natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The only possible source of remuneration will be the incremental cash-flow which the airport may earn from the construction and operation of the southern runway.
Edini možen vir prihodkov bo dodaten denarni tok, ki ga lahko letališče ustvari z gradnjo in delovanjem južne vzletno-pristajalne steze.
The Commission will therefore, firstly, calculate the incremental cash-flow for the southern runway.
Zato bo Komisija najprej izračunala dodatni denarni tok za južno vzletno-pristajalno stezo.
Secondly, the Commission will check whether this incremental cash-flow provides a sufficient remuneration for the warranties provided.
Potem bo Komisija preverila, ali ta dodatni denarni tok zagotavlja zadosten donos za zagotovljena jamstva.
A private investor would have decided whether to enter into the Framework Agreement along with whether to build the southern runway, thus the reference date for the private investor test must be November 2004, before the date construction works started.
Zasebni vlagatelj bi odločitev o sklenitvi okvirnega sporazuma sprejel skupaj z odločitvijo o gradnji južne vzletno-pristajalne steze, zato mora biti referenčni datum za preskus zasebnega vlagatelja november 2004, preden so se začela gradbena dela.
As explained above (see recital 215 and following), the Commission holds that a private investor would not have wilfully damaged his negotiating position by sinking investment costs into the southern runway prior to the conclusion of a contract for its use.
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno (glej uvodno izjavo 215 in sledeče), Komisija meni, da zasebni vlagatelj ne bi namenoma oslabil svojega pogajalskega položaja z naložbo v južno vzletno-pristajalno stezo, ne da bi prej sklenil ustrezno pogodbo o njeni uporabi.
The cash-flow calculations clearly show that the southern runway without having DHL coming to Leipzig Airport would not have been a viable business alternative because an incremental cash-flow loss of about EUR […] would have resulted (see column 5 in Annex 1).
Izračuni denarnega toka jasno kažejo, da južna vzletno-pristajalna steza brez prihoda družbe DHL na letališče Leipzig ne bi bila izvedljiva poslovna nadomestna možnost, ker bi bila posledica tega izguba dodatnega denarnega toka v višini približno […] EUR (glej stolpec 5 v Prilogi).
Therefore by first constructing the southern runway, and then signing the Framework Agreement, the airport did not act as a private investor would have.
Zato letališče z gradnjo južne vzletno-pristajalne steze pred sklenitvijo okvirnega sporazuma ni ravnalo, kot bi ravnal zasebni vlagatelj.
The scenario ‘expansion without DHL’ was only feasible due the granting of substantial aid.
Scenarij „širitev brez družbe DHL“ je bil izvedljiv samo z dodelitvijo znatne pomoči.
Therefore the scenario cannot be used as a point of reference for the private market investor test.
Zato tega scenarija ni mogoče uporabiti kot referenčno točko za preskus zasebnega tržnega vlagatelja.
The Commission will therefore retain its approach developed in the opening decision to calculate the incremental cash-flow for the construction of the southern runway by taking the difference of the cash-flows resulting from the expansion scenario with DHL and the status-quo scenario (operation of the existing northern runway only).
Komisija bo zato ohranila svoj pristop, razvit v uvodni odločbi, za izračun dodatnega denarnega toka za gradnjo južne vzletno-pristajalne steze ob upoštevanju razlike med denarnimi tokovi, ki izhajajo iz scenarija širitve z družbo DHL in scenarija ohranitve obstoječega stanja (delovanje le obstoječe severne vzletno-pristajalne steze).
The calculation starts in 2005 when the airport incurred the first investment costs of about EUR […] for the southern runway of which the Commission only became aware after the opening decision.
Izračun se začne v letu 2005, ko je imelo letališče prve stroške naložbe za južno vzletno-pristajalno stezo v višini približno […] EUR, s katerimi je bila Komisija seznanjena šele po uvodni odločbi.
The cash-flow calculation will not go beyond 2042 and not include the terminal values proposed by Germany, because, according to an earlier submission by Germany [53], the useful life of a runway amounts to about 30 years.
