natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
TOTAL CASH FLOW with NBV end 2021 with LCT
UKUPNA GOTOVINA s NKV-om krajem 2021. s NT-om
DIFFERENTIAL CASH FLOW
RAZLIKA U NOVČANOM TOKU
Updated TOTAL CASH FLOW with NBV end 2021 without LCT
UKUPNA GOTOVINA s NKV-om krajem 2021. diskontirana bez NT-a
Updated TOTAL CASH FLOW with NBV end 2021 with LCT
UKUPNA GOTOVINA s NKV-om krajem 2021. diskontirana s NT-om
TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL CASH FLOW
UKUPNA RAZLIKA U NOVČANOM TOKU
The prudent operator will take into account all the aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue, as well as the elasticity of traffic demand in relation to the aeronautical charges in question, in order to determine the profitability of the simplified-service terminal and the corresponding charges.
Razuman subjekt uzet će u obzir sve zrakoplovne i izvanzrakoplovne prihode te će pritom voditi računa o elastičnosti prometne potražnje u odnosu na određivanje predviđenih cijena naknada zračne luke, kako bi utvrdio profitabilnost projekta terminala koji nudi jednostavne usluge i odgovarajuće naknade.
The difference between the passenger charge level and the cost of the passenger function, which is covered by the non-aeronautical revenue, does not therefore constitute an advantage granted to airlines, but is the result of the operator's underlying optimisation, which, on the contrary, is aimed at ensuring the profitability of the investment project.
Odstupanje između cijene naknade po putniku i troška po putniku, koji je pokriven izvanzrakoplovnim prihodima, stoga ne predstavlja prednost dodijeljenu zračnim prijevoznicima, nego je posljedica optimiranja koje upravitelj provodi kako bi, naprotiv, učinio svoj projekt ulaganja profitabilnim.
The passenger charges (excluding check-in desks) applicable at Terminal mp2 are shown in Table 13.
Cijene naknade po putniku (ne uključujući šalter za registraciju putnika) primijenjene u terminalu mp2 navedene su u tablici 13.
Charge per passenger for intra-EU flights (EUR)
Naknada po putniku za letove unutar EU-a (EUR)
Charge per passenger for extra-EU flights (EUR)
Naknada po putniku za letove izvan EU-a (EUR)
Original
Izvorna
Retroactive
Retroaktivna
In 2009 the charges were adjusted following their annulment by the Council of State.
Cijene su prilagođene 2009. nakon što je Državno vijeće ukinulo cijene.
The Cocoéco decision of 18 February 2009 explains in more detail the calculation methods used to set these charges, based on the costs and revenues allocated to each terminal as specified in the study conducted by the Mazars consultancy in 2008 and covering the next six years.
U odluci povjerenstva Cocoéco od 18. veljače 2009. detaljnije su objašnjene metode izračuna koje su dovele do određivanja tih cijena na temelju troškova i prihoda podijeljenih na svaki terminal kao što su navedeni u studiji koju je 2008. izradio ured Mazars i koja se odnosi na budućih šest godina.
According to this study and based on the projections that it uses, the costs taken into account are the costs of the buildings allocated to each terminal, servicing and maintenance costs, and operating costs in proportion to their allocation to the passenger function and their use for each terminal.
U okviru te studije i na temelju predviđanja koja se na njoj temelje, troškovi uzeti u obzir odnose se na troškove povezane sa zgradama namijenjenima svakom terminalu, troškove tekućeg i investicijskog održavanja te operativne troškove prema njihovom pripisivanju na temelju broja putnika i njihove upotrebe u pogledu svakog terminala.
The revenues taken into account are the income from airport charges (passenger and check-in desks) and the commercial revenues (shops and parking) generated at the airport and allocated to each of the terminals.
Prihodi koji su uzeti u obzir istodobno se odnose na prihode od naknade zračne luke (putnici i šalter za registraciju putnika) te komercijalne prihode (trgovine i parkiralište) ostvarene u čvorištu i dodijeljene svakom od terminala.
