natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany supported its argument concerning the compliance with the conditions on the market with the expert report by Ernst & Young.
Povrat subvencija
In addition, Germany pointed out that the private majority shareholder Infratil also continued to support the strategy set out in recital 112 after the privatisation of the airport.
Troškovi revizora
Germany argued that the business strategy from 2000 holds up from an ex post perspective.
Osim toga, SGF sumnja u navodnu obvezu upravljanja zračnom lukom kao javnu uslugu jer iz dozvole za upravljanje zračnom lukom ne proizlazi usluga od općeg gospodarskog interesa.
Passenger numbers increased considerably, Ryanair added new destinations and Lübeck airport was able to acquire new airlines such as Wizz Air.
Takva se dozvola može ukinuti.
Germany further stated that there was no selective advantage for Ryanair, as FLG would have offered the same conditions to any other interested airline.
Gospodarski uvjeti koji su prevladavali 2005. bili su daleko povoljniji od onih 2009., što se moglo odražavati i u razlici u cijenama.
Furthermore, Germany is of the opinion that the alleged advantages in favour of Ryanair cannot be imputed to the State due to the ruling of Stardust Marine [28].
Ryanair je naveo da je ugovor s FLG-om sklopljen na temelju razmatranja gospodarskih čimbenika.
According to Germany, FLG acted with autonomy and without any exertion of influence by the State, before, during and after the conclusion of the 2000 Agreement.
Zračna luka Lübeck smatrala se održivom sekundarnom zračnom lukom u odnosu na zračnu luku Hamburg, a sam grad Lübeck smatrao se vrijednim kulturnim odredištem.
Furthermore, Germany stated that FLG was not integrated into the structures of the public administration.
Osim toga, u zračnoj luci Lübeck pokrenute su usluge kojima bi se osigurala baza za niskotarifne prijevoznike i provela demografska analiza kako bi se utvrdilo postoji li dovoljno zaleđe koje okružuje novu zračnu luku.
Finally, Germany stated that the supervision of the public authorities over the management of FLG is limited to aviation and public remit matters and does not include business management activities.
Iako Ryanair nije mogao ponuditi poslovni plan kojim bi se potkrijepila njegova odluka da počne pružati usluge u zračnoj luci Lübeck, taj je zračni prijevoznik istaknuo da se od privatnog ulagatelja na tržištu ne zahtijeva općenito da ima takav poslovni plan.
Further, Germany argued that Hansestadt Lübeck and in particular the supervisory board of FLG were not involved in the decision concerning the 2000 Agreement, as confirmed by the minutes of the supervisory board meeting from 11 July 2000 and a written confirmation of the former CEO of FLG.
Ryanair je objasnio da su usluge koje je pružao u zračnoj luci Lübeck prekinute zbog komercijalnih razloga, uključujući povećane troškove i prinose manje od očekivanih (kao posljedica gospodarske recesije).
In addition, Germany stated that the 2000 Agreement does not distort or threaten to distort competition and does not affect trade between Member States, as there is no real competitive relationship between Lübeck airport and other airports.
Ryanair je naveo da su regionalne zračne luke u Uniji u teškom tržišnom položaju.
Germany submitted that the Side Letter No 1 complies with market conditions and that it did not give an advantage to Ryanair.
Stoga se u obzir moraju uzeti prihodi zračne luke od zrakoplovnih i nezrakoplovnih djelatnosti, što je poznato kao „pristup jedne blagajne”.
Germany argued by reference to the Helaba I [29] case that there is no advantage when other operators of regional airports offer Ryanair similar conditions.
Budući da ugovori s prijevoznikom Ryanair obično obećavaju velik broj putnika, zahvaljujući takvim poslovnim odnosima često se povećava prepoznatljivost zračne luke te se privlače drugi zračni prijevoznici kao i pružatelji maloprodajnih i drugih usluga.
Germany further argued that this has been proven by Ryanair's comparator analysis.
Osim toga, Ryanair je naveo da su postojali čvrsti dokazi za to da bi povećanje broja putnika dovelo do povećanja prihoda od nezrakoplovnih djelatnosti.