Izračun denarnega toka ne bo presegel leta 2042 in ne bo vključeval končnih vrednosti, ki jih je predlagala Nemčija, ker je po prejšnjih navedbah Nemčije [52] življenjska doba vzletno-pristajalne steze približno 30 let.
Furthermore, a private investor would not be willing to finance the southern runway if it did not yield a satisfactory return in its prime — the first 37 years of operation from 2005 until 2042.
Poleg tega se zasebni vlagatelj ne bi odločil za financiranje južne vzletno-pristajalne steze, če ta ne bi zagotovila zadovoljivega donosa v prvih 37 letih obratovanja od leta 2005 do leta 2042.
Therefore the cash-flow analysis will only cover this time period for the purpose of assessing the effect of the investment on the airport's profitability.
Zato bo analiza denarnega toka zajemala samo to časovno obdobje za namene ocene učinka naložbe na donosnost letališča.
The proposed terminal values are also disregarded because they lack credibility.
Tudi predložene končne vrednosti niso upoštevane zaradi pomanjkljive verodostojnosti.
The terminal values are based on an infinite rent which grows annually by 3 percent.
Končne vrednosti temeljijo na neomejeni najemnini, ki se vsako leto zviša za 3 %.
Such a calculation is not realistic because a runway has a limited capacity and revenues cannot grow infinitely.
Takšen izračun ni realen, ker so zmogljivosti vzletno-pristajalne steze omejene in prihodki ne morejo neomejeno naraščati.
This leads e.g. to the paradoxical result in Germany's calculation for the expansion scenario with DHL that the discounted terminal value is five times as high as the airport's discounted cash-flow for 2005 to 2042 [54].
To vodi npr. k paradoksnemu rezultatu izračuna Nemčije za scenarij širitve z družbo DHL, pri katerem je diskontirana končna vrednost petkrat večja od diskontiranega denarnega toka letališča za obdobje 2005–2042 [53].
As explained in more detail in Annex 1, the calculations of the discounted incremental cash-flow of the southern runway show in 2005 that the revenues fall short of the investment costs by about EUR […] for the period 2005 to 2042 (see column 4 in Annex 1).
Kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v Prilogi, izračuni diskontiranega dodatnega denarnega toka južne vzletno-pristajalne steze kažejo, da so prihodki za leto 2005 za […] EUR nižji od stroškov naložb v obdobju 2005–2042 (glej stolpec 4 v Prilogi).
The airport will therefore not be able to finance any risk costs out of the cash-flow of the southern runway.
Zato letališče nobenih stroškov tveganja ne bo moglo financirati iz denarnega toka južne vzletno-pristajalne steze.
Risk insurance could only be said to be accepted business practice if the project was profitable and the airport could refinance the risk, as it is not the case.
Zavarovanje pred tveganjem bi se lahko obravnavalo kot običajna poslovna praksa le, če bi bil projekt donosen in bi letališče lahko refinanciralo tveganje, kar pa v tem primeru ne drži.
In offering unlimited warranties for the operation of the airport subsequent to the start of the DHL hub (according to sections 8 and 9 of the Framework Agreement), the airport takes over risks which it cannot control.
S prevzemanjem neomejenih jamstev za delovanje letališča po začetku delovanja vozlišča DHL (v skladu z oddelkoma 8 in 9 okvirnega sporazuma), letališče prevzame tveganja, nad katerimi nima nadzora.
As explained in more detail in recitals 17 to 19 of the opening decision, the airport is neither able to control the preferential access of DHL to the southern runway (which falls under the responsibility of the public flight control) nor the introduction of night flight restriction (which is the responsibility of public authorities).
Kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 17–19 uvodne odločbe, letališče ne more nadzorovati niti prednostnega dostopa družbe DHL do južne vzletno-pristajalne steze (ki je v pristojnosti kontrole zračnega prometa) niti uvedbe omejitev za nočne lete (ki so v pristojnosti javnih organov).