It appears that the passenger charges were set such that the aeronautical revenue covered the same margin of the passenger function for both Terminal mp2 and Terminal mp1, i.e. [between 50 % and 80 % for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010]*.
Očito je da su cijene naknade po putniku određene tako da zrakoplovni prihodi pokrivaju istu maržu na temelju broja putnika u terminalu mp2 i mp1, odnosno [od 50 % do 80 % za 2007., 2008., 2009. i 2010.]*.
The figures in the decision of 18 February 2009 reveal that, if both the income from airport charges and the commercial revenues allocated to the passenger function are taken into account, they cover the costs of that function at Terminal mp2 [by between 100 % and 140 % for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010]*, based on the passenger charge set in the decision of 25 May 2009.
Iz financijskih podataka iznesenih u odluci od 18. veljače 2009. proizlazi da, ako se istodobno uzimaju u obzir prihodi od naknada zračne luke i komercijalni prihodi pripisani na temelju broja putnika, njime su pokriveni troškovi te stavke u terminalu mp2 [od 100 % do 140 % za 2007., 2008., 2009. i 2010.]*, uzimajući u obzir cijenu naknade po putniku određenu u odluci od 25. svibnja 2009.
The passenger charges at Terminal mp2 were set on the basis of a prior financial study that took account of all the applicable reductions.
Cijene naknade po putniku u terminalu mp2 određene su na temelju prethodne financijske studije kojom su uzeta u obzir sva primjenjiva sniženja.
According to this financial study, the charges at each terminal would cover the respective costs.
U skladu s financijskom studijom, naknadama svakog terminala trebali su se pokriti povezani troškovi.
The study concluded that the NPV was positive.
U studiji je zaključeno da je NSV bio pozitivan.
Although the new retroactive charges were calculated so that they covered all the airport's costs, after correction in order to distribute certain joint costs between the terminals, the original charges in fact already covered the incremental costs directly associated with the arrival of airlines and each additional passenger.
Iako su nove retroaktivne cijene izračunane tako da pokrivaju sve troškove Zračne luke, nakon ispravka radi podjele određenih zajedničkih troškovi između terminala, prvotnim su cijenama već bili pokriveni granični troškovi izravno povezani s dolaskom zračnih prijevoznika i svakog dodatnog putnika.
As a result, it was always expected that the charges applied to the airlines would cover at least the incremental costs associated with each airline's use of the airport.
Prema tome, u svakom je trenutku bilo predviđeno da cijenama koje se primjenjuju na zračne prijevoznike budu pokriveni barem granični troškovi povezani s upotrebom Zračne luke od strane prijevoznika.
Furthermore, in the original business plan that led to the decision to construct Terminal mp2, the airport expected to achieve a positive NPV.
Nadalje, u prvotnom poslovnom planu iz kojeg je proizašla odluka o izgradnji terminala mp2, Zračna luka predviđala je postizanje pozitivnog NSV-a.
Before any subsequent changes to the charges, the airport produced plausible estimates showing that the measures would positively contribute to the airport's profitability.
Prije bilo kakve nove prilagodbe cijena Zračna je luka izradila uvjerljive procjene prema kojima bi mjere pozitivno pridonijele profitabilnosti Zračne luke.
The Commission therefore considers that the decision setting the charges for Terminal mp2 satisfies the market economy operator test.
Stoga Komisija smatra da je odluka o određivanju cijena terminala mp2 u skladu s načelom razumnog subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
The same is true for the decision of 25 May 2009 setting these charges for the years 2006 to 2008, and from 1 August 2009.
Isto vrijedi i za odluke od 25. svibnja 2009. o određivanju tih cijena za 2006. do 2008. te od 1. kolovoza 2009.
Marketing agreement with AMS
Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama s društvom AMS
Joint assessment of an economic advantage granted to Ryanair and AMS
Zajednička ocjena gospodarske prednosti dodijeljene društvima Ryanair i AMS
The Commission must firstly determine whether, for the purposes of identifying an economic advantage from which they may have benefited, Ryanair and its subsidiary AMS should be considered individually or jointly.
