natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The liberalisation of the market for air transport services has also meant that there are more airlines flying to more airports thereby increasing competition between airports.
Liberalizacija zračnega prometa je pomenila tudi, da več letalskih prevoznikov leti na več letališč, s čimer se je povečala konkurenca med letališči.
Taking into account these conditions, the financing of airports and airport infrastructure had previously been considered as falling within the public policy remit and, in principle did not raise State aid issues.
Ob upoštevanju teh razmer se je financiranje letališč in letališke infrastrukture prej uvrščalo med javne naloge in načeloma ni sprožalo vprašanj državne pomoči.
This situation has however changed in recent years.
V zadnjih letih pa so se razmere spremenile.
Although these land-use planning considerations and administrative structures may still persist in some cases, in many others airports have been transferred from State to regional control, in some cases to be operated by public companies, or even to the private sector.
Čeprav vprašanja prostorskega načrtovanja in upravne strukture morda še imajo določeno vlogo, je bila pristojnost za letališča v veliko drugih primerih prenesena z državne na regionalno raven, pri čemer jih v nekaterih primerih upravljajo javne družbe ali celo zasebni sektor.
The process of transfer to the private sector has normally taken the form of privatisation or a progressive opening-up of capital.
Postopek prenosa v zasebni sektor običajno poteka v obliki privatizacije ali postopnega odpiranja kapitala.
In recent years, private equity firms and investment and pension funds have shown a great interest in acquiring airports.
V zadnjih letih so zasebne kapitalske družbe ter naložbeni in pokojninski skladi pokazali velik interes za nakup letališč.
The Community's airport industry has therefore undergone in the recent years fundamental organisational changes that reflect not only the active interest of private investors in the airport sector but also a change of attitude on the part of the public authorities regarding the contribution of private investment to airport development.
Zato so se v letališki industriji Skupnosti v zadnjih letih dogajale temeljne organizacijske spremembe, ki odražajo ne le dejavno zanimanje zasebnih vlagateljev za letališča, ampak tudi spremembo odnosa javnih organov do zasebnih naložb v razvoj letališč.
This development has led to greater diversification and complexity of the functions undertaken by airports.
S tem razvojem dogodkov se je povečala raznolikost in kompleksnost nalog, ki jih opravljajo letališča.
These recent changes have also led to a change in the commercial relationships between airports.
S temi nedavnimi spremembami so se spremenili tudi gospodarski odnosi med letališči.
Whereas in the past airports were mostly managed as infrastructures with a view to ensuring accessibility and territorial development, in the last few years, more and more airports also have commercial objectives and are competing with each other in order to attract air traffic.
Medtem ko so se letališča v preteklosti upravljala predvsem kot infrastruktura z namenom zagotavljanja dostopnosti in prostorskega razvoja, ima v zadnjih letih vedno več letališč tudi komercialne cilje in si medsebojno konkurirajo za privabljanje zračnega prometa.
The changing nature of airports has therefore to be reflected in the legal assessment of airport activities under State aid law.
Zato je treba spreminjajočo se naravo letališč upoštevati v pravni oceni dejavnosti letališča v okviru zakonodaje o državni pomoči.
It is no longer possible to consider the operation and construction of airports as a task carried out by an administration, which in principle is outside the ambit of State aid control.
Delovanja in gradnje letališč ni več mogoče obravnavati kot javno nalogo, ki načeloma ni predmet nadzora državne pomoči.
The European Court, in the ‘Aéroports de Paris’ case has also sought to clarify matters, stating that the operation of a big international airport consisting in the provision of airport services to airlines and to the various service providers within airports is an economic activity because it consists ‘in the provision of airport facilities to airlines and the various service providers, in return for a fee at a rate freely fixed by the manager, and when the latter is public, does not fall within the exercise of its official powers as a public authority and is separable from its activities in the exercise of such powers’ [28].
