natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1],
po pozivu zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenima določbama [1],
In February 2005 the Commission received a complaint from Blue1 Oy (‘Blue1’), a Finnish airline that is part of the SAS Group.
Komisija je februarja 2005 prejela pritožbo družbe Blue1 Oy (v nadaljnjem besedilu: družba Blue1), tj. finske letalske družbe, ki je del skupine SAS.
Blue1 alleged, among other things, that Ryanair Ltd (‘Ryanair’) was receiving aid due to lower-than-average airport charges at Tampere-Pirkkala airport (‘TMP airport’ or ‘the airport’).
Družba Blue1 je med drugim trdila, da družba Ryanair Ltd (v nadaljnjem besedilu: družba Ryanair) prejema pomoč v obliki podpovprečnih letaliških pristojbin na letališču Tampere-Pirkkala (v nadaljnjem besedilu: letališče TMP ali letališče).
The Commission requested Finland to provide further information in relation to the complaint by letters of 2 March 2005 and 23 May 2006.
Komisija je z dopisoma z dne 2. marca 2005 in 23. maja 2006 od Finske zahtevala, naj predloži dodatne informacije v zvezi s pritožbo.
Finland replied by letters of 27 April 2005 and 27 July 2006.
Finska je odgovorila z dopisoma z dne 27. aprila 2005 in 27. julija 2006.
By letter dated 10 July 2007 the Commission informed Finland of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2] ( ‘the opening decision’) in respect of the agreement between Airpro Oy and Ryanair and the implementation of the low-cost strategy by Finavia and Airpro Oy at TMP airport.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 10. julija 2007 obvestila Finsko, da je sklenila začeti postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) [2] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklep o začetku postopka) v zvezi s sporazumom med družbama Airpro Oy in Ryanair ter izvajanjem strategije zniževanja stroškov s strani družb Finavia in Airpro Oy na letališču TMP.
Finland provided its comments on the opening decision on 28 November 2007.
Finska je pripombe o sklepu o začetku postopka predložila 28. novembra 2007.
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Sklep Komisije o začetku postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month of the publication date.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu v enem mesecu od dneva objave.
The Commission received comments on the subject from four interested parties (Ryanair, SAS Group, Air France and the Association of European Airlines).
Komisija je pripombe o zadevi prejela od štirih zainteresiranih strani (družbe Ryanair, skupine SAS, družbe Air France in Združenja evropskih letalskih prevoznikov).
It transmitted these comments to Finland by letter dated 13 February 2008.
Te pripombe je posredovala Finski z dopisom z dne 13. februarja 2008.
Finland transmitted its comments on 15 April 2008.
Finska je svoje pripombe posredovala 15. aprila 2008.
By letter dated 25 June 2010 the Commission requested further information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. junija 2010 zahtevala dodatne informacije.
Therefore, the Commission sent a reminder pursuant to Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [4].
Zato je Komisija poslala opomin v skladu s členom 10(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [4].
Finland replied by letter dated 15 June 2011.
Finska je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 15. junija 2011.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
OPIS UKREPOV IN RAZLOGOV ZA ZAČETEK POSTOPKA
TMP airport
Letališče TMP
TMP airport is located in Pirkkala, 13 kilometres south-west of the City of Tampere in southern Finland.
Letališče TMP je v mestu Pirkkala, tj. 13 kilometrov jugozahodno od mesta Tampere v južnem delu Finske.
It is the third largest airport in Finland (measured in number of passengers, see table in paragraph (10)).
To letališče je tretje največje letališče na Finskem (glede na število potnikov, glej preglednico v točki obrazložitve (10)).
Besides handling civil aviation, the airport also serves as a base for the Finnish Air Force.
Poleg izvajanja dejavnosti civilnega letalstva služi letališče tudi kot baza finskega vojnega letalstva.
TMP airport has two scheduled passenger terminals:
Letališče TMP ima dva redna potniška terminala:
Terminal 1 (also ‘T1’) was built in 1998 and is currently used by Finnair, Flybe, SAS, Blue1 and Air Baltic.
Terminal 1 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: T1) je bil zgrajen leta 1998 in ga trenutno uporabljajo družbe Finnair, Flybe, SAS, Blue1 in Air Baltic.
In 2003 the capacity of T1 was 550000 passengers a year.
Zmogljivost T1 je leta 2003 znašala 550000 potnikov na leto;
Terminal 2 (also ‘T2’) was initially used as a cargo hangar by DHL and (after it became vacant in 2002) converted into a low-cost terminal.