Komisija mora najprije preispitati je li Ryanair i njegovo društvo kći AMS potrebno ocjenjivati zajedno ili zasebno u svrhu utvrđivanja gospodarske prednosti koju su mogla ostvariti.
The Commission notes first of all that AMS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ryanair and that its managers are senior Ryanair executives [82].
Komisija najprije tvrdi da je AMS društvo kći u stopostotnom vlasništvu društva Ryanair i da njime rukovode visoki rukovoditelji društva Ryanair.
The Commission further notes that AMS was in fact formed for the sole purpose of providing marketing services on the Ryanair website and that it does not carry out any other activities.
Komisija nadalje tvrdi da je to društvo zapravo osnovano jedino u cilju pružanja marketinških usluga na web-mjestu društva Ryanair i da nema drugih djelatnosti.
Moreover, the preparatory dossier for the CCIMP airport advisory committee meeting on 15 November 2005 states that the purchase of advertising services on the Ryanair website and the creation of a start-up aid scheme for new routes were both intended to establish cost conditions at Marseille Provence Airport that would allow Ryanair's profitability criteria to be met, particularly with a view to setting up an aircraft base.
Usto, u pripremnom dokumentu CCIMP-a za sastanak vijeća Zračne luke od 15. studenoga 2005. navedeno je da su se nabava promidžbenih usluga na web-mjestu društva Ryanair i uvođenje mjere potpore za započinjanje poslovanja novih linija odnosili na stvaranje troškovnih uvjeta u Zračnoj luci Marseille Provence koji ispunjavaju kriterije profitabilnosti društva Ryanair, posebno s obzirom na uspostavu matične luke zrakoplova.
It is also clear from France's arguments in its response that the financial terms of the agreement concluded with AMS were decided according to the financial margins generated for each flight operated by Ryanair.
Iz argumenata koje je Francuska iznijela u svojem odgovoru proizlazi da su financijski aranžmani ugovora sklopljenog s društvom AMS utvrđeni u skladu s financijskim maržama koje se ostvaruju svakim letom društva Ryanair.
France has also stated that the agreement concluded with AMS contained various undertakings on the part of Ryanair with regard to the number of aircraft based at the airport, the number of daily frequencies operated and the number of passengers per year.
Francuska navodi i da je ugovor sklopljen s društvom AMS obuhvaćao razne obveze društva Ryanair u pogledu broja zrakoplova kojima je Zračna luka matična, broja dnevnih letova i godišnjeg broja putnika.
Lastly, France claims in its response that the CCIMP's conduct must be assessed in the light of ‘the profitability offered by combining the modulations for the creation of new routes with the AMS agreement for Ryanair flights alone’ and stresses that ‘this study of the various measures taken as a whole is particularly pertinent in this case’ [83].
Naposljetku, Francuska u svojem odgovoru navodi da je ponašanje CCIMP-a potrebno ocijeniti s obzirom na „profitabilnost postignutu kumulativnim prilagodbama od otvaranja novih linija i ugovorom s društvom AMS samo za letove društva Ryanair” te ističe da „je ta studija ukupnih različitih mjera naime posebno relevantna u ovom slučaju” [83].
Lastly, the Commission must point out that it also used this approach in its decision of 29 November 2007 opening the formal investigation procedure on Pau Airport, in its decision of 25 January 2012 extending the procedure on the same airport, and in its decisions of 8 February and 23 March 2012 opening procedures on La Rochelle and Angoulême Airports.
Naposljetku, Komisija želi podsjetiti da je taj pristup primijenila i u svojoj odluci o otvaranju formalnog istražnog postupka od 29. studenoga 2007. o Zračnoj luci Pau, u svojoj odluci o proširenju postupka od 25. siječnja 2012. o toj istoj Zračnoj luci, kao i u svojim odlukama o pokretanju postupka od 8. veljače i od 23. ožujka 2012. o Zračnim lukama La Rochelle i Angoulême.