Evropsko sodišče je pri presoji vprašanja, ali je upravljanje letališča taka dejavnost, v zadevi „Aéroports de Paris“ ugotovilo, da je delovanje velikega mednarodnega letališča, ki vključuje zagotavljanje letaliških storitev letalskim prevoznikom in različnim ponudnikom storitev na letališčih, gospodarska dejavnost, ker vključuje „dajanje na voljo letaliških zmogljivosti letalskim prevoznikom in različnim ponudnikom storitev v zameno za pristojbino, ki jo svobodno določi upravljavec; v primeru, ko je upravljavec javno podjetje, ta dejavnost ne spada na področje izvrševanja njegovih uradnih pooblastil kot javnega organa in jo je mogoče ločiti od njegovih dejavnosti pri izvrševanju teh pooblastil“ [29].
Thus, the airport operator, in principle, is engaged in an economic activity within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty, to which the rules of State aid apply.
Upravljavec letališča torej načeloma opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, za katero veljajo pravila o državni pomoči.
Given the ongoing developments of the sector, this approach has since been extended by the Commission to all kind of airports, including smaller ones (such as the one considered in the present decision) in its guidelines adopted in 2005.
Glede na stalen razvoj tega sektorja je Komisija v svojih smernicah iz leta 2005 ta pristop razširila na vse vrste letališč, vključno z manjšimi (kot je letališče, obravnavano v tej odločbi).
In the light of this recent transformation, the Commission considers that it is no longer possible a priori to exclude the application of State aid rules to airports as of 2000.
Z vidika te nedavne spremembe Komisija meni, da od leta 2000 naprej ni več mogoče vnaprej izključiti uporabe pravil o državni pomoči za letališča.
Pursuant to the ‘Aéroports de Paris’ decision once an airport engages in economic activities, regardless of its legal status or the way in which it is financed, it constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, and the Treaty rules on State aid therefore apply [29].
V skladu z odločbo „Aéroports de Paris“ je letališče, ko začne enkrat opravljati gospodarske dejavnosti, ne glede na pravni status in način financiranja, podjetje v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES in se torej uporabljajo pravila Pogodbe o državni pomoči [30].
The judgement of the Court of Justice in this case clarifying that the management and operation of an airport constitutes an economic activity has lead the Commission to conclude that from the date of this judgment the State aid rules apply in this sector.
Na podlagi sodbe Sodišča v tej zadevi ki pojasnjuje, da upravljanje in delovanje letališča predstavljata gospodarsko dejavnost, je Komisija sklenila, da se od datuma veljavnosti te sodbe v tem sektorju uporabljajo pravila o državni pomoči.
Accordingly, there is therefore no retroactive application of the 2005 guidelines as the German authorities have argued, the Court has simply clarified (a clarification which applies ad vitam aeternam) on the fundamental concept of aid [30]. (177) In this regard the Commission notes that the infrastructure which is the subject of the present decision will be operated on a commercial basis by the airport manager; it is therefore commercially exploitable infrastructure. The airport operator will charge users rates for the use of this infrastructure rather than infrastructure being made available without charge to users in the common interest.
Zato ne gre za retroaktivno uporabo smernic iz leta 2005, kot so trdili nemški organi, temveč je Sodišče zgolj pojasnilo (pojasnitev, ki velja ad vitam aeternam) temeljni koncept pomoči [31].
However, independently of its legal status not all the activities of an airport operator are necessarily of an economic nature.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da infrastrukturo, ki jo ta odločba obravnava, upravljavec letališča upravlja na komercialni podlagi; gre torej za infrastrukturo, ki jo je mogoče izkoriščati v komercialne namene. Upravljavec letališča bo uporabnikom zaračunaval uporabnine za uporabo te infrastrukture raje in je ne bo v skupnem interesu dal brezplačno na voljo uporabnikom.
It is necessary to distinguish between its activities and to establish to what extent its activities are of an economic nature [31].
Ne glede na njegov pravni status pa niso vse dejavnosti upravljavca letališča nujno gospodarske narave. Njegove dejavnosti je treba razlikovati in ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri so gospodarske narave [32].
The European Court of Justice has held that activities that normally fall under State responsibility in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority are not of an economic nature and do not fall within the scope of the rules on State aid. Such activities include security, air traffic control, police, customs, etc. [32].
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je razsodilo, da dejavnosti, ki običajno spadajo v pristojnost države pri izvrševanju njenih uradnih pooblastil kot javnega organa, niso gospodarske narave in ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
The financing has to be strictly limited to compensation of the costs to which they give rise and may not be used instead to fund other economic activities [33].
