natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, Germany argued, the possibility to generate additional passenger volume was an opportunity to limit losses and acquire clients with growth potential.
Stoga je Njemačka tvrdila da je mogućnost stvaranja dodatnog putničkog prometa bila prilika za ograničavanje gubitaka i stjecanje klijenata s potencijalom rasta.
Germany is of the opinion that costs which were decided on before the conclusion of the agreement, such as the costs for the general airport infrastructure and general airport administration (in other words costs that arose irrespective of the 1999 Ryanair agreement), should not be included in the profitability analysis of the 1999 Ryanair agreement, and PwC supports Germany in this opinion.
Njemačka smatra da troškove o kojima je odluka donesena prije sklapanja Ugovora, kao što su troškovi opće infrastrukture zračne luke i opće administracije zračne luke (drugim riječima, troškovi koji su nastali neovisno o Ugovoru s društvom Ryanair iz 1999.) nije trebalo uključiti u analizu profitabilnosti Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 1999., a PwC se u tom pogledu slaže s Njemačkom.
Germany argued especially that it would only be possible for an airport with an existing network of clients to have his clients partially bear the costs of infrastructure measures and that Frankfurt Hahn airport was not in such a position.
Njemačka je posebno tvrdila bi zračna luka s postojećom mrežom klijenata mogla samo djelomično prenijeti troškove infrastrukturnih mjera na svoje klijente i da Zračna luka Frankfurt Hahn nije bila u tom položaju.
Furthermore, Germany argued that if one were to consider the actual costs for building the new terminal, at most the envisaged passenger volume to be generated by Ryanair could be taken into account.
Nadalje, Njemačka je tvrdila da bi se, ako se uzmu u obzir stvarni troškovi izgradnje novog terminala, mogao najviše uzeti u obzir predviđeni putnički promet koji bi ostvario Ryanair.
Germany took the view that a depreciation period of 25 years would then be appropriate, which would mean a depreciation of EUR […] per year.
Njemačka je zauzela stajalište da bi tada razdoblje amortizacije od 25 godina bilo primjereno, što bi značilo amortizaciju od […] EUR godišnje.
Even in case of a depreciation period of 15 years, as suggested by the Commission, Germany argued that this would mean a depreciation of EUR […] per year, so that the overall break-even analysis would still be positive.
Njemačka je tvrdila da bi čak i u slučaju amortizacije od 15 godina, kako je predložila Komisija, to značilo amortizaciju od […] EUR godišnje tako da bi ukupna analiza isplativosti još uvijek bila pozitivna.
Therefore, taking into account the time for initiation of Frankfurt Hahn airport, Germany took the view that this would have sufficed for a market economy investor to conclude the agreement.
Stoga je, uzimajući u obzir vrijeme pokretanja Zračne luke Frankfurt Hahn, Njemačka zauzela stajalište da bi to ulagaču u tržišnom gospodarstvu bilo dovoljno da sklopi Ugovor.
The 2001 schedule of airport charges could not be seen as State aid according to Germany.
Njemačka je navela da se Cjenik naknada zračne luke iz 2001. ne može smatrati državnom potporom.
Germany argued that there was no granting of State resources and refers in this regard to its explanations concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see Section 5.3.1 and especially recital 167).
Njemačka je tvrdila da nisu dodijeljena državna sredstva i u tom pogledu uputila na svoja objašnjenja u pogledu Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. (vidjeti odjeljak 5.3.1., a posebno uvodnu izjavu 167.).
Germany stated that the 2001 schedule of airport charges had generated revenues for FFHG and it was not necessary or possible that the schedule of airport charges would lead to coverage of all costs incurred by FFHG.
Njemačka je izjavila da je FFHG na temelju Cjenika naknada zračne luke iz 2001. ostvario prihode te da nije bilo nužno ni moguće da taj Cjenik naknada zračne luke dovede do pokrića svih troškova FFHG-a.
For such a result, according to Germany, the revenues from the non-aviation sector needed be taken into account as well under the single-till-approach (see recital 169).
Za taj je rezultat, prema navodima Njemačke, trebalo uzeti u obzir prihode od nezrakoplovnog sektora te prihode na temelju pristupa jedne blagajne (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 169.).
Germany furthermore disputed that the measure was imputable to the State because of the approval of the airport charges by the Rhineland-Palatinate Transport department.
Njemačka je, nadalje, osporavala da se mjera može pripisati državi jer je naknade zračne luke odobrilo Ministarstvo prometa savezne pokrajine Porajnje-Falačka.