For all these reasons, the measures in favour of Ryanair and AMS should be assessed jointly in order to determine whether there was an economic advantage, as Ryanair and AMS in fact form a single beneficiary of the measures in question [84].
Iz tih istih razloga valja zajedno ocijeniti mjere u korist društava Ryanair i AMS u svrhu utvrđivanja postojanja gospodarske prednosti, s obzirom na to da Ryanair i AMS zapravo čine jednog korisnika predmetnih mjera [84].
The Commission also notes that the only advantage potentially gained by airport operators from the marketing services offered by AMS on the Ryanair website would be an increase in the number of passengers using Ryanair.
Komisija nadalje napominje da je jedina prednost koju su upravitelji zračne luke možda ostvarili od marketinških usluga koje je AMS nudio na web-mjestu društva Ryanair proizašla iz povećanja broja putnika koji lete s društvom Ryanair.
Traffic and load factor estimates therefore constitute an essential component of the analysis of the profitability of entering into a relationship with Ryanair [85].
Međutim, procjene prometa i stopa popunjenosti ključni su dio analize profitabilnosti ulaska u poslovni odnos s društvom Ryanair [85].
The Commission therefore considers that, for the purposes of applying the market economy operator test, the assessment of the advisability of entering into a commercial relationship with Ryanair [86] cannot ignore the consequences of the parallel conclusion of marketing agreements, and particularly their costs.
Komisija prema tome smatra da se za potrebe primjene kriterija razumnog subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu pri procjeni mogućnosti ulaska u poslovni odnos s društvom Ryanair [86] ne smiju zanemariti posljedice istodobnog sklapanja ugovora o marketinškim uslugama i, osobito, njegovih troškova.
Market economy operator test
Kriterij razumnog subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu
On 19 May 2006 the CCIMP concluded, for a term of five years renewable once for the same period, without prior publicity or competitive tendering, an agreement to purchase advertising space with the company AMS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the airline Ryanair.
CCIMP sklopio je 19. svibnja 2006. bez natječajnog postupka ni prethodne objave, na trajanje od pet godina i s mogućnošću jednog produljenja na isto razdoblje, ugovor o zakupu promidžbenog prostora s društvom AMS, koje je društvo kći u stopostotnom vlasništvu zračnog prijevoznika Ryanair.
It was indicated in the Cocoéco decision of 18 February 2009 on the charges that were set in the decision of 25 May 2009 that the cost of the AMS agreement over the agreed term, i.e. October 2006-October 2011, was EUR […]*, i.e. EUR […]* per year.
U odluci povjerenstva Cocoéco od 18. veljače 2009. o određivanju cijena koje su predmet Odluke od 25. svibnja 2009. navedeno je da cijena iz ugovora s društvom AMS za ugovorno razdoblje, odnosno od listopada 2006. do listopada 2011., iznosi […]* EUR, odnosno […]* EUR godišnje.
France's main argument is that the payments made under this agreement were in line with the market price for online marketing services, from which it concludes that the CCIMP acted as a market economy operator by signing the agreement with AMS.
Francuska najprije tvrdi da su plaćanja provedena na temelju tog ugovora u skladu s tržišnom cijenom internetskih marketinških usluga te iz toga zaključuje da se CCIMP ponio kao razuman subjekt u tržišnom gospodarstvu kada je sklopio ugovor s društvom AMS.
However, as stated in Section 7.2.2.5, the Commission considers that any advantages received by AMS and Ryanair must be assessed jointly, given the indissociable nature of the services provided by the airline and its subsidiary.
Međutim, kao što je navedeno u odjeljku 7.2.2.5., Komisija smatra da se eventualne prednosti koje su primila društva AMS i Ryanair trebaju zajedno analizirati, s obzirom na neodvojivost usluga koje pružaju zračni prijevoznik i njegovo društvo kći.
The Commission therefore considers that the potential value of the marketing services provided by AMS lies in an increase in Ryanair traffic.
Naime, Komisija smatra da se potencijalna vrijednost marketinških usluga koje pruža AMS temelji na povećanju prometa društva Ryanair.