Even though it is clear that the airport cannot finance the risk costs out of its own revenues, the Commission would nevertheless like to point out that these EUR […] can only be seen as a lowest end of the scale.
Čeprav je jasno, da letališče stroškov tveganja ne more financirati iz lastnih sredstev, je vseeno treba opozoriti, da se teh […] EUR lahko obravnava le kot najnižji znesek.
Among other flaws in the calculation, Germany neglects that the airport would go into bankruptcy if it had to pay an amount of EUR […] or EUR […] to compensate DHL for the costs of moving to another airport due to a night flight ban.
Med drugimi pomanjkljivostmi v izračunu Nemčija ne upošteva dejstva, da bi šlo letališče v stečaj, če bi moralo plačati znesek […] EUR ali […] EUR kot odškodnino družbi DHL za stroške selitve na drugo letališče zaradi prepovedi nočnih letov.
Additionally, the calculations by Germany do not take account of the other warranted risks (e.g. access to southern runway which is controlled by public flight control).
Nemčija v izračunih prav tako ne upošteva drugih utemeljenih tveganj (npr. dostop do južne vzletno-pristajalne steze, ki je pod nadzorom kontrole zračnega prometa).
Finally, the Commission wants to emphasise that the calculations would still show a negative cash-flow even if the Commission followed Germany's argument that security and safety costs of EUR […] fell within the public policy remit and had therefore to be excluded from the airport's costs [55].
Končno želi Komisija poudariti, da bi izračuni še vedno kazali negativen denarni tok, tudi če bi Komisija upoštevala utemeljitev Nemčije, da stroški za varnost v višini […] EUR spadajo na področje javnih nalog in jih je zato treba izvzeti iz stroškov letališča [54].
As shown in column 4 of annex 1, a substantial loss of EUR […] would also remain in this scenario.
Kot je prikazano v stolpcu 4 Priloge 1, bi se tudi v tem scenariju ohranil občuten primanjkljaj izguba v višini […] EUR.
Although the above calculations are sufficient to prove that a private investor would not have granted such an unlimited warranty, the Commission would nevertheless like to add that closer scrutiny would establish even higher losses.
Čeprav so zgoraj navedeni izračuni dovolj za dokaz, da zasebni vlagatelj ne bi prevzel takšnega neomejenega jamstva, želi Komisija dodati, da bi se z natančnejšim pregledom ugotovile še večje izgube.
As Germany pointed out, the UK regulator used a cost of capital (in real terms and pre-tax) of 6,2 percent for Heathrow Airport and 6,7 percent for Gatwick Airport in his calculations to set airport fees for the period 2008 to 2013.
Kot je opozorila Nemčija, je zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva v svojih izračunih za določitev letaliških pristojbin za obdobje 2008–2013 upošteval stopnjo stroškov kapitala (realno in pred obdavčitvijo) 6,2 % za letališče Heathrow in 6,7 % za letališče Gatwick.
While both Heathrow and Gatwick Airport can rely on a substantial demand for flights into and from London, Leipzig Airport faces excess capacity and has to compete with other airports for attract low-cost passenger and cargo airlines.
Medtem ko se lahko letališči Heathrow in Gatwick zaneseta na precejšnje povpraševanje po letih v London in iz njega, se letališče Leipzig sooča s presežkom zmogljivosti in konkurenco drugih letališč pri privabljanju nizkocenovnih letalskih prevoznikov za prevoz potnikov in tovora.
As Leipzig Airport is therefore exposed to higher market risks than Heathrow or Gatwick Airport, a cost of capital (in real terms and pre-tax) higher than 6,5 percent would seem appropriate.
Ker je torej letališče Leipzig izpostavljeno večjemu tržnemu tveganju kot letališči Heathrow ali Gatwick, bi bili primernejši stroški kapitala (realno in pred obdavčitvijo), višji od 6,5 % (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 218).
