natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Oxera Notes 3 and 4 — How should AMS Agreements be treated within the profitability analysis as part of the market operator test?, 17 and 31 January 2014
Bilješke br. 3 i 4. društva Oxera – Kako treba postupati s ugovorima društva AMS u okviru analize profitabilnosti kao dijela testa subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu?, 17. i 31. siječnja 2014.
In these reports, Oxera discusses the principles which, according to the airline, should be taken into account as part of the MEOT in the profitability analysis of, on the one hand, airport services agreements between Ryanair and airports and, on the other hand, the marketing agreements between AMS and the same airports.
U tim izvješćima Oxera razmatra načela za koja zračni prijevoznik tvrdi da bi se trebala uzeti u obzir kao dio testa subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu u analizi profitabilnosti ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka između društva Ryanair i zračnih luka, s jedne strane, i ugovora o marketingu između društva AMS i istih zračnih luka, s druge strane.
Ryanair emphasised that those reports do not in any way change its position presented earlier that the airport service agreements and the marketing agreements should be analysed under separate MEOTs.
Društvo Ryanair naglasilo je da se tim izvješćima ni na koji način ne mijenja njegovo stajalište koje je prethodno opisano da bi ugovore o uslugama zračnih luka i ugovore o marketingu trebalo analizirati u okviru zasebnih testova subjekata u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
The reports indicate that the profits generated by AMS should be included as revenues in a joint analysis regarding profitability while the expenses of AMS would have to be incorporated in the costs.
U izvješćima se navodi da bi dobit društva AMS trebala biti uključena kao prihod u zajedničku analizu profitabilnosti, a troškovi društva AMS trebali bi biti uključeni u troškove.
To do this, the reports suggest the application of a cash-flow-based methodology to the joint profitability analysis, meaning that the expenditure by airports on AMS could be treated as incremental operating expenses.
U izvješćima se navodi da bi to trebalo učiniti primjenom metodologije utemeljene na novčanom toku na zajedničku analizu profitabilnosti, što znači da bi se troškovi zračnih luka za AMS trebali smatrati dodatnim troškovima poslovanja.
The reports emphasise that marketing activities contribute to the creation and support of the brand's value, which helps to generate effects and benefits not only for the duration of the contract, but also after its termination.
U izvješćima se ističe da se marketinškim aktivnostima pridonosi stvaranju i podupiranju vrijednosti trgovačke marke, čime se mogu stvarati učinci i koristi, ne samo za vrijeme trajanja ugovora, već i nakon njihova raskida.
This would especially be the case if, due to the fact that Ryanair has concluded an agreement with an airport, other airlines establish themselves at the airport, which will in turn attract more shops to install themselves there and therefore bring in more non aeronautical revenues for the airport.
To bi posebno bilo tako kad bi, zbog toga što je društvo Ryanair sklopilo ugovor sa zračnom lukom, drugi zračni prijevoznici uspostavili sjedište u toj zračnoj luci čime bi se privuklo više trgovina i ostvarili veći prihodi od nezrakoplovnih usluga u zračnoj luci.
According to Ryanair, if the Commission proceeds to undertake a joint analysis of profitability, those benefits have to be taken into account by treating the expenses of AMS as incremental operating costs, net of AMS payments.
Društvo Ryanair tvrdi da će, ako Komisija provede zajedničku analizu profitabilnosti, te koristi trebati uzeti u obzir na način da se troškovi društva AMS smatraju dodatnim operativnim troškovima, bez plaćanja društva AMS.
Furthermore, Ryanair considers that a terminal value (reflecting the value generated after the termination of the agreement) would have to be included in the projected incremental profits at the end of the airport services agreement.
Nadalje, društvo Ryanair smatra da bi terminalnu vrijednost (u kojoj se odražava vrijednost stvorena nakon raskida ugovora) trebalo uključiti u predviđenu dodatnu dobit u trenutku isteka ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka.
The terminal value could be adapted on the basis of a ‘renewal’-probability, measuring the expectation that profits will persist after the termination of the agreement with Ryanair or if similar conditions are agreed with other airlines.
Terminalna vrijednost može se prilagoditi na temelju vjerojatnosti „obnove” mjerenjem očekivanja da će se ostvarivanje dobiti nastaviti nakon raskida ugovora s društvom Ryanair ili ako se dogovore slični uvjeti s drugim zračnim prijevoznicima.
Ryanair considers that it would then be possible to calculate a lower limit for benefits generated jointly by the agreement with AMS and the airport service agreement, reflecting the uncertainties of incremental profits after the termination of the airport services agreement.