France's response seems to suggest that it agrees with this analysis.
Čini se da odgovor Francuske upućuje na to da i ona dijeli tu analizu.
In fact, France maintains that a prudent operator would have jointly analysed the charging framework applicable to Ryanair and the cost of the marketing services purchased from AMS in order to determine the profitability of a flight operated by Ryanair, which is the reasoning that the CCIMP would have followed in its decision to sign the agreement of 19 May 2006.
Naime, Francuska tvrdi da bi razuman subjekt pri utvrđivanju profitabilnosti leta kojim upravlja Ryanair zajedno analizirao cjenovni okvir koji se primjenjuje na društvo Ryanair i trošak marketinških usluga kupljenih od društva AMS, a tako je razmišljao i CCIMP pri donošenju odluke o sklapanju ugovora od 19. svibnja 2006.
As the marketing services provided by AMS were indissociable from the relationship between Marseille Provence Airport and the airline Ryanair, the advantages granted to these two entities should therefore be studied jointly.
Budući da su marketinške usluge koje pruža AMS neodvojive od odnosa između Zračne luke Marseille Provence i zračnog prijevoznika Ryanair, potrebno je zajedno ispitati prednosti dodijeljene tim dvama subjektima.
As a result, the CCIMP's conduct at the time when the agreement of 19 May 2006 was signed with AMS cannot be assessed in relation to the offers of other online advertisers, which do not provide a comparable service.
Stoga ponašanje CCIMP-a u trenutku sklapanja ugovora od 19. svibnja 2006. s društvom AMS ne treba ocijeniti u usporedbi s ponudama drugih reklamnih oglašivača na internetu, koji ne pružaju usporedive usluge.
In the alternative, France maintains that the agreement concluded by the CCIMP with AMS represented a profitable purchase for Marseille Provence Airport, particularly with regard to the activity of Terminal mp2.
Francuska podredno tvrdi da ugovor koji je CCIMP sklopio s društvom AMS predstavlja profitabilnu nabavu za Zračnu luku Marseille Provence, a posebno sa stajališta poslovanja terminala mp2.
It should be recalled that the profitability study on investment in the construction of Terminal mp2 (September 2005 business plan updated in May 2006) did not take into account the costs of the agreement concluded with AMS, but rather the costs of the previous scheme for participating in marketing costs.
Potrebno je podsjetiti da studijom o profitabilnosti ulaganja u izgradnju terminala mp2 (poslovni plan iz rujna 2005. ažuriran u svibnju 2006.) nisu uzeti u obzir troškovi ugovora sklopljenog s društvom AMS, nego troškovi povezani s prethodnom mjerom doprinosa marketinškim troškovima.
In the end, this scheme was not applied, as explained in Section 7.2.2.3.
Ta mjera naposljetku nije bila primijenjena kao što je objašnjeno u odjeljku 7.2.2.3.
France has produced a profitability study on the financial margins generated by Ryanair flights over the 2007-2021 period, conducted in September 2005 and updated in May 2006 before the agreement was concluded with AMS, which the CCIMP apparently used to make the decision on the agreement of 19 May 2006.
Francuska je dostavila studiju profitabilnosti financijskih marži nastalih letovima društva Ryanair u razdoblju od 2007. do 2021., koja je izrađena u rujnu 2005. i ažurirana u svibnju 2006., prije sklapanja ugovora s društvom AMS, a na temelju koju se CCIMP oslonio pri donošenju odluke o sklapanju ugovora od 19. svibnja 2006.
This study is based on the following information (for 2007):
Ta se studija temelji na sljedećim podatcima (za 2007.):
the financial margin per flight, ignoring the cost of the AMS agreement, for a B737 aircraft at Terminal mp2 is EUR […]*;
financijska marža po letu, bez uzimanja u obzir troška ugovora s društvom AMS, za zrakoplov B737 u terminalu mp2 iznosi […]* EUR,
the fact that Ryanair traffic accounts for 85 % of the low-cost traffic assumptions;
činjenica da promet društva Ryanair predstavlja 85 % pretpostavki niskotarifnog prometa,
the fact that Ryanair traffic accounts for 2694 flights (corresponding to an aircraft with 189 seats and a load factor of 75 %).