Additionally, the fact that — according to Germany [56] — private financial institutions were not ready to hedge the risks which result from the warranty for the operation of the airport subsequent to the start of the DHL hub confirms that no private operator would have offered such an unlimited warranty to cover risks which he cannot control.
Poleg tega dejstvo – ki ga je navedla Nemčija [55] – da zasebne finančne institucije niso bile pripravljene zavarovati tveganj, ki izhajajo iz jamstva za delovanje letališča po začetku delovanja vozlišča DHL, potrjuje, da noben zasebni vlagatelj ne bi prevzel takšnega neomejenega jamstva za kritje tveganj, ki jih ne more nadzirati.
Arguments advanced by Germany and DHL that the mutual provision of warranties between contracting parties is usual business practice are not more than a general statement and are therefore irrelevant because the above calculations show clearly that in the particular case Leipzig Airport is just not able to finance the offered warranties out of its own resources.
Utemeljitve Nemčije in družbe DHL, da je vzajemni prevzem jamstev med pogodbenicami običajna poslovna praksa, niso nič več kot splošne ugotovitve in so zato nerelevantne, ker navedeni izračuni jasno kažejo, da letališče Leipzig ni sposobno financirati ponujenih jamstev iz lastnih sredstev.
A private investor would only enter a contract which yields a profit and does not deteriorate its financial position.
Zasebni vlagatelj bi sklenil le pogodbo, ki zagotavlja donosnost in ne poslabšuje njegovega finančnega položaja.
To conclude, the Commission would like to return to Germany's argument that — given the southern runway was already constructed — a private investor would have signed the framework agreement because the cash-flow was higher with than without DHL.
Na koncu je treba ponovno omeniti utemeljitev Nemčije, da bi – glede na to, da je bila južna vzletno-pristajalna steza že zgrajena – zasebni vlagatelj podpisal okvirni sporazum, ker je bil denarni tok večji z družbo DHL kot brez nje.
Germany's argument misses the essential point that — as shown above — the risk costs cannot be financed out of own revenues.
Nemčija pri tem pozablja na bistveno dejstvo, da – kot je prikazano zgoraj – stroškov tveganja ni mogoče financirati iz lastnih sredstev.
To be able to offer the warranties to DHL, Leipzig Airport must resort to the capital which has been contributed for the construction of the southern runway.
Da bi lahko ponudilo jamstva družbi DHL, mora letališče Leipzig uporabiti kapital, ki je bil vložen za gradnjo južne vzletno-pristajalne steze.
However, as the foregoing section has established, these capital contributions themselves constitute aid.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v oddelku 6.1.1., prav ti kapitalski vložki pomenijo pomoč.
Therefore, whatever the timing of the analysis, it comes down to the result that the warranties have necessarily been financed by aid.
Zato ne glede na čas izvedbe analize rezultat kaže, da so se jamstva v vsakem primeru financirala iz pomoči.
Taking note of the comments by DHL and Germany, the Commission considers that the lease contracts do not provide financial advantages to DHL because of the following reasons:
Ob upoštevanju pripomb družbe DHL in Nemčije Komisija meni, da najemne pogodbe družbi DHL ne omogočajo nobenih finančnih ugodnosti, ker:
The lease contracts for the apron and the further ground handling areas are based on market interest rates and Leipzig Airport is not limited in its choice of financing.
zakupne pogodbe za letališko ploščad in druga območja za zemeljsko oskrbo temeljijo na tržnih obrestnih merah, letališče Leipzig pa pri izbiri financiranja ni omejeno,
The reservation of certain land plots to DHL seems to constitute a customary provision in German rental law and does not — in any case — prevent the location of competitors at Leipzig Airport because a large number of land plots are still available to them.
je rezervacija nekaterih zemljiških parcel za družbo DHL očitno običajna določba v nemški zakonodaji na področju najema in v nobenem primeru ne preprečuje prisotnosti konkurentov na letališču Leipzig, ker so jim je še vedno na voljo druge zemljiške parcele.