Terminal 2 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: T2) je družba DHL najprej uporabljala kot tovorni hangar, pozneje (ko se leta 2002 ni več uporabljal) pa je bil preoblikovan v nizkocenovni terminal.
T2 currently serves Ryanair only.
T2 trenutno uporablja le družba Ryanair.
The capacity of T2 is 425000 passengers a year.
Zmogljivost T2 je 425000 potnikov na leto.
TMP airport, with the exception of T2, is owned and operated by Finavia Oyj [5] (‘Finavia’).
Lastnik letališča TMP, razen T2, je družba Finavia Oyj [5] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: družba Finavia), ki letališče tudi upravlja.
T2 is rented out by Finavia to its subsidiary Airpro Oy [6] (‘Airpro’).
Družba Finavia daje T2 v najem svoji hčerinski družbi Airpro Oy [6] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: družba Airpro).
Airpro operates the terminal and provides ground handling services there.
Družba Airpro upravlja terminal in tam opravlja storitve zemeljske oskrbe.
Furthermore, Airpro entered into an agreement with Ryanair […] [7] starting from 3 April 2003.
Poleg tega je družba Airpro sklenila sporazum z družbo Ryanair […] [7], ki je začel veljati 3. aprila 2003.
In 2010, Ryanair’s passenger share at TMP airport amounted to approximately […].
Delež potnikov družbe Ryanair na letališču TMP je leta 2010 znašal približno […].
The following table summarises the development of passenger numbers at TMP airport from 2003 to 2010:
V naslednji preglednici je povzet razvoj števila potnikov na letališču TMP od leta 2003 do leta 2010:
Number of passengers, T1
Število potnikov, T1
Number of passengers, T2
Število potnikov, T2
Total number of passengers at TMP airport
Skupno število potnikov na letališču TMP
The measures under investigation and the initial assessment by the Commission
Ukrepi v preiskavi in začetna ocena Komisije
The opening decision raised the following questions:
Sklep o začetku postopka je izpostavil naslednji vprašanji:
firstly, whether Finavia acted as a market economy investor when it decided to convert a cargo hangar into T2, a low-cost terminal, in which case this investment decision does not involve State aid in favour of Airpro; and if not, whether such aid could be considered compatible with the internal market; and
ali je družba Finavia ravnala kot vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, ko se je odločila tovorni hangar spremeniti v nizkocenovni terminal T2, kar bi pomenilo, da ta odločitev o naložbi ne vključuje državne pomoči v korist družbe Airpro, in ali se lahko v nasprotnem primeru takšna pomoč šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom ter
secondly, whether a market economy operator would have entered into an agreement similar to Airpro’s agreement with Ryanair; and if not, whether the aid contained in the agreement could be deemed compatible with the internal market.
ali bi nosilec dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu sklenil sporazum, podoben sporazumu med družbama Airpro in Ryanair, in ali bi se lahko v nasprotnem primeru pomoč iz sporazuma štela za združljivo z notranjim trgom.
As regards the first question, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether Finavia was guided by prospects of long-term profitability when it decided to transform the cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal.
V zvezi s prvim vprašanjem je Komisija izrazila dvom, da se je družba Finavia odločila za preoblikovanje tovornega hangarja v nizkocenovni terminal zaradi možnosti dolgoročne donosnosti.
Furthermore, the Commission had doubts as to whether the investments made by Finavia to transform this former cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal could also be considered a selective advantage in favour of Airpro that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Poleg tega Komisija ni prepričana, ali se lahko naložbe družbe Finavia v preoblikovanje nekdanjega tovornega hangarja v nizkocenovni terminal obravnavajo tudi kot selektivna prednost za družbo Airpro, ki je ta pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi imela.
As regards the second question, the Commission had to examine whether, in this particular case, the behaviour of Airpro had been guided by prospects of long-term profitability and whether the advantage allegedly conferred on Ryanair was an advantage it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
V zvezi z drugim vprašanjem je morala Komisija proučiti, ali je v tem primeru družba Airpro pri svojem ravnanju izhajala iz možnosti dolgoročne donosnosti in ali družba Ryanair te domnevne prednosti ne bi imela pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
The Commission expressed, in particular, doubts as to whether the ‘all-inclusive charge’ paid by Ryanair was based on costs for the provision of services to the airline by Airpro.
Komisija je izrazila dvom zlasti v zvezi s tem, ali „pavšalna pristojbina“, ki jo plačuje družba Ryanair, temelji na stroških za zagotavljanje storitev letalski družbi s strani družbe Airpro.