činjenica da promet društva Ryanair obuhvaća 2694 letova (što odgovara zrakoplovu sa 189 mjesta i stopi popunjenosti od 75 %).
This study reveals that the presence of Ryanair at Marseille Provence Airport, under the charging conditions that it was offered, in particular the reductions for new routes and also for overnight parking, and given the purchase of marketing services from its subsidiary, leads to the airport making a loss in the first three years, with a profit being generated for the airport only from the fourth year of operation [87].
Tom je studijom dokazano da je prisutnost prijevoznika Ryanair u Zračnoj luci Marseille Provence pod cjenovnim uvjetima koji su mu ponuđeni, posebno u pogledu sniženja za nove linije, kao i za parkiranje noću, te uzimajući u obzir nabavu marketinških usluga od njegova društva kćeri, dovela do toga da je Zračna luka prve tri godine bilježila gubitke te da je pozitivnu maržu ostvarila tek nakon četvrte godine poslovanja [87].
It is apparent from the business plan that, over 15 years (2007-2021), the average profit margin for all flights is high enough to meet the profitability expectations of a market economy operator.
Iz poslovnog plana proizlazi da je u 15 godina (2007. – 2021.) prosječna stopa marže za sve letove dovoljno visoka da zadovolji očekivanja profitabilnosti razumnog subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
The agreement of 19 May 2006 was concluded with a view to the medium-term development of the airport's traffic.
Ugovor od 19. svibnja 2006. sklopljen je u svrhu srednjoročnog razvoja prometa Zračne luke.
The AMS agreement replaced the marketing measures originally included in the business plan for the Terminal mp2 construction project.
Ugovor s društvom AMS zamijenio je marketinške mjere koje su prvotno predviđene u poslovnom planu za projekt izgradnje terminala mp2.
The average cost of the agreement with AMS per Ryanair passenger therefore allowed the Terminal mp2 construction project to be profitable as a whole.
Prosječni troškovi ugovora s društvom AMS po putniku društva Ryanair omogućili bi tako utvrđivanje ukupne profitabilnosti projekta izgradnje terminala mp2.
Simulation of the profitability of the AMS agreement in relation to Ryanair traffic (including the effects of the modulated charges)
Simulacija profitabilnosti ugovora s društvom AMS u odnosu na promet društva Ryanair (uključujući učinke prilagodbi cijena)
Total traffic assumption
Pretpostavka ukupnog prometa
Ryanair outbound passengers ([…]* %)
Putnici u odlasku društva Ryanair ([…]* %)
Number of Ryanair outbound flights
Broj odlaznih letova društva Ryanair
AMS advertising purchases (EUR)
Zakup promidžbenog prostora društva AMS (EUR)
Price of agreement per pax
Cijena ugovora po osobi
Margin on traffic after AMS
Marža od prometa nakon ugovora s društvom AMS
Average price per pax of AMS agreement calculated over 5 years
Prosječna cijena po osobi iz ugovora s društvom AMS izračunana na 5 godina
Average price per pax of AMS agreement calculated over 10 years
Prosječna cijena po osobi iz ugovora s društvom AMS izračunana na 10 godina
Income (EUR)
Prihodi (EUR)
Costs (EUR)
Rashodi (EUR)
Margin (EUR)
Marža (EUR)
Net margin (EUR)
Neto marža (EUR)
NPV at […]* % (EUR)
NSV od […]* % (EUR)
As a result, the charges applied to the airlines, taking into account the various reductions and the costs of the agreement with AMS, always cover at least the additional costs associated with each airline's use of the airport.
Prema tome cijene primijenjene na zračne prijevoznike, uzimajući u obzir iznesena različita sniženja te troškove ugovora s društvom AMS, u svakom trenutku pokrivaju barem dodatne troškove povezane s upotrebom zračne luke od strane zračnog prijevoznika.