Germany argued that low cost carriers such as Ryanair and Wizz Air have fewer demands with regard to ground handling services and infrastructure services.
Kao dokaz Ryanair je dostavio sljedeću tablicu:
Firstly, less check-in counters are needed as check-in for Ryanair flights is available online and less luggage is carried.
Tablica 6.
Secondly, there are no passenger busses.
Prihodi od nezrakoplovnih djelatnosti kao postotak ukupnih prihoda u odabranim zračnim lukama
Fourthly, as there are no transfer flights, no facilities for transfer are needed.
u milijunima GBP
Finally, since the flight crew often takes charge of the cleaning inside the airplane, there is less demand for ground cleaning services.
2010./2011. (%)
Germany argued that there was no imputability to the State, using the same arguments as for the 2000 Agreement.
Prosječno
Germany pointed out that the Side Letter No 2 is an extension of the 2000 Agreement, and did not substantially change the 2000 Agreement.
Ryanair je tvrdio da će, sa stajališta subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu, svaka komercijalna ponuda obično biti poboljšanje u odnosu na tadašnje i postojeće stanje, dok god se očekuje da granične koristi premašuju granične troškove.
As the 2000 Agreement complies with the requirements of the market, the Side Letter No 2 would also do so.
Nadalje, Ryanair je tvrdio da je potrebno uzeti u obzir da je znatno smanjio potrebe u odnosu na druge zračne prijevoznike s obzirom na svoj poslovni model i operativnu učinkovitost.
Lastly, Germany stated that there is no negative impact on competition or trade, since Lübeck airport is a small regional airport and is not in competition with Hamburg airport.
Kako bi dostavio više dokaza za to da je njegov Ugovor iz 2000. u skladu s tržišnim zahtjevima, Ryanair je proveo usporedbu zračnih luka koje su slične veličine i u sličnoj situaciji kao zračna luka Lübeck.
Germany stated that the charges for de-icing are not individually negotiated but are based on a scheme for special services, which are applicable to all airlines.
Usporedive zračne luke jesu zračne luke Bournemouth, Grenoble, Knock, Maastricht, Nimes i Prestwick.
Germany further noted that there was no State aid since the basic elements for such aid were absent.
Usporedbom naknada koje je Ryanair plaćao u usporedivim zračnim lukama pokazalo se da su troškovi koje je Ryanair plaćao u zračnoj luci Lübeck bili općenito veći od prosječne razine troškova u usporedivim zračnim lukama, ne samo po putniku nego i po operaciji prihvata i otpreme.
Firstly, the charges were not selective.
Ryanair je poticao Komisiju da u svojoj ocjeni sukladnosti Ugovora iz 2000. s načelom subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu veću pažnju obrati na analizu usporedivih zračnih luka nego na analizu profitabilnosti.
Secondly, the charges were not imputable to the State, which is confirmed by the fact that Infratil and Yasmina, two private investors, were responsible for setting those charges during the time they were operating the airport for a substantial time.
U izvješću koje je sastavilo društvo Oxera izračunana je neto sadašnja vrijednosti Ugovora iz 2000.
Thirdly, there was no advantage.
U izvješću je utvrđena pozitivna neto sadašnja vrijednost od […] EUR.
The private investors Infratil and Yasmina decided not to change the scheme for special services, which is an indication that the de-icing charges were in accordance with the requirements of the market.
Društvo Oxera provelo je niz provjera osjetljivosti s obzirom na taj izračun.
OBSERVATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES
Air Berlin naveo je da su rute koje Ryanair nudi iz zračne luke Lübeck u izravnom tržišnom natjecanju s onima koje Air Berlin nudi u zračnoj luci Hamburg.
In relation to a possible State aid in favour of FLG, the majority of commenting parties agreed with Germany on the matter.
Konkretno je riječ o Londonu, Milanu i Barceloni jer oba zračna prijevoznika u svojem portfelju imaju ta odredišta.
In particular, Ryanair, FLG, IHK Lübeck and ADV.