Furthermore, Finland did not provide the Commission either with the terms of the agreement with Ryanair or with the business plan evaluating the profitability of the agreement for Airpro.
Poleg tega Finska Komisiji ni predložila pogojev sporazuma z družbo Ryanair niti poslovnega načrta z oceno donosnosti sporazuma za družbo Airpro.
Hence in its opening decision the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the behaviour of Airpro had been guided by prospects of long-term profitability.
Zato je Komisija v sklepu o začetku postopka izrazila dvom, da je ravnanje družbe Airpro temeljilo na možnosti dolgoročne donosnosti.
Accordingly, it could not be excluded that the agreement provided Ryanair with an advantage it would not have benefited from under normal market conditions.
V skladu s tem ni bilo mogoče izključiti, da je bila družbi Ryanair s sporazumom dodeljena prednost, ki je ne bi imela pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
The Commission expressed doubts as to whether the conditions for compatibility as set out in the Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports [8] (‘the 2005 Aviation Guidelines’) had been satisfied in the present case, and whether the State aid measures could be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.
Komisija dvomi, da so bili v tem primeru izpolnjeni pogoji glede združljivosti iz Smernic Skupnosti o financiranju letališč in zagonski državni pomoči letalskim družbam z odhodi z regionalnih letališč [8] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: letalske smernice iz leta 2005) in da se lahko ukrepi državne pomoči razglasijo za združljive z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU.
The low-cost strategy of Finavia and Airpro at TMP airport
Strategija zniževanja stroškov družb Finavia in Airpro na letališču TMP
Finland began its observations by providing background information on Finavia’s and Airpro’s low-cost strategy at TMP airport.
Finska je v svojih pripombah najprej pojasnila ozadje v zvezi s strategijo družb Finavia in Airpro za zniževanje stroškov na letališču TMP.
Finland explained that T2 was built in 1979 for temporary use as an airport building.
Finska je pojasnila, da je bil T2 leta 1979 zgrajen za začasno uporabo kot letališka stavba.
In 1995 it was converted into a cargo hangar suitable for freight operations and was used by DHL.
Leta 1995 je bil spremenjen v tovorni hangar, primeren za tovorne dejavnosti, ki ga je uporabljala družba DHL.
In 2002 DHL terminated the lease agreement and the terminal became vacant.
Družba DHL je leta 2002 prekinila zakupno pogodbo in terminal se ni več uporabljal.
Finland indicated that, as Finavia was not able to attract any other cargo operator to Tampere or to rent out the hangar, it decided to convert the hangar into a low-cost terminal suitable for basic ground handling services.
Finska je navedla, da se je družba Finavia odločila za preoblikovanje hangarja v nizkocenovni terminal, primeren za osnovne storitve zemeljske oskrbe, ker v mesto Tampere ni mogla pritegniti nobenega drugega prevoznika tovora ali oddati hangarja v najem.
The initial construction costs of T2 had by that time already been depreciated and the refurbishment of the terminal required only minor renovations [9].
Začetni stroški gradnje T2 so se do takrat že amortizirali, za prenovo terminala pa so bila potrebna samo manjša obnovitvena dela [9].
The following table details the investment costs of the refurbishment of T2, amounting to EUR 760612.
V naslednji preglednici so podrobno opredeljeni naložbeni stroški prenove T2, ki znašajo 760612 EUR.
Refurbishment works
Obnovitvena dela
Investment costs in EUR
Naložbeni stroški v EUR
Copies, permits, travel
Kopije, dovoljenja, potovanja
Construction engineering
Gradbeno inženirstvo
Heating/pipes/air conditioning
Ogrevanje/cevi/klimatizacija
Low-voltage installations
Nizkonapetostne napeljave
Conveyors
Transportni trakovi
Security screening equipment
Oprema za varnostne preglede
Finland explained further that Finavia’s intention was to make the new low-cost terminal available to all airlines willing to accept the lower quality of service.
Finska je nadalje pojasnila, da je družba Finavia nameravala novi nizkocenovni terminal dati na voljo vsem letalskim družbam, ki bi bile pripravljene sprejeti manj kakovostne storitve.
The following table provides a comparison of the level of service and of facilities at T1 and T2 at TMP airport:
V naslednji preglednici je primerjava ravni storitev in objektov T1 in T2 na letališču TMP:
Operational model
Model delovanja
Traditional model: check-in operations, security checks, transportation, sorting, loading and unloading of luggage are carried out by different professional groups and companies.