Društvo Ryanair smatra da bi tada bilo moguće izračunati nižu razinu koristi koja zajednički nastaje na temelju ugovora s društvom AMS i ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka, čime se odražavaju nesigurnosti dodatne dobiti nakon raskida ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka.
Those studies consider that marketing can support the value of a brand and can help to build a customer base.
U tim se studijama smatra da se marketingom može podržati vrijednost trgovačke marke i pomoći u izgradnji baze korisnika.
According to the reports, in the case of an airport, marketing on Ryanair.com significantly increases the visibility of the brand.
U izvješćima se navodi da se, u slučaju zračne luke, marketingom na web-mjestu Ryanair.com posebno povećava vidljivost trgovačke marke.
The reports moreover state that smaller regional airports wishing to increase their air traffic can therefore especially increase the value of their brand by concluding marketing agreements with AMS.
Nadalje, u izvješćima se navodi da manje regionalne zračne luke koje žele povećati svoj zračni promet stoga posebno mogu povećati vrijednost svoje trgovačke marke sklapanjem ugovora o marketingu s društvom AMS.
The reports lastly indicate that a cash-flow-based approach is to be preferred over a capitalisation approach in which the costs of marketing services provided by AMS would be treated as capital expenditure on an intangible asset (that is, the value of the brand) [40].
U izvješćima se naposljetku navodi da prednost treba dati pristupu utemeljenom na tijeku novca umjesto pristupu kapitalizacije u kojem bi se troškovi marketinških usluga društva AMS smatrali kapitalnim rashodima nematerijalne imovine (odnosno, vrijednosti trgovačke marke) [40].
The marketing expenses would be treated as capital expenditure in an intangible asset, and then depreciated for the duration of the contract, taking into consideration a residual value at the foreseen termination of the airport services agreement.
Rashodi za marketing smatrali bi se kapitalnim rashodima i zatim bi se amortizirali za vrijeme trajanja ugovora uzimajući u obzir preostalu vrijednost u trenutku predviđenog raskida ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka.
This approach would not take into account the incremental profits which the conclusion of the airport services agreement with Ryanair would bring about and it is also difficult to calculate the value of the intangible asset due to the expenses of the brand and the time period of use of the asset.
Tim se pristupom ne bi uzela u obzir dodatna dobit nastala sklapanjem ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka s društvom Ryanair. Također je teško izračunati vrijednost nematerijalne imovine zbog troškova trgovačke marke i razdoblja uporabe imovine.
According to the reports, the cash-flow method is also more appropriate than a capitalisation approach since the latter would not capture the positive benefits to the airport that are expected to arise as a result of signing the airport services agreement with Ryanair.
U izvješćima se navodi da je metoda novčanog toka primjerenija od pristupa kapitalizacije jer se potonjim ne bi obuhvatile pozitivne koristi za zračnu luku za koje se očekuje da će nastati kao rezultat potpisivanja ugovora o uslugama zračnih luka s društvom Ryanair.
Oxera — Economic MEOP assessment: Frankfurt Hahn Airport, 11 August 2014:
Oxera – Gospodarska procjena testa subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu: Zračna luka Frankfurt Hahn, 11. kolovoza 2014.:
Oxera's assessment of the Ryanair agreements is based on the information available to the airport around the time of signing the agreement.
Procjena ugovora s društvom Ryanair koju je provela Oxera temelji se na informacijama koje su Zračnoj luci bile dostupne otprilike u vrijeme potpisivanja ugovora.
The 1999 Ryanair agreement:
Ugovor s društvom Ryanair iz 1999.:
According to the report, the analysis of the 1999 Ryanair agreement has been based on the business plan document produced by FFHG on 25 May 1999, a document which has been drawn up before signing the agreement.
U izvješću se navodi da se analiza Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. temelji na poslovnom planu koji je FFHG izradio 25. svibnja 1999., odnosno dokumentu koji je sastavljen prije potpisivanja Ugovora.
The report points out that the costs of fire fighting, which are usually considered as falling within the public policy remit, were not taken into account.
U izvješću se ističe da troškovi usluga vatrogasaca, za koje se obično smatra da su u nadležnosti javne politike, nisu uzeti u obzir.
The same applies to infrastructure investments.
To se odnosi i na infrastrukturna ulaganja.
Oxera's incremental profitability assessment of the 1999 Ryanair agreement [41][…]
Procjena dodatne profitabilnosti ostvarene na temelju Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 1999. koju je provela Oxera [41][…]
The 2002 Ryanair agreement:
Ugovor s društvom Ryanair iz 2002.:
The report explains that the forecasts of total passenger numbers have been obtained from FFHG's business plan drawn up in November 2002, as it is the only document available that contains traffic forecasts over the relevant period.