This approval did not mean any economic or political dependence, but was simply a regulatory formality requested under German law which every airport, whether publicly owned or not, has to fulfil according to the law.
To odobrenje nije značilo nikakvu gospodarsku ili političku ovisnost, nego je to jednostavno bila regulatorna formalnost koja se zahtijeva u njemačkom pravu i koju prema zakonu mora ispuniti svaka zračna luka, bez obzira na to je li u državnom vlasništvu.
The reason for this law is to protect the airlines from any possible abuse of the monopolistic power of the airport to set prices for its use.
Svrha je tog zakona zaštititi zračne prijevoznike od svake moguće zlouporabe monopolističke moći zračne luke u pogledu određivanja cijena za njezinu upotrebu.
Moreover, Germany argued that no advantage was granted to Frankfurt Hahn airport through the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
Osim toga, Njemačka je tvrdila da na temelju Cjenika naknada zračne luke iz 2001. Zračnoj luci Frankfurt Hahn nije odobrena nikakva prednost.
It agreed with the Commission that the results of the private market investor test for the 2002 Ryanair agreement, which is based on the 2001 schedule of airport charges and introduces an additional marketing support, can serve as a benchmark.
Složila se s Komisijom da rezultati testa ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu za Ugovor s društvom Ryanair iz 2002., koji se temelji na Cjeniku naknada zračne luke iz 2001. i kojim je uvedena dodatna marketinška podrška, mogu služiti kao referentna točka.
According to Germany, the 2001 schedule of airport charges included no differentiations which would give an advantage to one airline over the other and they did not contain any kind of rebate system either.
Prema navodima Njemačke u Cjenik naknada zračne luke iz 2001. nisu bile uključene nikakve razlike na temelju kojih bi se jednom zračnom prijevozniku dala prednost pred drugim te nije postojao ni bilo kakav sustav rabata.
Therefore, Germany took the view that no airline was granted a selective advantage.
Stoga je Njemačka zauzela stajalište da nijednom zračnom prijevozniku nije odobrena selektivna prednost.
Finally, Germany argued in relation to the 2001 schedule of airport charges that this schedule was in accordance with market conform behaviour and as such would not be able to distort competition between airports or the competition on the internal market.
Konačno, Njemačka je u pogledu Cjenika naknada zračne luke iz 2001. tvrdila da je taj Cjenik u skladu s tržišnim ponašanjem te da se njime, kao takvim, ne bi narušilo tržišno natjecanje među zračnim lukama ili tržišno natjecanje na unutarnjem tržištu.
Germany considered, in contrast to the 2008 opening decision, that the 2002 Ryanair agreement did not generate any losses, but instead provided a source of income for FFHG.
Njemačka je, za razliku od tvrdnji iz Odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2008., smatrala da na temelju Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 2002. nisu nastali nikakvi gubitci, nego da je njime FFHG-u osiguran izvor prihoda.
Concerning the question of imputability of the 2002 Ryanair agreement and the use of State resources, Germany referred to its explanations concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 167 and following).
U pogledu mogućnosti pripisivanja Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 2002. i upotrebe državnih sredstava Njemačka je uputila na svoja objašnjenja koja se odnose na Ugovor s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 167. i dalje).
Furthermore, Germany added that in 2002, at the time of conclusion of the agreement, FFHG's shares were already being held mainly by Fraport, whose resources are not State resources and whose actions are not imputable to the State, as Germany already pointed out in relation to the 2001 PLTA (see recital 134 and following).
Nadalje, Njemačka je dodala da je 2002., u vrijeme sklapanja Ugovora, većinu udjela u FFHG-u već držao Fraport, čija sredstva nisu državna sredstva i čije se mjere ne mogu pripisati državi, kako je Njemačka već istaknula u pogledu Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 2001. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 134. i dalje).
According to Germany, the supervisory board of FFHG, who approved the conclusion of the 2002 Ryanair agreement, was not dominated by the State.
Njemačka je navela da Nadzorni odbor FFHG-a, koji je odobrio sklapanje Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 2002., nije bio pod kontrolom države.
In this regard, Germany contended that the presentation of FFHG's supervisory board members in recital 18 of the 2008 opening decision was erroneous.
U tom je pogledu Njemačka tvrdila da je prikaz članova Nadzornog odbora FFHG-a u uvodnoj izjavi 18. Odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2008. bio pogrešan.
Germany stated that according to FFHG's articles of association, Fraport had six representatives and Land Rhineland-Palatinate had eight, out of which three were representatives of local authorities.