Tradicionalni model: dejavnosti prijave na let, varnostne preglede, prevoz, razvrščanje, natovarjanje in raztovarjanje prtljage izvajajo različne poklicne skupine in družbe.
Low-cost model: the same persons perform all the tasks of the different professional groups at T1, such as check-in, security checks, loading and unloading of luggage.
Nizkocenovni model: vse naloge, ki jih na T1 opravljajo različne poklicne skupine, na primer prijave na let, varnostne preglede, natovarjanje in raztovarjanje prtljage, opravljajo iste osebe.
The functions are located in a restricted area of the terminal, which requires only minimum staff and speeds up passenger flows.
Dejavnosti se opravljajo na omejenem območju terminala, kar zahteva le minimalno osebje in pospešuje pretok potnikov.
Ground handling capacity
Zmogljivost zemeljske oskrbe
Three to five (depending on the type of aeroplane) simultaneous take-offs or landings.
Tri do pet (odvisno od vrste letala) istočasnih vzletov ali pristankov.
One outbound aeroplane an hour
En odhod letala na uro.
Facilities providing good service including a sophisticated luggage transportation system, pleasant waiting rooms with associated services, facilities to accommodate the needs of several ground handling providers, etc.
Objekti in naprave, ki zagotavljajo dobre storitve, vključno z naprednim sistemom za transport prtljage, prijetne čakalnice s povezanimi storitvami, objekti za izpolnjevanje potreb več ponudnikov storitev zemeljske oskrbe itd.
Basic facilities that correspond mainly to warehouse standards (e. g. concrete floors), with only few windows.
Osnovni objekti in naprave, ki ustrezajo predvsem standardom skladišč (npr. cementna tla), z le nekaj okni.
Finland indicated that as T2 could provide ground handling services for only one outbound aeroplane an hour, it was suitable only for point-to-point carriers using large aircraft.
Finska je navedla, da je T2 primeren le za prevoznike, ki opravljajo direktne lete in uporabljajo velika letala, saj lahko zagotovi storitve zemeljske oskrbe za odhod le enega letala na uro.
At the same time, in order to optimise the use of its staff, the operator of the terminal required airlines to enter into long-term agreements and also agreements on timetables; for instance flights could not always be operated at the times requested by the airlines, as was the case in T1.
Da bi optimiziral uporabo osebja, je upravljavec terminala poleg tega od letalskih družb zahteval, da sklenejo dolgoročne sporazume in tudi sporazume glede časovnih razporedov; tako na primer niso bili vedno odobreni časi letov, za katere so zaprosile letalske družbe, kar pa je praksa na T1.
According to Finland, the optimisation of staff expenses and the service levels provided allowed cost savings of approximately […] compared to T1.
Po navedbah Finske je znašal prihranek v primerjavi s T1 z optimizacijo stroškov osebja in zagotovljenih ravni storitev približno […].
Finland indicated that before starting the refurbishment of T2 and adopting a low-cost strategy there, the issue was discussed several times at the meetings of Finavia’s board of directors.
Finska je navedla, da je upravni odbor družbe Finavia pred začetkom prenove T2 in sprejetjem strategije zniževanja stroškov na tem terminalu to vprašanje večkrat obravnaval na sestankih.
A business plan was also prepared for this purpose.
V ta namen je bil pripravljen tudi poslovni načrt.
The following table summarises the business plan (worst-case scenario) for the refurbishment of T2 and the implementation of a low-cost strategy: […]
Naslednja preglednica povzema poslovni načrt (v najslabšem primeru) za prenovo T2 in izvajanje strategije zniževanja stroškov: […].
Finland indicated that the ex ante business plan was based on prudent assumptions, leading to an underestimation of the revenues and an overestimation of the costs expected in the last years of the period under consideration.
Finska je navedla, da je predhodni poslovni načrt temeljil na preudarnih predpostavkah, zaradi česar so bili prihodki podcenjeni, pričakovani stroški v zadnjih letih obravnavanega obdobja pa precenjeni.
Under the other scenarios the low-cost strategy was expected to be even more profitable.
Pričakovalo se je, da bo strategija zniževanja stroškov po drugih scenarijih še bolj dobičkonosna.
The all-inclusive charges paid by the airlines using T2 varied in the different scenarios between […] per aircraft turnaround.
Pavšalne pristojbine letalskih družb, ki uporabljajo T2, so bile v različnih scenarijih različne, in sicer med […] na obračanje letala.
