment was never made.
Brussels Airlines ističe da ta procjena nije nikad bila provedena.
In any event, if such an assessment had been made, it would have shown that an increase in traffic at Charleroi airport would be to the detriment of traffic at Brussels airport.
U svakom slučaju, da je takva procjena bila provedena, njome bi se pokazalo da je povećanje prometa Zračne luke Charleroi štetilo prometu Zračne luke Bruxelles.
Brussels Airlines states that, in its view, this was in fact the outcome: an increase in market share for Charleroi airport correlated to a drop in market share for Brussels airport and to a reduction in the frequency and/or to the withdrawal of several Brussels Airlines routes.
Brussels Airlines smatra da bi taj rezultat odgovarao stvarnosti: povećanje tržišnih udjela Zračne luke Charleroi povezano s opadanjem tržišnih udjela Zračne luke Bruxelles-National i smanjenjem posjećenosti i/ili zatvaranjem više linija društva Brussels Airlines.
Brussels Airlines therefore reasserts that the operating aid granted to BSCA did not contribute to the achievement of an objective of common interest.
Stoga Brussels Airlines ponovno tvrdi da operativne potpore dodijeljene BSCA-u nisu pridonijele postizanju cilja od općeg interesa.
In fact, on the contrary, these measures resulted in the misuse and wastage of resources.
Upravo suprotno, te su mjere dovele do loše primjene i prekomjernog trošenja sredstava.
Need for aid
Potreba za potporom
Brussels Airlines points out that, in order to benefit from operating aid, the aviation guidelines require the annual traffic of an airport not to exceed 3 million passengers.
Brussels Airlines podsjeća da je Smjernicama o zrakoplovstvu utvrđeno da godišnji promet zračne luke ne smije biti veći od 3 milijuna putnika kako bi dobila operativne potpore.
In addition, from 2009 Charleroi airport should have been able to cover its operating costs and was not eligible to receive further operating aid.
Osim toga, Zračna luka Charleroi je od 2009. trebala biti u stanju pokriti svoje operativne troškove te nije bila prihvatljiva za primanje drugih operativnih potpora.
Inappropriateness of the aid
Neprimjerenost potpore
According to Brussels Airlines, even if it were proven that Charleroi airport still needed the operating aid in 2008, it was in fact clear that the public financing of BSCA through State aid was an inappropriate policy given that Charleroi airport was not profitable.
Brussels Airlines smatra da, čak i da je bilo dokazano da su operativne potpore 2008. bile i dalje potrebne u Zračnoj luci Charleroi, svejedno je sigurno da je javno financiranje BSCA-a putem državnih potpora bila neprimjerena politika jer Zračna luka Charleroi nije bila profitabilna.
Moreover, Brussels Airlines points out that the measures in question were all inappropriate because the Region did not, to its knowledge, previously attempt to compare its aid measures with measures that were less likely to hinder competition.
Usto, Brussels Airlines ističe da su sve predmetne mjere neprimjerene jer Valonska regija, prema njegovu saznanju, nije a priori usporedila svoje mjere potpore s mjerama koje bi manje narušile tržišno natjecanje.
Brussels Airlines notes that Charleroi airport is located in the same catchment area as Brussels airport and that the latter still had available capacity during the period in question.
Brussels Airlines podsjeća da se Zračna luka Charleroi nalazi na istom prihvatnom području kao i Zračna luka Bruxelles te da je potonja tijekom ispitanog razdoblja raspolagala s još dostupnog kapaciteta.
Moreover, Brussels Airlines points out that, while the number of passengers has increased at Charleroi airport, the number at Brussels airport has stagnated and even declined in recent years, despite the fact that air traffic has risen on the whole in all European countries.
Usto, Brussels Airlines ističe da, dok se broj putnika u Zračnoj luci Charleroi povećao, onaj je u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles-National stagnirao, odnosno opadao tih posljednjih godina unatoč činjenici da se zračni promet globalno povećavao u svim europskim zemljama.
Board of Airline Representatives (BAR)
Udruga predstavnika zračnih prijevoznika (Board of Airlines Representatives, BAR)
Comments received following the 2012 extension decision
Primjedbe primljene nakon donošenja odluke o proširenju postupka iz 2012.
BAR submits that terminal charges (fees), safety costs and certain security costs, and firefighting costs at Brussels airport are borne by its users, while at regional airports these are borne by the airport or regional authorities.
BAR tvrdi da u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles troškove terminalnih usluga (naknade), troškove povezane sa zaštitom te određene troškove u području sigurnosti i troškove usluga protupožarne zaštite snose korisnici, dok ih u regionalnim zračnim lukama pokrivaju tijela zračnih luka ili regionalna tijela.
In BAR's opinion this constitutes a substantial advantage for regional airports.
