natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Ryanair’s view, the higher efficiency standards at T2 improved the efficiency of T1 to the benefit of all airlines using the airport.
Po mnenju družbe Ryanair se je zaradi višjih standardov učinkovitosti na T2 povečala učinkovitost T1, kar je bilo v korist vseh letalskih družb, ki uporabljajo letališče.
To Ryanair’s knowledge, Airpro was renting the terminal on commercial terms.
Kolikor je znano družbi Ryanair, je družba Airpro oddajala terminal pod komercialnimi pogoji.
Finavia benefitted additionally from increased traffic at the airport and an increase in revenue from landing and air traffic control charges.
Družba Finavia je imela dodaten dobiček zaradi povečanega prometa na letališču ter večjih prihodkov od pristajalnih pristojbin in pristojbin za nadzor zračnega prometa.
Consequently, in Ryanair’s view no State aid was involved in the commercial agreements between Finavia and Airpro with regard to the management of T2.
Zato po mnenju družbe Ryanair poslovni sporazumi med družbama Finavia in Airpro glede upravljanja T2 niso vključevali državne pomoči.
As regards the agreement concluded between Ryanair and Airpro, Ryanair first stated that its business model was based on increasing efficiency, which was passed on to passengers in the form of lower air fares.
V zvezi s sporazumom, ki sta ga sklenili družbi Ryanair in Airpro, je družba Ryanair najprej navedla, da je njen poslovni model temeljil na povečanju učinkovitosti, ki je bila zaradi nižjih letalskih prevoznin ugodna tudi za potnike.
The all-inclusive fee paid at TMP airport included all charges applicable to airlines at the airport.
Pavšalna pristojbina, ki jo je plačevala na letališču TMP, je vključevala vse pristojbine, ki na letališču veljajo za letalske družbe.
The differentiated charges for the use of T2 were justified by the level of services provided.
Različne pristojbine za uporabo T2 je utemeljevala raven zagotovljene storitve.
With regard to the discount on airport charges related to the increase in frequencies, Ryanair argued that this was normal commercial behaviour applied in all industries.
V zvezi s popustom na letališke pristojbine, povezane s povečano frekvenco letov, družba Ryanair trdi, da je to običajno poslovno ravnanje, ki je prisotno v vseh sektorjih.
Most of the conditions of the agreement between Ryanair and Airpro at T2 were generally applicable to all airlines willing to fly from T2.
Večina pogojev iz sporazuma med družbama Ryanair in Airpro v zvezi s T2 se je splošno uporabljala za vse letalske družbe, ki so bile pripravljene leteti s T2.
Therefore, Ryanair was of the opinion that its agreement with Airpro was not selective.
Zato družba Ryanair meni, da njen sporazum z družbo Airpro ni selektiven.
Ryanair further argued that both Finavia and Airpro benefitted from its presence at TMP airport.
Družba Ryanair tudi trdi, da je njena prisotnost na letališču TMP prinesla dobiček tako družbi Finavia kot tudi družbi Airpro.
As regards the link between Finavia and Airpro, SAS Group stated that the managing director of TMP airport was a member of the board of directors of Airpro when Finavia decided to lease T2 to Airpro.
V zvezi s povezavo med družbama Finavia in Airpro je skupina SAS navedla, da je bil izvršni direktor letališča TMP takrat, ko je družba Finavia dala T2 v zakup družbi Airpro, član upravnega odbora družbe Airpro.
In addition, the close link between Finavia and Airpro was evident in the publication Tampere-Pirkkala Airport Finland’s Future-Ready Airport.
Poleg tega je tesna povezava med družbama Finavia in Airpro očitna v publikaciji z naslovom Tampere-Pirkkala Airport Finland’s Future-Ready Airport (Finsko letališče Tampere-Pirkkala je letališče, ki je pripravljeno na prihodnost).
SAS Group argued that Finavia was cross-subsidising T2 with revenues from T1.
Skupina SAS je navedla, da družba Finavia navzkrižno subvencionira T2 s prihodki od T1.
SAS Group was in particular of the opinion that no passenger charges were paid at T2.
Skupina SAS zlasti meni, da se na T2 niso plačevale nobene potniške pristojbine.
Furthermore, Airpro administered the car park located outside T2 and kept the revenues generated by the car park.
Poleg tega je družba Airpro upravljala parkirišče pred T2 in obdržala z njim ustvarjene prihodke.
The parking charges at the car park next to T2 were twice as high as those at T1.
Cene parkirišča poleg T2 so bile dvakrat višje od cen parkirišča pri T1.
As regards the costs for the services at T2, SAS Group argued that Finland had not granted it access to this information.
V zvezi s stroški za storitve na T2 je skupina SAS navedla, da ji Finska ni odobrila dostopa do teh informacij.
SAS Group had no information on whether T2 or TMP airport were profitable and whether Airpro paid for the infrastructure supplied by Finavia.
Skupina SAS ni imela nobenih informacij v zvezi s tem, ali sta T2 ali letališče TMP ustvarjala dobiček in ali je družba Airpro plačala za infrastrukturo, ki jo je zagotovila družba Finavia.