As the decision on the low-cost strategy was made by Finavia’s board of directors on the basis of calculations and studies, it was not imputable to the State.
Ker je upravni odbor družbe Finavia sprejel odločitev o strategiji zniževanja stroškov na podlagi izračunov in študij, je ni bilo mogoče pripisati državi.
The measures were not the result of requirements or orders by authorities, nor were the authorities involved in the adoption of the measures.
Ukrepi niso bili sprejeti na podlagi zahtev ali odredb državnih organov in državni organi niso sodelovali pri sprejemanju ukrepov.
Finland indicated that Finavia and Airpro operated in compliance with business principles and financed their operations from the service charges and revenues collected from customers and from other business operations.
Finska je navedla, da sta družbi Finavia in Airpro delovali v skladu s poslovnimi načeli, pri čemer sta svoje dejavnosti financirali s pristojbinami za opravljene storitve ter prihodki od strank in drugih poslovnih dejavnosti.
In particular, neither Finavia nor Airpro received funding from the State budget: they operated profitably and annually distributed part of their profit to the State in accordance with the profit requirements imposed on them.
Zlasti je poudarila, da družbi Finavia in Airpro nista prejemali državnih sredstev: poslovali sta dobičkonosno in vsako leto v skladu z zahtevami glede dobička, ki veljajo zanju, namenili del svojega dobička državi.
Finland indicated that the Ministry of Transport and Communications decided on Finavia’s performance targets.
Finska je navedla, da je Ministrstvo za promet in zveze odločilo o ciljih uspešnosti družbe Finavia.
These performance targets, however, concern the group as a whole and individual business decisions were taken at Finavia’s own discretion.
Ti cilji uspešnosti se nanašajo na skupino kot celoto, individualne poslovne odločitve pa je družba Finavia sprejemala po lastni presoji.
In the past few years (2003 to 2005) Finavia’s profit requirement had been approximately 4 % of the invested capital.
V zadnjih nekaj letih (2003–2005) je bila zahteva glede dobička družbe Finavia približno 4 % vloženega kapitala.
The following table summarises Finavia’s performance:
V naslednji preglednici je povzetek uspešnosti družbe Finavia:
Key financial data of Finavia in million EUR (actual figures)
Ključni finančni podatki družbe Finavia v milijonih EUR (dejanski zneski)
Dividends paid to the State
Dividende, plačane državi
Finland indicated that Finavia did not prepare airport-specific financial statements, as all its airports were part of the same legal entity.
Finska je navedla, da družba Finavia ni pripravila računovodskih izkazov za posamezna letališča, ker so vsa njena letališča del istega pravnega subjekta.
However, since 2000 Finavia had nevertheless collected airport-specific information based on its own internal calculations (actual data).
Vendar je družba Finavia od leta 2000 kljub temu zbirala informacije o posameznih letališčih na podlagi internih izračunov (dejanski podatki).
This information was based on airports’ volume trends and associated revenue and on the costs of the resources used at airports, namely personnel, contracted services and the depreciation of fixed assets.
Te informacije so temeljile na trendih obsega potnikov na letališčih in s tem povezanih prihodkih ter na stroških za vire na letališčih, tj. osebje, storitve iz pogodbe in amortizacijo osnovnih sredstev.
The overall performance of Finavia at TMP airport (excluding services provided by Airpro) is summarised in the following table: […]
Splošna uspešnost družbe Finavia na letališču TMP (razen storitev, ki jih opravlja družba Airpro) je povzeta v naslednji preglednici: […].
Besides commercial operations, the financial results of Finavia at TMP airport also included operations falling within the public policy remit, such as air traffic control and use of the runway at TMP airport for military purposes.
Finančni rezultati družbe Finavia na letališču TMP so poleg komercialnih dejavnosti vključevali tudi dejavnosti na področju javne politike, kot sta nadzor zračnega prometa in uporaba vzletno-pristajalne steze za vojaške namene.
Finland explained that the runway at TMP airport had to be available for military purposes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Finska je pojasnila, da je morala biti vzletno-pristajalna steza na letališču TMP na voljo za vojaške namene 24 ur na dan in 365 dni na leto.
The runway was indeed used for military purposes (at least 30 % of the actual aircraft movements a year).
Vzletno-pristajalna steza se je dejansko uporabljala za vojaške namene (najmanj 30 % dejanskega letalskega prometa na leto).
The air traffic control cost amounted to approximately […].
Stroški nadzora zračnega prometa so znašali približno […].