BAR smatra da je riječ o znatnoj prednosti u korist regionalnih zračnih luka.
Comments received following publication of the Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines
Primjedbe zaprimljene nakon objave Smjernica o državnim potporama zračnim lukama i zračnim prijevoznicima.
Distortion of competition caused by the operating aid granted to Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA)
i. U pogledu narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja koje su uzrokovale operativne potpore u korist društva Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA)
BAR briefly notes the nature of the aid in question: operating aid received by BSCA and paid by the Region, ‘in all likelihood transferred to Ryanair, at least in part’.
BAR ukratko podsjeća na prirodu predmetnih potpora: operativne potpore koje je Valonska regija isplatila BSCA-u „vrlo su vjerojatno, barem djelomično, prenesene na društvo Ryanair”.
BAR complains that the Commission, by announcing that it wanted to apply the principles set out in the aviation guidelines ‘to all cases concerning operating aid … to airports even if the aid was granted before 4 April 2014’, infringed the principle of legal certainty and adopted an opposite approach to the one recommended in 2002 in its notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid, given that, according to BAR, said notice states that aid must be assessed ‘in accordance with the texts in force at the time when the aid was granted’.
BAR tvrdi da je Komisija svojom izjavom da želi primijeniti načela iz Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu „na predmete koji se odnose na operativne potpore dodijeljene zračnim lukama, čak i ako je potpora dodijeljena prije 4. travnja 2014” prekršila načelo pravne sigurnosti te primijenila pristup koji se protivi onom koji je utvrdila 2002. u svojoj Obavijesti o utvrđivanju pravila koja se primjenjuju na ocjenu nezakonite državne potpore jer je, prema mišljenju BAR-a, u njima navedeno da je potpore potrebno ispitati „u skladu s važećim [odredbama] u vrijeme dodjeljivanja takve potpore”.
Moreover, BAR considers that this change in Commission policy also infringes the principle that reasons must be given, because the Commission does not explain why developments in the aviation sector would have an impact on the assessment of past operating aid, or why only the latter type of aid is covered and not also past start-up or investment aid.
Usto, BAR smatra da je tom promjenom politike Komisije prekršeno i načelo obrazlaganja jer Komisija nije objasnila zašto bi kretanja u zrakoplovnom sektoru imala utjecaj na ispitivanje prošlih operativnih potpora ni zašto se to odnosi samo na potonje potpore, a ne i na dodijeljene početne potpore ili potpore za ulaganje.
In this respect, BAR points out that, if the Commission were to find that aid granted in the past was compatible with the internal market even though the opposite had been found previously, this would infringe not only the general principles referred to above, but also the principles of sound administration and legitimate expectations.
U tom pogledu BAR ističe da ako bi Komisija proglasila da je potpora dodijeljena u prošlosti spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem, dok je ranije ta potpora ocijenjena drukčije, to se ne bi protivilo samo prethodno navedenim općim načelima, nego i načelima dobre uprave i legitimnih očekivanja.
According to BAR, the aid measures in question, including those granted in the past to BSCA, are not compatible with the internal market, even when assessed in the light of the provisions of the aviation guidelines, for the following reasons:
BAR smatra da predmetne mjere potpora, uključujući one koje su u prošlosti dodijeljene BSCA-u, nisu spojive s unutarnjim tržištem, čak ni ako ih se ispita s obzirom na odredbe Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu, iz sljedećih razloga:
The aid measures are not necessary: BSCA has exceeded the threshold of 1 million passengers, given that it handles 6 million passengers, and must therefore be able to bear its operating costs.
mjere potpore nisu potrebne: budući da je BSCA prihvatio 6 milijuna putnika, premašio je prag od 1 milijuna te stoga mora biti u stanju snositi svoje operativne troškove.
In addition, the operating aid granted in the past cannot be regarded as compatible, given that BSCA had 3 million passengers, or necessary, given that BSCA should have been able to bear its operating costs.
U svakom slučaju, operativne se potpore ne mogu proglasiti spojivima jer je BSCA zabilježio 3 milijuna putnika ni potrebnima tijekom razdoblja koje je prethodilo jer je BSCA morao moći snositi i svoje operativne troškove,
The aid is and was anti-competitive: according to BAR, given that BSCA is located in the same catchment area as Brussels airport, which had spare capacity, the Region should have taken account of this when granting the aid, which did not happen.
potpora jest i bila je protutržišna: BAR smatra da je, s obzirom na to da se BSCA nalazi na istom prihvatnom području Zračne luke Bruxelles-National koja je raspolagala rezervnim kapacitetima, Valonska regija to trebala uzeti u obzir pri dodjeli potpore, što nije bio slučaj.