Njemačka je navela da je u skladu s Društvenim ugovorom FFHG-a Fraport imao šest predstavnika, a savezna pokrajina Porajnje-Falačka osam, od kojih su tri bili predstavnici lokalnih nadležnih tijela.
According to Germany, the members had however different numbers of votes and the majority of votes was always with the private company Fraport.
Međutim, Njemačka je navela da su članovi imali različit broj glasova te da je većinu glasova uvijek imalo privatno društvo Fraport.
This was due to the fact that Fraport's representatives had 12 votes each, while the representatives of the Land only had 5 votes each and those of the local authorities even had only one vote.
Razlog tome bila je činjenica da je svaki predstavnik društva Fraport imao 12 glasova, dok je svaki predstavnik savezne pokrajine imao samo 5 glasova, a predstavnici lokalnih nadležnih tijela samo po jedan glas.
Therefore, according to Germany, Fraport had 72 votes while the representatives of the Land and local authorities only had 28 votes.
Stoga je, prema navodima Njemačke, Fraport imao 72 glasa, dok su predstavnici savezne pokrajine i lokalnih nadležnih tijela imali samo 28 glasova.
Since the supervisory board decides by simple majority, Germany took the view that it would not have been possible to conclude the 2002 Ryanair agreement without the votes of Fraport and therefore the conclusion of the agreement is not imputable to the State.
Budući da Nadzorni odbor odlučuje običnom većinom, Njemačka je zauzela stajalište da se Ugovor s društvom Ryanair iz 2002. nije mogao sklopiti bez glasova društva Fraport i da se stoga sklapanje Ugovora ne može pripisati državi.
Furthermore, Germany rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the conferral of an advantage and the MEOT submitted by PwC on this matter.
Nadalje, Njemačka je odbila sumnje Komisije u pogledu dodjele prednosti i povezanog testa subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji je dostavio PwC.
Germany argued that the figure of […] passengers per flight was not overestimated since already in 2002 […] % of Ryanair flights were carried out by a Boeing 737-800 and the average load factor of those flights was […] %, meaning that the number of passengers per plane was in fact on average […] per Ryanair flight.
Njemačka je tvrdila da brojka od […] putnika po letu nije pretjerana jer je Ryanair već 2002. za […] % svojih letova upotrebljavao Boeing 737-800 te je prosječni faktor opterećenosti za te letove iznosio […] %, što znači da je broj putnika po zrakoplovu de facto u prosjeku iznosio […] po letu društva Ryanair.
Therefore, Germany took the view that the estimation of the number of passengers of […] was reasonable and not too high, especially since FFHG had taken into account that the change by Ryanair from Boeing 737-200 to Boeing 737-800 would come very quickly.
Stoga je Njemačka zauzela stajalište da je procjena broja putnika od […] bila razumna i da nije bila previsoka, posebno jer je FFHG uzeo u obzir da će Ryanair vrlo brzo zamijeniti Boeing 737-200 zrakoplovom tipa Boeing 737-800.
As regards the Commission's doubts relating to the cost for general airport infrastructure and general airport administration, Germany referred to its argumentation in relation to the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 171 and following).
U pogledu sumnji Komisije koje se odnose na trošak opće infrastrukture zračne luke i opće administracije zračne luke Njemačka je uputila na svoje argumente u pogledu Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 171. i dalje).
It also referred to its statements for the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 176) as regards the selectivity of the measure.
Uputila je i na svoje izjave o Cjeniku naknada zračne luke iz 2001. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 176.) u pogledu selektivnosti mjere.
In relation to the question of State resources and imputability, Germany referred to its statements for the 1999 and 2002 Ryanair agreements (see recitals 167 and following, and recitals 178 and following).
U pogledu pitanja državnih sredstava i mogućnosti pripisivanja Njemačka je uputila na svoje izjave o ugovorima s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. i 2002. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 167. i dalje te uvodnu izjavu 178. i dalje).
Furthermore, Germany stated that, at the moment of conclusion of the 2005 Ryanair agreement, the supervisory board of FFHG was constituted in a way that the public authorities were not able to exercise a determining influence on the decision.
Nadalje, Njemačka je izjavila da je u trenutku sklapanja Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 2005. Nadzorni odbor FFHG-a bio ustrojen tako da tijela javne vlasti nisu mogla imati odlučujući utjecaj na tu odluku.
At that moment Fraport held 156 votes while Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Land Hesse held 42 votes each.
U tom je trenutku Fraport imao 156 glasova, dok su savezna pokrajina Porajnje-Falačka i savezna pokrajina Hessen imale po 42 glasa.