Te dejavnosti vključujejo varnost, kontrolo zračnega prometa, policijo, carino itd [33].
This means that the financing of infrastructure for instance necessary for security reasons or essential for the control and supervision of the air navigation and airspace may fall within the public policy remit [34].
To pomeni, da se lahko financiranje infrastrukture, ki je na primer potrebna zaradi varnosti ali nujna za kontrolo in nadzor zračnega prometa in zračnega prostora, spada na področje javne politike [33] Odločba Komisije z dne 19. marca 2003, N 309/02, Letalska varnost – nadomestilo izgub iz poslovanja po terorističnih napadih 11. septembra 2001. .
In the case at hand the continuous losses of the airport and the infrastructural investments have been financed by the public shareholders' equity and long-term debts.
V zadevnem primeru naj bi se tekoče izgube letališča in naložbe v infrastrukturo financirale iz kapitala javnih delničarjev in dolgoročnih posojil.
The extension and the realignment of the second, southern runway were planned to boost the airport's position at the freight traffic market.
Obnova in nova lega južne vzletno-pristajalne steze naj bi utrdila položaj letališča na trgu tovornega prometa.
However, this being said certain of the investments may fall within the public policy remit.
Vendar se lahko pri tem nekatere naložbe uvrstijo na področje javnih nalog.
The investments Germany considers falling within the public policy remit have been set out previously.
Naložbe, ki jih Nemčija uvršča na področje javnih nalog, so pojasnjene v uvodni izjavi 58.
Having carried out an evaluation of the nature and the figures supplied by Germany in relation to investment and operational costs relating to the new southern runway, the Commission can conclude that in the present case certain costs fall within the public policy remit.
Po izvedbi podatkov, ki jih je predložila Nemčija glede stroškov naložb in obratovanja v zvezi z novo južno vzletno-pristajalno stezo, Komisija ugotavlja, da v tem primeru nekateri stroški spadajo na področje javnih nalog.
These costs relate to security and police functions, fire and public safety measures, operational safety, German Weather Service and German Air Traffic Control.
Ti stroški zadevajo varnostne in policijske naloge, protipožarne ukrepe in ukrepe za javno varnost, varnost obratovanja, nemško vremensko službo ter nemško kontrolo zračnega prometa.
It is also the case that the users of the airport may also be charged for certain of these public policy measures.
Prav tako se lahko uporabnikom letališča zaračunajo pristojbine za nekatere državne ukrepe.
Therefore, to the extent that they fall within the public policy remit as set out above the costs in question may not amount to State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Zato zadevni stroški, če spadajo na področje javnih nalog, kot je navedeno v prejšnji točki, ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
However in the present case independently whether the Commission was to accept the approach advanced by the German authorities that none of the costs should be considered as State aid, the final assessment of the measure would not change.
V tem primeru pa se končna ocena ukrepa ne spremeni ne glede na to, ali Komisija sprejme pristop, ki so ga predlagali nemški organi, in sicer da se nobeni stroški ne obravnavajo kot državna pomoč.
Even if these costs were to amount to state aid, such aid would be compatible aid (see below).
Tudi če bi ti stroški pomenili državno pomoč, bi bila ta pomoč združljiva pomoč (glej uvodno izjavo 254 spodaj).
Therefore the Commission does not have to reach a definitive conclusion on this question.
Zato pri tem vprašanju ni potrebna dokončna ocena.
State resources and imputability to the State
Državna sredstva in odgovornost države
As has been stated by the Court [35] for the measures to be qualified as State aid in the sense of Article 87(1) EC, (a) they have to derive from the State's resources, either indirectly or directly and (b) they have to be imputable to the State.
Kot je ugotovilo Sodišče [36], se lahko ukrepi obravnavajo kot državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, če se posredno ali neposredno financirajo iz državnih sredstev in je zanje odgovorna država.
In the case under discussion, at all material times the State exercised direct or indirect control on the resources under consideration.
V obravnavanem primeru je država vedno neposredno ali posredno nadzirala zadevna sredstva.
Leipzig Airport has financed the enlargement by equity contributions of the public shareholders and has received long-term loans from its parent company Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG (hereinafter MFAG), which has only public shareholders.