U izvješću se objašnjava da su prognoze ukupnog broja putnika dobivene iz poslovnog plana FFHG-a koji je sastavljen u studenome 2002. jer je to jedini raspoloživi dokument s prognozama prometa tijekom relevantnog razdoblja.
The estimates of operating costs per passenger have been based on FFHG's own analysis of incremental operating costs per Ryanair departing passenger.
Procjene operativnih troškova po putniku temelje se na FFHG-ovoj analizi dodatnih operativnih troškova po odlaznom putniku društva Ryanair.
The schedule of investments has been drawn up in November 2000.
Plan ulaganja sastavljen je u studenome 2000.
Oxera's incremental profitability assessment of the 2002 Ryanair agreement [42]
Procjena dodatne profitabilnosti ostvarene na temelju Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 2002. koju je provela Oxera [42]
LUFTHANSA AND BDF
LUFTHANSA I BDF
Hence, Lufthansa and BDF suggest that the Commission should seek to get access to all of FFHG's annual balance sheets.
Stoga Lufthansa i BDF predlažu da Komisija zatraži pristup svim godišnjim bilancama FFHG-a.
In this regard Lufthansa argued, that in contrast to what Germany has stated, the depreciation of investments did not increase much during the years and cannot be considered very high in comparison to the costs related to marketing support for Ryanair, which are included in ‘other operating costs’, as Table 18 shows.
U tom je pogledu Lufthansa tvrdila da se, za razliku od tvrdnji Njemačke, amortizacija ulaganja tijekom godina nije znatno povećala i da se ne može smatrati vrlo visokom u usporedbi s troškovima koji su povezani s marketinškom podrškom društvu Ryanair i koji su uključeni u „ostale operativne troškove”, kako je prikazano u tablici 18.
Lufthansa and BDF also suggest that the Commission should request the full, non-publicised annual balance sheets of FFHG.
Lufthansa i BDF predlažu i da Komisija zatraži potpune, neobjavljene bilance FFHG-a.
Relationship of depreciation and other operating costs
Odnos amortizacije i ostalih operativnih troškova
Depreciations
Amortizacija
Losses
Gubitci
Other operational costs
Ostali operativni troškovi
Lufthansa and BDF also claimed that a study submitted by Germany containing statistics on the effects of FFHG on tourism in Hunsrück and Land Rhineland-Palatinate should not be taken into account as the numbers on passenger growth and job growth around the airport were provided by FFHG and remained unchecked by the authors of the study.
Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili su i da studiju koju je dostavila Njemačka i koja uključuje statističke podatke o učincima FFHG-a na turizam u regiji Hunsrück i saveznoj pokrajini Porajnje-Falačka ne bi trebalo uzeti u obzir jer je podatke o rastu broja putnika i povećanju broja radnih mjesta oko Zračne luke dostavio FFHG te ih autori studije nisu provjerili.
Lufthansa and BDF claimed furthermore that it was known, even when the study was conducted, that the numbers given were not realistic.
Lufthansa i BDF nadalje su tvrdili da se znalo, čak i kad se studija provodila, da navedeni podatci nisu realni.
Furthermore, Lufthansa and BDF submitted that FFHG did not have a clear business model, which could be shown by the changing plans for additions to the airport, such as malls or places for excursions, which did not have anything to do with the operation of the airport.
Nadalje, Lufthansa i BDF naveli su da FFHG nije imao jasan poslovni model, što je vidljivo iz promjene planova za dodatke Zračnoj luci, kao što su trgovački centri ili mjesta za izlete koji ni na koji način nisu povezani s upravljanjem Zračnom lukom.
Furthermore, according to Lufthansa and BDF, the conflicting declarations by FFHG that Frankfurt Hahn airport should have been profitable first by 2005, then by 2008 and then 2013, point in the same direction that no consistent business plan was being followed.
Nadalje, prema navodima društva Lufthansa i BDF-a proturječne izjave FFHG-a da je Zračna luka Frankfurt Hahn trebala biti profitabilna najprije do 2005., zatim do 2008. pa do 2013. upućuju na to da se nije slijedio dosljedan poslovni plan.
The last prognosis made, namely that Frankfurt Hahn airport should become profitable from 2016 onwards, would therefore also seem doubtful and this prognosis was apparently even based on the assumption that further, substantial investments would be made.