Airport fee arrangement
Ureditev letaliških pristojbin
Taking note of the comments by DHL and Germany, the Commission considers that the airport fee arrangements do not provide financial advantages to DHL because of the following reasons:
Ob upoštevanju pripomb družbe DHL in Nemčije Komisija meni, da ureditve letaliških pristojbin družbi DHL ne omogočajo nobenih finančnih ugodnosti, ker:
DHL pays the same fees as other users of Leipzig Airport.
družba DHL plačuje enake pristojbine kot drugi uporabniki letališča Leipzig,
As it can be seen from the comparison of airport fees which DHL has submitted, the airport fees charged by Leipzig Airport are […] to […] percent higher than at other competing cargo airports in Europe.
je iz primerjave letaliških pristojbin, ki jo je predložila družba DHL, razvidno, da so letališke pristojbine letališča Leipzig za […] do […] % višje od pristojbin na drugih konkurenčnih letališčih za tovorni promet v Evropi.
The Commission has therefore no basis to conclude that the airport fee arrangement is not market conform.
Komisija zato nima nobene podlage za sklepanje, da ureditev letaliških pristojbin ni v skladu s trgom.
Economic advantages for DHL through comfort letter
Gospodarska prednost, ki jo družbi DHL dodeljuje patronatska izjava
The Guarantee Notice sets out criteria which ensure that a guarantee does not constitute State aid.
Obvestilo o jamstvu določa pogoje, pod katerimi jamstvo ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Two essential cumulative conditions are:
Dva bistvena pogoja, ki morata biti izpolnjena, sta:
The guarantee could in principle be obtained on market conditions from the financial markets.
jamstvo je načeloma mogoče pridobiti po tržnih pogojih na finančnih trgih,
The market premium for the guarantee is paid.
za jamstvo se plača tržna premija.
The comfort letter — by which Land Sachsen assumes (i) to provide sufficient capital to Leipzig Airport and MFAG to fulfil the commitments given in the Framework Agreement and (ii) to be directly liable for DHL's compensation claims up to EUR […] m — fulfils neither of these two criteria:
Patronatska izjava – s katero dežela Saška prevzema odgovornost, da bo letališču Leipzig in MFAG zagotovila dovolj kapitala za izpolnitev obveznosti iz okvirnega sporazuma, ter izjavlja, da bo neposredno jamčila za odškodninske zahtevke družbe DHL v višini do […] milijonov EUR – ne izpolnjuje nobenega od teh dveh pogojev:
According to Germany [56] Submission from Germany, 21 July 2006, p. 7.
po navedbah Nemčije [55] Trditev Nemčije, 21. julij 2006, str. 7.
, Leipzig Airport sought, but was unable to cover the risks eventually addressed by the comfort letter through private financial institutions.
si je letališče Leipzig neuspešno prizadevalo, da bi tveganja, ki so bila pozneje prevzeta s patronatsko izjavo, krile zasebne finančne institucije,
As neither DHL nor MFAG nor Leipzig Airport is obliged to pay any premium for the comfort letter, the risk exposure of Land Sachsen is not directly remunerated.
ker družbi DHL, MFAG in letališču Leipzig ni treba plačati nobene premije za patronatsko izjavo, se nadomestilo za tveganje dežele Saške ne povrne neposredno.
Furthermore, it can also not be said that Land Sachsen is indirectly remunerated as shareholder of Leipzig Airport because the airport's share value will effectively decrease due to the cash-flow losses of the expansion with DHL.
Poleg tega tudi ni mogoče trditi, da se je deželi Saški kot delničarju letališča Leipzig nadomestilo plačalo posredno, ker se bo vrednost deleža letališča dejansko zmanjšala zaradi izgub denarnega toka pri širitvi z družbo DHL.
By the same token, any arguments about proportionality between the comfort letters granted by Land Sachsen and Deutsche Post AG are irrelevant because the incremental cash-flow for the southern runway is just not sufficient to finance the risk exposure of the airport and its owners.