Letališče Leipzig je širitev financiralo s prispevki javnih delničarjev v kapital in je prejelo dolgoročna posojila od svoje matične družbe Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG (v nadaljnjem besedilu: MFAG), ki je v celoti v državni lasti.
The decision to grant these State resources is imputable to public authorities: The supervisory board of MFAG, a publicly owned company, declared that sufficient equity will be raised to finance the expansion of the airport.
Za odločitve o dodelitvi teh državnih sredstev so odgovorni javni organi. Uprava MFAG, podjetja v javni lasti, je pojasnila, da je bilo zbranega dovolj kapitala za financiranje širitve letališča.
The majority of the MFAG's Supervisory Board members are representatives of public authorities (e.g. Land Ministers, Mayors etc.).
Večina članov uprave MFAG so predstavniki države (npr. deželni ministri, župani itd.).
Economic advantage
Gospodarske prednosti
The capital contributions and shareholder's loans previously mentioned reduce the investment costs that the airport operator would normally have to bear and therefore confer an advantage on the airport.
Kapitalski vložki in posojila delničarjev iz uvodne izjave 185 zmanjšujejo stroške naložb, ki bi jih moral sicer kriti upravljavec letališča, in s tem dajejo letališču prednost.
However, it could be argued that the capital contributions granted to Leipzig Airport do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC if the market economy investor test can be shown to be applicable in this case.
Vendar je mogoče trditi, da kapitalski vložki, dodeljeni letališču Leipzig, ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, če je mogoče dokazati, da je v tem primeru mogoče uporabiti preskus tržnega vlagatelja.
In this regard the European Court in the Stardust Marine Judgment declared ‘capital placed directly or indirectly at the disposal of an undertaking by the State in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions cannot be regarded as State aid’ [36].
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v sodbi Marine Stardust razsodilo, da„kapital, ki ga država da neposredno ali posredno na voljo podjetju v okoliščinah, ki ustrezajo običajnim tržnim pogojem, ne more veljati za državno pomoč“ [37].
The Commission must then analyse whether Leipzig Airport's shareholders have acted as private investors in financing the expansion of the airport.
Komisija mora torej preveriti, ali so delničarji letališča Leipzig pri financiranju širitve letališča delovali kot zasebni vlagatelji.
It has to be assessed whether in similar circumstances a private investor operating under normal conditions of the market economy would have entered into the same or similar commercial arrangements as MFAG for the realignment of the southern runway.
Nadalje je treba preveriti, ali bi v podobnih okoliščinah zasebni vlagatelj, ki deluje pod običajnimi pogoji tržnega gospodarstva, sprejel enake ali podobne pogoje poslovanja kot MFAG za prilagoditev južne vzletno-pristajalne steze.
In doing so the Commission has to bear in mind, that ‘[…] the conduct of a private investor with which the intervention of the public investor pursuing economic policy aims must be compared need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realising a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the conduct of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy — whether general or sectorial — and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term’ [37].
Pri tem mora Komisija upoštevati, da „[…] ravnanje zasebnega vlagatelja, s katerim je treba primerjati poseg javnega vlagatelja, ki sledi ciljem ekonomske politike, ni nujno ravnanje običajnega vlagatelja, ki vloži sredstva, da bi ustvaril dobiček v sorazmerno kratkem roku, temveč mora biti vsaj ravnanje zasebnega holdinga ali skupine zasebnih podjetij, ki sledijo strukturni politiki, globalni ali sektorski, in slediti obetom za dolgoročno donosnost“ [38].
In this particular case in relation to the investments relating to the new southern runway the German authorities appear to call into question the applicability of the market economy investor test.
V tem primeru v zvezi z naložbami v novo južno vzletno-pristajalno stezo se zdi, da nemški organi dvomijo o uporabi preskusa tržnega vlagatelja.
They argue that the test is not applicable to transport infrastructure because there are no comparable private investors.
Trdijo, da preskus ne velja za prometno infrastrukturo, ker ni primerljivih zasebnih vlagateljev.
According to the German authorities, private investors have no interest in airports, especially where large renewal investments are necessary.
Nemški organi menijo, da zasebnih vlagateljev ne zanimajo letališča, zlasti če so potrebne velike naložbe v obnovo.