Additional comments on the level playing field
Dodatne napomene o ravnopravnim uvjetima tržišnog natjecanja
According to BAR, if BSCA considers that aid for the provision of certain public services at the airport must be authorised, then these services must be compared to the same services provided at Brussels airport.
Prema mišljenju BAR-a, ako BSCA smatra da je potrebno odobriti potpore namijenjene pružanju određenih javnih usluga zračne luke, potonje je potrebno usporediti s istim uslugama koje se pružaju u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles-National.
However, BAR points out that certain services provided at Charleroi airport are regarded as public services whereas they are not at Brussels airport.
Ipak, BAR ističe da se određene usluge koje se pružaju u BSCA-u smatraju javnim uslugama, ali ne i u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles-National.
BAR stresses that the collection of airport charges must not lead to a situation of discrimination between users.
BAR ustraje na činjenici da se pri naplati naknada zračne luke ne bi trebali diskriminirati korisnici.
In particular, BAR refers to the reductions enjoyed by Ryanair on the airport charges and not enjoyed by other airlines established at this airport, and to the fact that the airport charges at Brussels airport are much higher.
BAR posebno upućuje na sniženja koja Ryanair ostvaruje na naknade zračne luke, a koja ne ostvaruju drugi prijevoznici koji posluju u toj Zračnoj luci, te na činjenicu da su te naknade u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles-National znatno veće.
BAR notes that, since Brussels airport was privatised, its services are no longer expressly regarded as public services.
BAR podsjeća da, otkad je Zračna luka Bruxelles privatizirana, njezine se usluge više izričito ne smatraju javnima.
These services constitute ‘regulated activities’ for which the charges paid by airport users or passengers are controlled according to a formula.
Te usluge predstavljaju „regulirane djelatnosti” čije se naknade, koje plaćaju korisnici ili putnici Zračne luke, nadziru u skladu s formulom.
In addition, BAR draws the Commission's attention to the question of cross-subsidisation given that Ryanair operates at both Charleroi airport and Brussels airport.
Osim toga, BAR skreće pozornost Komisije na pretpostavku o unakrsnim subvencijama jer Ryanair svoju djelatnost istodobno obavlja u Charleroiu i u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles-National.
If such cross-subsidisation were found to exist, this would clearly represent a distortion of competition.
Ako se ta pretpostavka pokaže istinitom, to bi bio jasan dokaz narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja.
The AEA submits that subsidies to regional airports are acceptable only if they benefit all airport users without discrimination and do not create distortions between airports within the same catchment area.
AEA tvrdi da su subvencije koje se dodjeljuju regionalnim zračnim lukama prihvatljive samo ako nediskriminirajuće pogoduju svim korisnicima zračne luke te ako ne pridonose narušavanju tržišnog natjecanja među zračnim lukama na istom prihvatnom području.
The AEA acknowledges that airports may adapt their infrastructure to meet the needs of specific users as long as principles of transparency, cost-relatedness and non-discrimination are observed.
AEA potvrđuje da zračne luke mogu prilagođavati svoju infrastrukturu kako bi udovoljile posebnim potrebama korisnika, dok god su poštovana načela transparentnosti, omjer cijene i troškova te načelo nediskriminacije.
Air France asks the Commission not to approve what, in its view, is operating aid distorting competition between airlines and between airports.
Air France traži od Komisije da ne odobri ono što on smatra operativnim potporama kojima se narušava tržišno natjecanje između zračnih prijevoznika i zračnih luka.
Air France believes that the Commission should comprehensively compare the fees charged at Charleroi airport and those charged at airports in the same catchment area, in particular Brussels airport.
Air France smatra da je Komisija trebala provesti iscrpnu usporedbu naknada primijenjenih u Zračnoj luci Charleroi s onima koje su primijenjene u zračnim lukama na istom prihvatnom području, posebno u Zračnoj luci Bruxelles-National.
Air France also questions the retroactive application of the aviation guidelines to cases involving operating aid for airports, even where this aid was paid prior to the publication of said guidelines, for a number of reasons:
Usto, Air France osporava retroaktivnu primjenu Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu na predmete o operativnim potporama u korist zračnih luka, čak i kada su te potpore isplaćene prije njihove objave, iz više razloga:
According to Air France, the retroactive application of the aviation guidelines favours non-virtuous operators by legitimising conduct that did not comply with the rules applicable at the time.
Air France smatra da je retroaktivna primjena Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu pogodovala nemoralnim dionicima, opravdavajući postupke koji nisu bili u skladu s pravilima koja su bila na snazi u trenutku provedbe tih potpora.
By contrast, this approach penalises operators who did comply with the previous guidelines by refraining from claiming public funds.