Stoga se i posljednja prognoza, odnosno da bi Zračna luka Frankfurt Hahn trebala biti profitabilna od 2016. nadalje, čini upitnom, a ta se prognoza navodno čak temeljila na pretpostavci da će se izvršiti dodatna, znatna ulaganja.
The origin of such investments was, however, completely unclear according to Lufthansa and BDF.
Međutim, Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili su da su da je izvor tih ulaganja potpuno nejasan.
Moreover, Lufthansa and BDF stated that, in contrast to what Germany is claiming, PwC has not provided a proper MEOT since its assessment does not take into account the case law of the Court of Justice on at least two points.
Osim toga, Lufthansa i BDF naveli su da, za razliku od tvrdnji Njemačke, PwC nije dostavio odgovarajući test subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu jer u njegovoj procjeni nije uzeta u obzir sudska praksa Suda u pogledu najmanje dvaju elemenata.
Firstly, Lufthansa and BDF referred to the argumentation of Germany that the accumulated losses of FFHG could be compensated by Fraport as its shareholder.
Kao prvo, Lufthansa i BDF uputili su na argumente Njemačke da je Fraport, kao član društva FFHG, mogao nadoknaditi njegove nagomilane gubitke.
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF argued that it is not important whether losses can be compensated within a group of companies, but whether the individual measures taken as such are measures which a market economy investor would have taken as well (or not) and that this argumentation was therefore unacceptable.
U tom su pogledu Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili da nije važno mogu li se gubitci nadoknaditi u okviru grupe društava, nego jesu li pojedinačne mjere, poduzete kao takve, mjere koje bi poduzeo i ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu (ili ne bi) te su ti argumenti stoga neprihvatljivi.
Secondly, Lufthansa and BDF submitted that the argumentation in the assessment by PwC was not sufficient to prove that a market economy investor would have taken the same decision since PwC argued, for example concerning the 1999 Ryanair contract, that a reduction of losses by increasing the passenger volume could be achieved.
Kao drugo, Lufthansa i BDF naveli su da se na temelju argumenata u procjeni PwC-a ne može dokazati da bi ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu donio istu odluku jer je PwC tvrdio, na primjer u pogledu Ugovora s društvom Ryanair iz 1999., da se smanjenje gubitaka može postići povećanjem putničkog prometa.
Lufthansa and BDF referred to the case WestLB, according to which a market economy investor would normally ‘seek to achieve the maximum reasonable return on his investment, according to the particular circumstances and the satisfaction of his short-, medium- and long-term interests, even where he is investing in an undertaking of which he is already a shareholder’ [43].
Lufthansa i BDF uputili su na predmet WestLB prema kojem bi ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu obično „nastojao ostvariti najveći mogući razumni povrat svojeg ulaganja, u skladu s konkretnim okolnostima i u cilju ostvarivanja svojih kratkoročnih, srednjoročnih i dugoročnih interesa, čak i ako ulaže u poduzetnika čiji je već dioničar” [43].
Hence a reduction of losses would not suffice for a measure to pass the MEOT and therefore PwC already disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice in this respect, Lufthansa and BDF argued.
Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili su da stoga smanjenje gubitaka ne bi bilo dovoljno da mjera položi test subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu te je stoga PwC zanemario sudsku praksu Suda u tom pogledu.
Also, Lufthansa and BDG pointed out that the assessment submitted on behalf of FFHG did not include any own MEOT as it only referred to the test made by PwC.
Osim toga, Lufthansa i BDG istaknuli su da procjena koja je podnesena u ime FFHG-a nije uključivala vlastiti test subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu jer se u njoj samo uputilo na test koji je proveo PwC.
In addition, Lufthansa and BDF contested the argument made by PwC in relation to the capital increases that long planning horizons of more than 30 years and amortisation of investments over 20 years are normal business practice for infrastructure investments (see recital 103 of the 2008 opening decision).
Osim toga, Lufthansa i BDF osporavali su argument PwC-a u pogledu povećanja kapitala da su dugo vrijeme planiranja od više od 30 godina i amortizacija ulaganja od više od 20 godina uobičajena poslovna praksa za infrastrukturna ulaganja (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 103. Odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2008.).
In this respect, Lufthansa and BDF claimed that the comparisons made by PwC to concession contracts at Budapest airport, Da Vinci and Campiano airports, Sparta airport and Belfast City airport were completely indefensible since the situation of none of these airports is even remotely comparable to the situation of FFHG and Frankfurt Hahn airport.
U tom su pogledu Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili da su usporedbe koje je PwC napravio s ugovorima o koncesiji u zračnim lukama Budimpešta, Da Vinci i Campiano te Sparta i Belfast City bile potpuno neprimjenjive jer se situacija ni u jednoj od tih zračnih luka ne može ni približno usporediti sa situacijom u FFHG-u i Zračnoj luci Frankfurt Hahn.