The Commission cannot agree with this view. The private investor market test cannot be excluded because the private sector would not be involved in financing airport infrastructure [38]. An economically difficult situation does not absolve the public investor from acting as reasonably as a private investor in the same situation would have done.
Komisija se ne more strinjati s tem stališčem.
The Court declared in the Stardust Marine Judgment that, ‘[…] in order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken in order to assess the economic rationality of the State's conduct, and thus to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation’ [39].
Preskusa zasebnega tržnega vlagatelja ni mogoče izključiti samo zato, ker zasebni sektor ne sodeluje pri financiranju letališke infrastrukture [39]. Gospodarsko težaven položaj javnega vlagatelja ne odvezuje, da ne ravna tako razumno, kot bi v enakem položaju ravnal zasebni vlagatelj. (194) V sodbi Stardust Marine je Sodišče odločilo, da je „[…] za preveritev vprašanja, ali je država ravnala kot preudaren vlagatelj, ki deluje pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva, potrebna umestitev v obdobje, v katerem so bili sprejeti ukrepi finančne podpore, da se oceni gospodarska racionalnost ravnanja države in s tem prepreči kakršna koli ocena na podlagi poznejših razmer“ [40].
The decisive point of time is the date when the decision for investment was taken.
Odločilen je datum, ko je bila sprejeta odločitev o naložbi.
The applicability of the private market investor test does not arise from the 2005 Guidelines but from the development of EC case-law and the decisions of the European Commission [40].
Uporabnost preskusa zasebnega tržnega vlagatelja ne izhaja iz smernic iz leta 2005, ampak iz razvoja sodne prakse Sodišča in odločb Evropske komisije [41].
Therefore, notwithstanding the assertions of the German authorities, in order to be able to apply the private investor test the Commission has to substitute itself for the public authority in question at the time the decision to make the investment was taken.
Ne glede na trditve nemških organov se mora zato Komisija, da bi lahko uporabila preskus zasebnega vlagatelja, postaviti v vlogo zadevnega javnega organa v času, ko je bila sprejeta odločitev o naložbi.
In November 2004 when Leipzig Airport decided to start the construction works for the southern runway DHL had not yet entered into a legally binding commitment to move to Leipzig Airport.
Novembra 2004, ko se je letališče Leipzig odločilo za začetek gradbenih del na južni vzletno-pristajalni stezi, se družba DHL še ni pravno zavezujoče zavezala, da bo svoje vozlišče preselila na letališče Leipzig.
To have a conservative profitability assessment, the following analysis will make a comparison between ‘Status quo’ and ‘Expansion without DHL’ and will disregard ‘Expansion with DHL’.
Za pridobitev konzervativne ocene donosnosti se bosta v nadaljevanju primerjala „ohranitev obstoječega stanja“ in „širitev brez družbe DHL“, pri čemer pa ne bo upoštevana možnost „širitve z družbo DHL“.
The German authorities argue that Leipzig Airport acted like a private market investor.
Nemški organi trdijo, da je letališče Leipzig ravnalo kot zasebni tržni vlagatelj.
The German authorities submit that the realignment of the southern runway has helped to reduce the losses of Leipzig Airport and in the medium to long term, the financed investments allow to reach the break-even point.
Nemški organi navajajo, da je obnova južne vzletno-pristajalne steze pripomogla k zmanjšanju izgub letališča Leipzig ter da financirane naložbe omogočajo doseganje praga dobička v srednje- do dolgoročnem obdobju.
The German authorities need to be able to prove that the public authorities acted in a way that would be acceptable to a private investor.
Nemčija mora biti sposobna dokazati, da so javni organi ravnali na način, ki je sprejemljiv za zasebnega vlagatelja.
However, according to the information provided to the Commission, it is not ascertainable that the realignment of the southern runway was the most favourable solution for economic purposes.
Vendar glede na informacije, predložene Komisiji, ni mogoče nedvoumno ugotoviti, ali je bila prilagoditev smeri južne vzletno-pristajalne steze ekonomsko najugodnejša rešitev.
The conduct of an investor in a market economy is guided by prospects of profitability [41].
Ravnanje vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu vodijo pričakovanja donosnosti [42].