Iz istega razloga ne držijo argumenti o sorazmernosti med patronatskima izjavama, ki sta ju podelili dežela Saška in družba Deutsche Post AG, ker dodatni denarni tok za južno vzletno-pristajalno stezo ne zadošča za finančno zavarovanje tveganja letališča in njegovih lastnikov.
Conclusions on existence and lawfulness of State aid to DHL
Sklepne ugotovitve o obstoju in zakonitosti državne pomoči družbi DHL
The Commission finds that the (i) unlimited warranties granted by the Framework Agreement (according to sections 8 and 9); and (ii) the comfort letter constitute aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty because the Land Sachsen, MFAG, and Leipzig Airport hedge business risks for DHL at terms which a private investor would not have accepted.
Komisija ugotavlja, da neomejena jamstva, ki jih zagotavlja okvirni sporazum (v skladu z oddelkoma 8 in 9), in patronatska izjava pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ker dežela Saška, MFAG in letališče Leipzig zavarujejo poslovna tveganja družbe DHL pod pogoji, ki jih ne bi sprejel noben zasebni vlagatelj.
Without public support Leipzig Airport would have neither been able to finance the southern runway nor to enter into the Framework Agreement with DHL.
Letališče Leipzig brez javne podpore ne bi moglo financirati gradnje južne vzletno-pristajalne steze ali skleniti okvirnega sporazuma z družbo DHL.
As the Framework agreement had been signed and put it into effect before Germany notified it, the unlimited warranties granted by the Framework Agreement constitute unlawful aid in contravention of Article 88(3) EC Treaty.
Ker je bil okvirni sporazum podpisan in se je začel izvajati, preden ga je Nemčija priglasila, pomenijo neomejena jamstva iz okvirnega sporazuma nezakonito pomoč, ki je v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
Compatibility of aid to the airport
Dopustnost pomoči letališču
As set out above the total amount of the investments will be financed from public resources which (although some of the public financing may be destined for public policy expenditure) for the purposes of the present decision involves State aid [57].
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 166 zgoraj, se celotni znesek naložb financira iz javnih sredstev (čeprav del teh sredstev spada v javnofinančne odhodke), ki v smislu te odločbe vključujejo državno pomoč [56].
The Commission must establish if the aid can be found compatible with the common market.
Komisija mora ugotoviti, ali je mogoče pomoč opredeliti kot združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Article 87(3) of the Treaty provides for certain exemptions to the general rule of incompatibility set out in Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Člen 87(3) Pogodbe ES določa nekatere izjeme od splošnega pravila o nezdružljivosti iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In this regard, the ‘2005 Guidelines’ provide a framework for assessing whether aid to airports may be declared compatible pursuant to Article 87(3)(c).
V zvezi s tem smernice iz leta 2005 predstavljajo okvir za oceno, ali se lahko pomoč letališčem opredeli kot združljiva s členom 87(3)©.
They mention a number of criteria which the Commission takes into account in this regard.
V smernicah so navedeni različni dejavniki, ki jih Komisija pri tem upošteva.
The Commission must examine in particular, according to paragraph 61 of the 2005 guidelines, whether:
Komisija mora v skladu s točko 61 smernic iz leta 2005 preveriti zlasti, ali:
the construction and operation of the infrastructure meets a clearly defined objective of general interest (regional development, accessibility, etc.);
gradnja in delovanje infrastrukture služita jasno opredeljenemu cilju splošnega interesa (regionalni razvoj, dostopnost itd.);
the infrastructure is necessary and proportional to the objective which has been set;
je infrastruktura potrebna in sorazmerna z nameravanim ciljem;
the infrastructure has satisfactory medium-term prospects for use, in particular as regards the use of existing infrastructure;
so srednjeročni obeti za uporabo infrastrukture, zlasti obstoječe, zadovoljivi;
all potential users of the infrastructure have access to it in an equal and non-discriminatory manner;
imajo vsi potencialni uporabniki infrastrukture enakopraven in nediskriminatoren dostop do nje;