Lufthansa and BDF argued that unlike all of the airports mentioned by PwC, Frankfurt Hahn was a military airport at which the major part of the civil use started only in 1999 and was then supported by infrastructure developments exactly matching Ryanair's needs.
Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili su da je, za razliku od svih zračnih luka koje je naveo PwC, Zračna luka Frankfurt Hahn bila vojna zračna luka koja se većim dijelom počela upotrebljavati u civilne svrhe tek 1999. te joj je tada pružena potpora u smislu infrastrukturnih ulaganja koja točno odgovaraju potrebama društva Ryanair.
This is why, according to Lufthansa and BDF, the break-even analysis is not accurate since the costs for the terminal were not taken into account.
Lufthansa i BDF smatraju da zbog toga analiza isplativosti nije točna jer troškovi terminala nisu uzeti u obzir.
Lufthansa and BDF also argued on the basis of the 2008 opening decision that the overcompensation of security fees clearly constituted State aid.
Osim toga, Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili su na temelju Odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2008. da prekomjerna naknada za sigurnosne pristojbe jasno čini državnu potporu.
In this regard Lufthansa and BDF advanced the argument, firstly, that the security checks had not been publicly procured.
U tom su pogledu Lufthansa i BDF iznijeli argument da, kao prvo, sigurnosne kontrole nisu dobivene u okviru javne nabave.
In the opinion of Lufthansa and BDF, the rules of public procurement have not been followed and therefore, by default, the service has not been procured at the most advantageous price.
Lufthansa i BDF smatraju da se nisu poštovala pravila o javnoj nabavi i da, prema tome, usluga nije dobivena po najpovoljnijoj cijeni.
Secondly, Lufthansa and BDF argued that, according to German law, these security fees must be oriented towards the actual and necessary costs.
Kao drugo, Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili su da se, u skladu s njemačkim pravom, te sigurnosne pristojbe moraju temeljiti na stvarnim i nužnim troškovima.
However, Lufthansa and BDF pointed out that the fees at Frankfurt Hahn airport have remained at the same level between 2003 and 2008, whereas at other airports traffic fluctuations could be observed.
Međutim, Lufthansa i BDF istaknuli su da su pristojbe u Zračnoj luci Frankfurt Hahn ostale na istoj razini od 2003. do 2008., dok su se u drugim zračnim lukama mogle primijeniti promjene u prometu.
In contrast to the comments from Germany concerning the legal assessment, Lufthansa and BDF were of the opinion that the aid granted by Fraport to FFHG originated from State resources.
Za razliku od primjedbi Njemačke na pravnu ocjenu Lufthansa i BDF smatrali su da potpora koju je Fraport dodijelio FFHG-u proizlazi iz državnih sredstava.
According to Lufthansa and BDF, Fraport had expressly admitted in all of its annual balance sheets between 2001 and 2006 that because of a consortium agreement between the public shareholders, it is a ‘dependent, publicly held undertaking’.
Prema navodima društva Lufthansa i BDF-a Fraport je izričito u svim svojim godišnjim bilancama od 2001. do 2006. priznao da je zbog ugovora o konzorciju između javnih dioničara on „ovisno poduzeće u državnom vlasništvu”.
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF point to a number of indications that the funds of Fraport were State resources according to the judgment in case Stardust Marine [44] and Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC [45].
U tom su pogledu Lufthansa i BDF uputili na niz naznaka da su sredstva društva Fraport državna sredstva u skladu s presudom u predmetu Stardust Marine [44] i člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Direktive Komisije 2006/111/EZ [45].
Furthermore, Lufthansa and BDF considered that the actions of Fraport are also imputable to the State.
Nadalje, Lufthansa i BDF smatrali su i da se postupanje društva Fraport može pripisati državi.
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF referred to indications for imputability such as the fact that FFHG's meeting of shareholders, meaning Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Fraport, agreed to the conclusion of the Ryanair agreements.
U tom su pogledu Lufthansa i BDF uputili na naznake mogućnosti pripisivanja, kao što je činjenica da je Skupština društva FFHG, odnosno savezna pokrajina Porajnje-Falačka i Fraport, dogovorila sklapanje ugovora s društvom Ryanair.
Lufthansa and BDF therefore claimed that the public shareholders made this application possible through the new capital increase.
Stoga su Lufthansa i BDF tvrdili da su javni dioničari omogućili odobrenje tog zahtjeva novim povećanjem kapitala.