Air Berlin je tvrdio da je tržišna strategija prijevoznika Ryanair usmjerena na vrbovanje potencijalnih klijenata zračnog prijevoznika Air Berlin i drugih.
Disagreeing third parties were SGF, BDF, and two individual persons Peter C. Klanowski and Horst Conrad.
Zbog niskih cijena prijevoznika Ryanair klijenti su se premjestili iz zračne luke Hamburg u zračnu luku Lübeck.
These parties argued that FLG received State aid from Hansestadt Lübeck:
Air Berlin tvrdi da je zbog državne potpore pretrpio znatne ekonomske gubitke.
Loss transfer agreement: SGF stated that a public service obligation for the operation of the airport is only given for general aviation and does not include commercial aviation.
Air Berlin je morao ukinuti neke svoje letove zbog slične ponude prijevoznika Ryanair u zračnoj luci Lübeck.
Contrary to what Germany stated, SGF was of the opinion that airports in Germany can be closed at the request of the operator of the airport.
Osim toga, Air Berlin je naveo da mu je teško uspostavljati letove prema novim odredištima iz zračne luke Hamburg dok Ryanair nudi slična odredišta iz zračne luke Lübeck po pretjerano niskim cijenama.
SGF further stated that both the rent paid by FLG until 2006 and the rent paid afterwards are too low;
Nadalje, Air Berlin je uputio na zatvaranje zračne luke Lübeck 19. travnja 2004. na šest dana kako bi potkrijepio svoje argumente da je Ryanair plaćao nepošteno niske naknade i da je postojalo tržišno natjecanje između zračnih luka Lübeck i Hamburg.
Lease agreement and takeover of loans: According to BDF, the failure of Germany to provide sufficient information to the Commission is an indication for the existence of aid;
Dok je zračna luka Lübeck bila zatvorena, Ryanair je svoj promet morao premjestiti iz nje u zračnu luku Hamburg.
Potential investment aid to FLG by means of 2005 Regional Airports Decision and its alleged violation: in disagreement with the statements in the opening decision, SGF stated that aid to the airport was granted prematurely, as there was no planning approval decision yet.
Kao rezultat većih naknada zračne luke u zračnoj luci Hamburg Ryanair je zabilježio dodatni trošak u iznosu od […] EUR, koji je naplatio FLG-u.
According to SGF, this created a time advantage for Lübeck airport compared to other airports and threatened competition in the market.
Stoga je Air Berlin naglasio da je Ryanair već u roku od šest dana stekao prednost u iznosu od […] EUR pred zračnim prijevoznicima koji posluju u zračnoj luci Hamburg.
With respect to possible aid for infrastructure measures, SGF and Klanowski are of the opinion that some of the measures (namely the financing of security fences, lighting and the instrument landing system) have to be considered operating aid.
Air Berlin je svoj argument dodatno potkrijepio tablicom s brojem putnika i letova prije (do 1999.) i nakon (od 2000.) što je Ryanair počeo poslovati u zračnoj luci Lübeck:
Further, SGF stated that those measures do not fulfil the criteria concerning accounting and financial reporting as defined in the Altmark decision [30] by the Court of Justice.
Tablica 7.
Moreover, SGF is of the opinion that the measures do not follow a clearly defined objective of general interest.
Tablica broja putnika i letova koju je dostavio Air Berlin
In addition there is no satisfactory medium-term prospect for the use of the infrastructure.
Broj putnika (osoba)
Finally, SGF stated that there is no access to the new infrastructure in an equal and non-discriminatory manner even under the new schedule of charges, as only Ryanair is able to fulfil the criteria to benefit from the lowest fees;Financing of infrastructure investments by Hansestadt Lübeck and the Land Schleswig Holstein: SGF further argued that future investments were calculated on the basis of incorrect assumptions and were therefore excessive.
Broj letova
Apart from the airport's failure to generate higher passenger numbers, SGF added that the airport could not curb its losses.
U skladu s tablicom 7. došlo je do znatnog povećanja broja putnika 2000., kad je Ryanair počeo nuditi letove iz zračne luke.