U protivnom, tim se pristupom kažnjavaju dionici koji su djelovali u skladu s prethodnim Smjernicama tako što nisu primili javna sredstva,
The retroactive application of the aviation guidelines to operating aid granted to airports is contrary to general principles of law and European case-law.
retroaktivna primjena Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu na operativne potpore dodijeljene zračnim lukama protivna je općim pravnim načelima i europskoj sudskoj praksi.
Air France claims that the new aviation guidelines will have the effect of favouring new operators to the detriment of incumbent operators.
Air France tvrdi da se novim smjernicama pogoduje novim upraviteljima na štetu prethodnih upravitelja.
By allowing a new airline to pay only the incremental cost associated with its activity, they will discriminate against incumbent operators at the airport, who will be subject to higher fees.
Naime, budući da se njima novim zračnim prijevoznicima omogućuje da plate samo inkrementalne troškove povezane sa svojom djelatnošću, smjernicama se diskriminiraju prethodni upravitelji zračne luke koji su snosili veće naknade.
Lastly, Air France notes that, although the condition of non-discriminatory accessibility to the infrastructure of an airport may seem easy to fulfil in theory, the situation is quite different in practice, with certain operating models being consciously disadvantaged.
Naposljetku, Air France podsjeća da, iako se može činiti da je teoretski lako ispuniti uvjet nediskriminirajućeg pristupa infrastrukturi zračne luke, u praksi je sasvim drukčije jer su određeni poslovni modeli namjerno stavljeni u nepovoljan položaj.
BSCA calls on the Commission to close its investigation due to the absence of any State aid granted to itself or its trading partners.
BSCA poziva Komisiju da prekine svoju istragu jer ni njemu ni njegovim poslovnim partnerima nije dodijeljena državna potpora.
As a preliminary remark, BSCA considers that the time that has passed since the start of the case may have created legitimate expectations for BSCA and its users.
Najprije BSCA smatra da su on i njegovi korisnici razvili legitimna očekivanja zbog vremena koje je prošlo od početka predmeta.
BSCA notes that the Commission was previously informed, during its initial investigation that led to the 2004 decision, about the mechanism introduced by the Region and BSCA in 1991 under the concession agreement and its subsequent amendments.
BSCA podsjeća da je Komisija već bila obaviještena, tijekom njezine prve istrage koja je dovela do Odluke iz 2004., o mehanizmu koji su 1991. uspostavili Valonska regija i BSCA u okviru Ugovora o koncesiji i njegovih naknadnih izmjena.
BSCA therefore objects to the extension of the scope of the measures examined by the Commission.
BSCA stoga osporava proširenje opsega mjera koje Komisija ispituje.
BSCA draws the Commission's attention to the importance of regional airports in terms of economic and social development, regional accessibility and tourism.
BSCA skreće pozornost Komisije na važnost regionalnih zračnih luka, uzimajući u obzir gospodarski i socijalni razvoj te pristup regiji i turizam.
It considers that the liberalisation of air transport has created a new category of passenger taking city trips and short-haul flights for family reasons, together with new low-cost business models meeting this new demand.
BSCA smatra da je liberalizacijom zračnog prijevoza nastala nova kategorija putnika usmjerenih na kratkotrajna turistička putovanja i putovanja iz obiteljskih razloga, te novi niskotarifni gospodarski modeli koji odgovaraju na tu novu potražnju.
BSCA therefore takes the view that competition between Charleroi airport and Brussels airport is only very limited.
BSCA stoga smatra da je tek u vrlo slaboj konkurenciji sa Zračnom lukom Bruxelles-National.
In this respect, BSCA stresses the limited impact on Brussels airport of the launch in the past of a route between Dublin and Charleroi airport [86].
U tom pogledu BSCA naglašava više nego ograničeni utjecaj koji je u prošlosti imalo otvaranje linije između Dublina i Zračne luke Charleroi Bruxelles Sud na Zračnu luku Bruxelles-National.
BSCA explains its success by the dynamic policy implemented by the Walloon authorities in recent years and also by the flexibility of its infrastructure and the drive of the airport teams.
BSCA opravdava svoj uspjeh dinamičnom politikom koju su posljednjih godina uspostavila valonska tijela kao i fleksibilnom infrastrukturom i dinamičnim osobljem Zračne luke.
In terms of services of general interest, BSCA notes that since 1991 it has received compensation for services of general interest, as defined by Article 25 of the schedule of conditions concluded with the Walloon public authorities.
U pogledu usluga od općeg interesa, BSCA podsjeća da od 1991. prima naknadu za usluge od općeg interesa koje su utvrđene u članku 25. specifikacije koja je potpisana s valonskim javnim tijelima.
BSCA disputes the analysis made by the Commission in its 2012 extension decision, refuting the non-economic nature of these activities.
BSCA osporava analizu koju je Komisija provela u svojoj Odluci od 21. ožujka 2012. i opovrgava da su te djelatnosti negospodarske.