For example Finavia had acquired security screening equipment for T2.
Družba Finavia je na primer priskrbela opremo za varnostne preglede za T2.
SAS Group stated that according to Finland and Airpro the price level at T2 related to the level of services.
Skupina SAS je navedla, da so cene na T2 po navedbah Finske in družbe Airpro odvisne od ravni storitev.
SAS Group argued that the level of services was normally based on the ground handling concept agreed between an airline and the ground handling company and not on the space or facilities available.
Vendar skupina SAS trdi, da raven storitev običajno temelji na principu zemeljske oskrbe, o katerem se dogovorita letalska družba in družba za zemeljsko oskrbo, in ne na razpoložljivem prostoru ali objektih.
SAS Group argued further that the arrangements concerning T2 at TMP airport favoured one business model and were clearly contrary to Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Skupina SAS je nadalje trdila, da so dogovori v zvezi s T2 na letališču TMP dajali prednost enemu poslovnemu modelu in so bili očitno v nasprotju s členom 107(1) PDEU.
In Finland, Air France did not operate services from and to TMP airport.
Družba Air France na Finskem ni opravljala letov na letališče TMP in z njega.
However it operated five daily frequencies between Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris and Helsinki airport (located approximately 180 kilometres from TMP airport) through a code sharing arrangement with Finnair.
Je pa opravljala pet letov na dan med pariškim letališčem Charles de Gaulle in letališčem Helsinki (ki leži približno 180 kilometrov od letališča TMP) na podlagi dogovora z družbo Finnair o letih pod skupno oznako.
Air France said it endorsed the 2005 Aviation Guidelines and the preliminary assessment conducted by the Commission as regards the financial arrangement at TMP airport.
Družba Air France je navedla, da podpira letalske smernice iz leta 2005 in predhodno oceno, ki jo je izvedla Komisija v zvezi s finančno ureditvijo na letališču TMP.
In particular, Air France was of the opinion that an exception from the payment of the passenger fee provided benefits to Ryanair and was clearly of a discriminatory nature, and therefore should not be considered compatible with the internal market.
Družba Air France zlasti meni, da je izvzetje iz plačila potniške pristojbine družbi Ryanair zagotovilo ugodnosti in je jasno diskriminacijsko, zato se ne sme šteti za združljivo z notranjim trgom.
Association of European Airlines
Združenje evropskih letalskih prevoznikov
COMMENTS FROM FINLAND ON THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS
PRIPOMBE FINSKE O PRIPOMBAH TRETJIH STRANI
Finland received the comments of the four interested parties.
Finska je prejela pripombe štirih zainteresiranih strani.
As regards Ryanair’s comments, Finland observed that the airline had commented on both general developments in the aviation market in Europe and on developments at TMP airport.
V zvezi s pripombami družbe Ryanair Finska ugotavlja, da je letalska družba navedla mnenje tako o splošnem razvoju dogodkov na evropskem letalskem trgu kot tudi o razvoju dogodkov na letališču TMP.
With respect to these aspects, Finland referred to its earlier observations submitted following the opening of the formal investigation procedure.
V zvezi s tema vidikoma se je Finska sklicevala na svoje prejšnje pripombe, ki jih je predložila po začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
Finland observed that SAS Group’s comments raised new issues that needed to be clarified.
Finska ugotavlja, da pripombe skupine SAS načenjajo nova vprašanja, ki jih je treba pojasniti.
Finland stated that, as it had already pointed out, Airpro was a legally distinct company and did not benefit from any support from its owner Finavia.
Finska je navedla, da je družba Airpro, kot je to že poudarila, pravno ločena družba in ni prejemala nobene podpore od družbe Finavia, katere last je.
Finland indicated that TMP airport’s managing director was not a member of the board of directors of Airpro at the time when the lease agreement was signed.
Finska je navedla, da izvršni direktor letališča TMP v času podpisa zakupne pogodbe ni bil član upravnega odbora družbe Airpro.
SAS Group, which operated from T1 at TMP airport, was not mentioned in the publication, because the publication was aimed at marketing TMP airport’s low-cost strategy.
Skupina SAS, ki je na letališču TMP poslovala na T1, v publikaciji ni bila omenjena, ker je bil namen publikacije oglaševati strategijo letališča TMP za zniževanje stroškov.
As regards SAS Group’s allegations concerning possible cross-subsidisation between T2 and T1 at TMP airport, Finland stated that it had already provided evidence that Airpro’s operations at TMP airport were profitable and that Airpro did not receive any subsidies from Finavia.
V zvezi z domnevami skupine SAS glede morebitnega navzkrižnega subvencioniranja med T2 in T1 na letališču TMP je Finska navedla, da je že predložila dokaze, da so bile dejavnosti družbe Airpro na letališču TMP dobičkonosne in da družba Airpro ni prejela nobenih subvencij od družbe Finavia.
As regards the different infrastructure adjustments related to the refurbishment of T2, Finland indicated that the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia covered these costs plus interest.