In reference to the North German Air Traffic Concept (‘Norddeutsches Luftverkehrskonzept’), SGF argues that all larger airports in North Germany (including Hamburg) have ample capacities at their disposal.
Air Berlin je naveo da se 97 % tih putnika može pripisati prijevozniku Ryanair.
It is stated that there are no bottlenecks in relation to available capacities until at least 2030.
To se uspoređuje s gubitcima koje je FLG ostvarivao prije (do 1999.) i nakon (od 2000.) što je Ryanair započeo s poslovanjem u zračnoj luci Lübeck:
In addition, the investments, in particular the instrument landing system, cannot be regarded as reimbursement for a public service.
Tablica 8.
According to SGF, it was in the economic interest of FLG to invest in this system in order to enable the achievement of its middle-term economic goals.
Tablica gubitaka FLG-a koju je dostavio Air Berlin
Subordination of shareholder loans of Hansestadt Lübeck to FLG: SGF is of the opinion that Lübeck airport is an ‘undertaking in difficulties’ and has been so in 2008/2009.
Gubitci (u EUR)
Infratil stated that the difference between the put option price paid in accordance with the 2009 Additional Agreement and the put option price that would have been payable in January 2009 had its basis in performances agreed by the parties.
Ryanair je tvrdio da Ugovori iz 2010. nisu pripisivi državi.
Hansestadt Lübeck would have had to cover all but two of the additional amounts in any case after the de-privatisation, leading to the conclusion that the 2009 Additional Agreement was the most economic (‘wirtschaftlich’) decision.
Ryanair je stoga naveo da su učinci dvaju popratnih pisama pokriveni podnescima prijevoznika Ryanair u pogledu Ugovora iz 2000.
Infratil further argued that the additional amounts did not constitute an advantage for Infratil.
Ryanair je dostavio izvješće koje je sastavilo društvo Oxera [31] i u kojem se ocjenjuje očekivana profitabilnost Prvog i Drugog popratnog pisma na temelju poslovnog plana iz 2009.
Firstly, the additional coverage of losses in 2009 would not have had to be paid by Infratil, if it had exercised its put option.
[32] koji je zračna luka Lübeck sastavilaprije potpisivanja Prvog i Drugog popratnog pisma.
Secondly, Hansestadt Lübeck's obligation to pay interest for the shareholder loans for the period from 1 January 2009 to 22 October 2009 cannot be considered an economic advantage, as Infratil could have realised the same or even higher returns from the proceeds of the put option in January 2009.
U izvješću se upućuje na to da se, pod razumnim pretpostavkama, u trenutku potpisivanja dvaju popratnih pisama očekivala njihova dostatna profitabilnost.
In a hypothetical scenario, Infratil would have utilised the proceeds for the repayment of existing debts in order to save interest.
Zračna luka koja se ponaša kao subjekt u tržišnom gospodarstvu ponudila bi slične uvjete.
Furthermore, no advantage was conferred to Infratil since Lübeck airport was not expected to make profits in the short term, but rather to continue to make losses.
RYANAIR I WIZZ AIR
Infratil argued that the exercise of the put option did not enable Infratil to restore the situation ex quo ante completely, since Infratil had to carry certain losses (difference between approved operating losses and actual operating losses) without compensation.
Ryanair i Wizz Air tvrdili su da se nijedan dio navodne potpore koju je zračna luka Lübeck dodijelila prijevozniku Wizz Air i drugim prijevoznicima ne može pripisati Njemačkoj, na temelju presude Stardust Marine [33].
Even if the Commission were to find that the renegotiation of the put option constituted State aid, Infratil considers it to be in compliance with the internal market.
Wizz Air tvrdi da, čak i ako je Hansestadt Lübeck bio jedini vlasnik zračne luke u predmetnom razdoblju, to nije dovoljno da bi se potvrdila pripisivost državi.
If the Commission were to find that Hansestadt Lübeck granted aid to Infratil by taking over losses incurred by FLG in 2009, according to Infratil such aid would merely have been a compensation for the losses incurred in the discharge of services of general economic interest.