Therefore, Germany argued that the State could not have a determining influence as it only possessed 84 out of 240 votes.
Stoga je Njemačka tvrdila da država nije mogla imati odlučujući utjecaj jer je imala samo 84 od 240 glasova.
Furthermore, Germany took the view that no advantage was conferred on Ryanair through this agreement.
Nadalje, Njemačka je zauzela stajalište da tim Ugovorom društvu Ryanair nije dodijeljena nikakva prednost.
Germany stated that in contrast to the Commission's suggestion in the 2008 opening decision, PwC had been provided with all relevant figures since it could otherwise not have conducted this comprehensive, neutral and independent MEOT.
Njemačka je izjavila da je, za razliku od prijedloga Komisije iz Odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2008., PwC dobio sve relevantne brojke jer inače ne bi mogao provesti taj sveobuhvatni, neutralni i neovisni test subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
Germany moreover rejected the doubts of the Commission that the investments induced by Ryanair were not allocated appropriately.
Osim toga, Njemačka je odbila sumnje Komisije da ulaganja koja je potaknuo Ryanair nisu raspoređena na odgovarajući način.
Germany stated that PwC had made a second evaluation in its supplementary assessment where it explained that a major part of the costs related to investments of a general nature which the airport made independently of the services provided to Ryanair.
Njemačka je izjavila da je PwC proveo drugu evaluaciju u svojoj dopunskoj procjeni u kojoj je objasnio da se veći dio troškova odnosio na opća ulaganja koja je Zračna luka provela neovisno o uslugama koje se pružaju društvu Ryanair.
As far as costs are induced by the handling of Ryanair passengers, these are according to Germany allocated to Ryanair.
Njemačka je navela da su troškovi nastali zbog prihvata i otpreme putnika društva Ryanair raspoređeni društvu Ryanair.
Germany argued that additional sanctions to the ones agreed upon would have been unnecessary and inappropriate since Ryanair had no exclusive rights to use the airport and was also assuming a risk.
Njemačka je tvrdila da bi dodatne sankcije, uz one koje su dogovorene, bile nepotrebne i neprimjerene jer Ryanair nije imao isključiva prava na upotrebu Zračne luke te je i sam preuzimao rizik.
In relation to the 2006 schedule of airport charges, Germany argued generally that these airport charges had been developed exclusively based on economic considerations taking into account the business model of Frankfurt Hahn airport as a low cost carrier airport, i.e. with the expectation that the costs of operation would be covered in the short term and in the long term a sustainable profit would be generated.
U pogledu Cjenika naknada zračne luke iz 2006. Njemačka je općenito tvrdila da su te naknade zračne luke utvrđene isključivo na temelju gospodarskih razmatranja, uzimajući u obzir poslovni model Zračne luke Frankfurt Hahn kao zračne luke s niskotarifnim prijevoznicima, tj. uz očekivanje da će se troškovi poslovanja pokriti u kratkoročnom razdoblju te da će se održiva dobit ostvariti u dugoročnom razdoblju.
Concerning the questions of State resources and imputability, Germany referred to its argumentation made in relation to the 1999, 2002 and 2005 Ryanair agreements (see recitals 167 and following, 178 and following and 182 and following) and in relation to the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 173 and following).
U pogledu pitanja državnih sredstava i mogućnosti pripisivanja Njemačka je uputila na svoje argumente koji se odnose na Ugovore s društvom Ryanair iz 1999., 2002. i 2005. (vidjeti uvodne izjave 167. i dalje, 178. i dalje te 182. i dalje) te Cjenik naknada zračne luke iz 2001. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 173. i dalje).
A reduction of charges according to the volume of passengers, Germany argued, is a common approach at national and international airports, as was already accepted by the Court of Justice.
Njemačka je tvrdila da je smanjenje naknada prema broju putnika uobičajen pristup u nacionalnim i međunarodnim zračnim lukama, što je već prihvatio i Sud.
When such volume based reductions are granted, these must be justified on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria and this was the case at Frankfurt Hahn airport, according to Germany.
Kad se odobravaju takva smanjenja na temelju broja putnika, ona se moraju obrazložiti na temelju objektivnih i nediskriminirajućih kriterija što je, prema navodima Njemačke, bio slučaj sa Zračnom lukom Frankfurt Hahn.
Since the threshold for acquiring rebates was very low, namely 100000 passengers per year, these rebates were also supporting smaller airlines.