Wizz Air tvrdi da je izostanak pripisivosti Njemačkoj bio još i očitiji u vrijeme kad je Infratil bio vlasnik 90 % udjela u FLG-u.
Hansestadt Lübeck argued that the agreement to take over losses was the least costly and risky alternative.
Ryanair i Wizz Air naveli su da te naknade i svi mogući popusti čine neznatan dio troškova koje zračni prijevoznik bilježi u poslovanju sa zračnom lukom.
This is particularly justified on the basis of the legal obligation for Hansestadt Lübeck to operate the airport according to paragraph 45(1) of the German Air Traffic Authorisation Regulation (Luftverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung, ‘LuftVZO’).
Ryanair smatra da se te naknade ne mogu zasebno ocijeniti jer za odleđivanje ne postoji maloprodajno tržište.
Therefore, a closing of the airport would not have been an option.
Popust na odleđivanje vjerojatno će se nadoknaditi komercijalnim koristima koje zračna luka ostvaruje na drugi način u okviru pregovora.
In addition, closing the airport would have consumed too much time and resources.
Ryanair se pozvao na presudu Charleroi u kojoj je potvrđeno da je „međutim, pri primjeni testa privatnog ulagatelja potrebno […] sagledati komercijalnu transakciju u cjelini” [34].
Additionally, Hansestadt Lübeck reminded the Commission that neither Hansestadt Lübeck nor Infratil had previous experience with the privatisation of an airport.
Naposljetku, Ryanair i Wizz Air naveli su da je cijena tekućine za odleđivanje koja se naplaćivala u zračnoj luci Lübeck bila standardna cijena koja se naplaćivala u javnim i privatnim zračnim lukama.
This may lead to certain miscalculations, but certainly not to the conclusion that either party did not act in accordance with market principles.
PRIMJEDBE NJEMAČKE NA PRIMJEDBE TREĆIH STRANA
Furthermore, Hansestadt Lübeck argued that Infratil was the only bidder in the context of the privatisation, therefore minimising the negotiating power of Hansestadt Lübeck.
PRIMJEDBE NA PODNESKE PRIJEVOZNIKA RYANAIR
SGF submitted that the 2009 Additional Agreement constitutes new aid, leading to an advantage for Infratil.
Njemačka smatra da iz podnesaka prijevoznika Ryanair proizlazi da je FLG postupao u skladu s načelom subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
As that the aid exceeds the de minimis threshold, it should have been notified, which Germany failed to do.
Njemačka je posebno istaknula koliko je koristan pristup prijevoznika Ryanair koji uključuje dokazivanje tržišne usklađenosti ugovora analizom profitabilnosti i analizom usporedivih zračnih luka.
According to SGF, Infratil clearly received an advantage from the 2009 Additional Agreement.
Njemačka smatra da Prvo i Drugo popratno pismo nisu relevantna za ovaj istražni postupak.
Regarding the application of the MEO test, SGF pointed out that the positive impact of an agreement on the region should not be taken into consideration.
Prvo, popratna pisma iz ožujka i listopada 2010. nisu pripisiva državi jer je FLG o njima neovisno pregovarao i sklopio ih, bez uplitanja grada Hansestadt Lübeck.
In that context, SGF stated that Lübeck airport had no prospects of profitability.
Drugo, u pogledu Drugog popratnog pisma Njemačka je istaknula da je ono samo produljenje Ugovora iz 2000. te ne sadržava nikakve materijalne promjene.
SGF added that FLG could only prevent insolvency in the beginning of 2008 because of the concessions made by Infratil.
Stoga se sva razmatranja o Ugovoru iz 2000. primjenjuju i na popratna pisma.
SGF disagreed that the MEO test was fulfilled, since no private investor would have been willing to keep operating with such losses, as the exercise of Infratil's put option shows.
Njemačka je navela da ne razumije zašto bi Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama iz 2010. trebalo uključiti u ovaj istražni postupak jer nije uključivao nikakva javna sredstva.
With regard to the closure of the airport, SGF argued that Hamburg is equipped with sufficient capacities to operate without Lübeck as back-up airport.
Troškove utvrđene u Ugovoru o marketinškim uslugama iz 2010. pokrivao je IHK Lübeck.
In addition, according to SGF, the costs for closure were overestimated by FLG.
Osim toga, Njemačka je navela da se Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama iz 2010. može smatrati sukladnim s tržišnim standardima.
Table 5 was deemed more realistic, even though it may still be an overestimation according to SGF:
To potkrepljuje primjedba da je FLG morao plaćati manje naknade od drugih zračnih luka koje su sklopile slične ugovore.
Table 5
Štoviše, Ugovor o marketinškim uslugama iz 2010. sa zračnom lukom Lübeck temeljio se na obećanju prijevoznika Ryanair da će svoj portfelj letova proširiti za dva odredišta.
Costs for closure of Lübeck airport as submitted by Schutzgemeinschaft
Njemačka je kao dodatni argument navela i funkciju zračne luke Lübeck kao pomoćne zračne luke za zračnu luku Hamburg i kao nužne infrastrukture za stanovništvo sjeverne Njemačke.
Costs
PRIMJEDBE NA PODNESKE SGF-A
In thousands EUR
Njemačka je navela da SGF nije bio zainteresirana strana u smislu članka 108. stavka 2.
Current losses for temporary continuation until 2010/2011
Članovi društva SGF samo su vlasnici zemljišta u neposrednoj blizini zračne luke i stoga se žele riješiti primijećenih neugodnosti prouzročenih radom zračne luke.
Social plan
Međutim, takvi se ciljevi moraju nastojati ostvariti nacionalnim pravnim sredstvima.
Repayment of subsidies
Osim toga, Njemačka je tvrdila da je suština podnesaka koje je dostavio SGF netočna.
Costs of auditor
Prvo, Njemačka se ne slaže s izjavom SGF-a da zračna luka Lübeck ne obavlja funkciju pružanja javne usluge.
Additionally, the alleged duty to operate the airport as a public service is questioned by SGF, since the permit to operate the airport does not lead to a service of general economic interest.
SGF je tvrdio da je upravljanje zračnom lukom u javnom interesu samo u mjeri u kojoj se taj interes odnosi na „opće zrakoplovstvo”.
Such a permit can be cancelled.
Njemačka se ne slaže s tom izjavom jer zračna luka Lübeck ima obvezu rada radi obavljanja funkcije pružatelja javnih infrastrukturnih usluga i funkcije pomoćne zračne luke uz zračnu luku Hamburg.
Ryanair argued that the difference between the put option prices agreed in 2005 and 2009 and the actual put option price paid by Hansestadt Lübeck could have been caused by a number of factors, such as trends in asset prices.
Potonje je službeno utvrđeno u sjevernonjemačkom konceptu zračnog prometa (njem.
Economic conditions prevailing in 2005 were far more buoyant than in 2009, and the difference in price may have been a reflection of this.
Norddeutsches Luftverkehrskonzept).
Ryanair stated that the contract with FLG was entered into on the basis of economic considerations.
U pogledu ugovora o zakupu Njemačka je ponovila svoje stajalište da za FLG nije nastala prednost starim ugovorom o zakupu do kraja 2005. ni novim ugovorom o zakupu od 2006.
Lübeck airport was seen as a viable secondary airport to Hamburg airport and Lübeck itself was regarded as valuable cultural destination.
Njemačka je, nadalje, iznijela primjedbe na podneske SGF-a o ulaganjima u infrastrukturu.
In addition, services were launched at Lübeck airport to secure a low cost base and to analyse the demographics so as to establish whether there was a sufficient hinterland surrounding a new airport.
Njemačka je navela da je odobrenje planova samo administrativni alat koji se može izdati retroaktivno te nije preduvjet za odobrenje financiranja niti ima učinak na tržišno natjecanje.
Ryanair explained that its services from Lübeck airport were discontinued because of commercial considerations, including cost increases and a yield lower than anticipated (as a consequence of economic recession).
Njemačka tvrdi da su mjere bile nužne kako bi se poštovali nacionalni i međunarodni propisi.