Budući da je prag za stjecanje rabata bio vrlo nizak, točnije 100000 putnika godišnje, tim se rabatima pružila potpora i manjim zračnim prijevoznicima.
Secondly, Germany argued that the economic justification of the airport charges relied on the single-till-approach, referring to its statements concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 169).
Kao drugo, Njemačka je tvrdila da se ekonomsko opravdanje naknada zračne luke temeljilo na pristupu jedne blagajne, upućujući time na svoje izjave o Ugovoru s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 169.).
Germany also justified the differentiation according to turn-around-times (hereinafter: TRT) of under or over 30 minutes by explaining that TRT of more than 30 minutes are in fact more cost-intensive.
Njemačka je opravdala i razlike prema vremenu prihvata i otpreme od manje ili više od 30 minuta, objašnjavajući da je vrijeme prihvata i otpreme dulje od 30 minuta de facto troškovno intenzivnije.
Germany also stated that even though the airport charges were not covering 100 % of the costs, a MEO would still have chosen this schedule of charges since cost-coverage of an infrastructure such as an airport could not be achieved in such a short time.
Njemačka je izjavila i da bi, čak i ako se naknadama zračne luke ne bi pokrilo 100 % troškova, subjekt u tržišnom gospodarstvu još uvijek odabrao taj cjenik naknada jer se pokriće troškova infrastrukture kao što je zračna luka ne bi moglo postići u tako kratkom vremenu.
However, FFHG was expecting that through the 2006 schedule of airport charges more passengers would be generated and that by 2008 full cost coverage would be achieved.
Međutim, FFHG je očekivao da će se Cjenikom naknada zračne luke iz 2006. ostvariti veći putnički promet te da će se do 2008. pokriti svi troškovi.
According to the assessment made by PwC for this schedule of airport charges, this was economically realistic at the moment of introduction of the airport charges, as was also confirmed by PwC's supplementary assessment.
Prema procjeni koju je za taj Cjenik naknada izradio PwC to je bilo ekonomski realno u trenutku uvođenja naknada zračne luke, što je potvrđeno i dopunskom procjenom PwC-a.
In relation to the marketing support granted under the 2006 schedule of airport charges, Germany argued that this is in fact not an integral part of the schedule.
U pogledu marketinške podrške odobrene u skladu s Cjenikom naknada zračne luke iz 2006. Njemačka je tvrdila da to de facto nije sastavni dio Cjenika.
Germany also argued that any market economy investor would have made the same marketing support available for airlines since there are high economic risks attached to the opening of a new route.
Njemačka je tvrdila i da bi svaki ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu tu marketinšku podršku stavio na raspolaganje zračnim prijevoznicima jer su uz otvaranja nove linije vezani visoki gospodarski rizici.
This support is exclusively given for newly offered routes, meaning routes which have not been served at all or within the last 24 months.
Ta se podrška daje isključivo novim ponuđenim linijama, odnosno linijama na kojima nije bilo letova uopće ili u prethodna 24 mjeseca.
The amount of the support is based on the number of departing passengers served within 1 year.
Iznos podrške temelji se na broju odlaznih putnika prevezenih u jednoj godini.
On the basis of criteria such as the temporary routes offered at Frankfurt Hahn airport, the weekly connections and the duration of continuous flight operation, it is ensured that support is in fact leading to an expansion of the network of flights offered by the airlines.
Na temelju kriterija kao što su privremene linije koje se nude iz Zračne luke Frankfurt Hahn, tjedne linije i trajanje kontinuiranih letova osigurava se da podrška de facto dovede do širenja mreže letova koju nude zračni prijevoznici.
Germany argued that the marketing support cannot be seen as a one-sided performance by the airport.
Njemačka je tvrdila da se marketinška podrška ne može promatrati kao jednostrana aktivnost zračne luke.
According to Germany, the promotion of new routes led to a higher profit for the airport since higher passenger numbers would create higher non-aeronautical revenues.
Njemačka je navela da je promidžba novih linija dovela do veće dobiti Zračne luke jer su zbog većeg broja putnika ostvareni viši nezrakoplovni prihodi.
Furthermore, Germany explained that the fixing of the amounts of support was based on reasonable considerations.
Nadalje, Njemačka je objasnila da se utvrđivanje iznosa podrške temeljilo na opravdanim razmatranjima.
Germany also rejected the doubts of the Commission that the risk of marketing was higher for airlines which are not yet active at Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Osim toga, Njemačka je odbila sumnje Komisije da je marketinški rizik viši za zračne prijevoznike koji još ne posluju u Zračnoj luci Frankfurt Hahn.