V zvezi z različnimi infrastrukturnimi prilagoditvami, povezanimi s prenovo T2, je Finska navedla, da je najemnina, ki jo je družba Airpro plačevala družbi Finavia, pokrila te stroške in tudi obresti.
With regard to the purchase of security screening equipment for T2 by Finavia, Finland indicated that these costs were reflected in the rent paid.
V zvezi z opremo za varnostne preglede, ki jo je družba Finavia kupila za T2, je Finska navedla, da so bili ti stroški upoštevani v najemnini.
The car park located next to T2 was part of the area rented out to Airpro.
Parkirišče poleg T2 je bilo del območja, ki ga je najemala družba Airpro.
Airpro was free to set the charges as long as it did so in a transparent way.
Družba Airpro je lahko sama določila cene, v kolikor je to naredila na pregleden način.
As regards SAS’s allegations concerning differentiated pricing at TMP airport’s T2, Finland referred to its comments on the opening of the procedure.
V zvezi z domnevami skupine SAS glede določanja različnih cen na T2 letališča TMP se je Finska sklicevala na svoje pripombe o začetku postopka.
The criteria set out in Article 107(1) are cumulative.
Merila iz člena 107(1) so kumulativna.
A measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU only if all of the following conditions are fulfilled.
Ukrep pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU le, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji.
The financial support must:
Za finančno podporo velja:
be granted by the State or through state resources;
dodeli jo država ali je dodeljena iz državnih sredstev;
favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;
prednost daje posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga;
distort or threaten to distort competition; and
izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in
affect trade between Member States.
prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Do the financial arrangements in the context of implementing the low-cost strategy at TMP airport constitute State aid?
Ali finančne ureditve v povezavi z izvajanjem strategije zniževanja stroškov na letališču TMP pomenijo državno pomoč?
In assessing whether there is any aid component in the financial arrangements related to the low-cost strategy at TMP airport, in particular with regard to the conversion of a vacant cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal and the subsequent lease agreement with Airpro, the Commission has to examine whether in similar circumstances a market economy investor would have entered into the same or similar commercial arrangements as Finavia [16].
Da bi Komisija ocenila, ali finančne ureditve v zvezi s strategijo zniževanja stroškov na letališču TMP, zlasti v zvezi s preoblikovanjem praznega tovornega hangarja v nizkocenovni terminal in poznejšo zakupno pogodbo z družbo Airpro, vključujejo kakršne koli elemente pomoči, mora proučiti, ali bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu v podobnih okoliščinah sklenil enake ali podobne poslovne dogovore kot družba Finavia [16].
Pursuant to the principles established in the case-law, the Commission has to compare the conduct of Finavia to a market economy investor who can be guided by prospects of long-term profitability [17].
V skladu z načeli sodne prakse mora Komisija primerjati ravnanje družbe Finavia z vlagateljem v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki lahko pri svojem ravnanju upošteva možnosti dolgoročne dobičkonosnosti [17].
In addition, pursuant to the Charleroi judgment [18], when assessing the measures in question the Commission has to take into account all the relevant features of the measures and their context.
V skladu s sodbo v zadevi „Charleroi“ [18] mora Komisija pri oceni zadevnih ukrepov upoštevati tudi vse pomembne značilnosti ukrepov in njihovo ozadje.
In other words, the Commission has to analyse the decision of Finavia to refurbish the cargo hangar at TMP airport and the planned implementation of the low-cost strategy at TMP airport by Airpro on the basis of an integrated approach taking into account all the features of the measures in question.
Drugače povedano, Komisija mora na podlagi celostnega pristopa analizirati odločitev družbe Finavia glede prenove tovornega hangarja na letališču TMP in načrtovano izvajanje strategije zniževanja stroškov na letališču TMP s strani družbe Airpro, pri čemer upošteva vse značilnosti zadevnih ukrepov.
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’ [19].
Sodišče je v zadevi „Stardust Marine“ razsodilo, 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 [19].
Finland argues that Finavia acted rationally and substantiates its arguments with a copy of Finavia’s ex ante business plan and the actual results of Finavia and Airpro at TMP airport.
Finska trdi, da je družba Finavia ravnala razumno, in svoje trditve utemeljuje z izvodom predhodnega poslovnega načrta družbe Finavia ter dejanskimi rezultati družb Finavia in Airpro na letališču TMP.
In this context, the Commission notes that the cargo hangar at TMP airport became vacant after DHL had terminated its rental agreement.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da se je tovorni hangar na letališču TMP prenehal uporabljati, ko je družba DHL prekinila zakupno pogodbo.
Finavia was losing the monthly rent of approximately […].
Družba Finavia ni več prejemala mesečne najemnine v znesku približno […].
After some months, it became evident that Finavia would not be able to attract another air cargo company to TMP airport.
Po nekaj mesecih je postalo očitno, da družba Finavia na letališče TMP ne bo mogla pritegniti druge družbe za zračni prevoz tovora.
In addition, low-cost airlines were not ready to use Terminal 1 at the airport, because the costs of the ground-handling services were higher than these airlines were ready to accept.
Poleg tega nizkocenovne letalske družbe niso hotele uporabljati terminala 1, ker so bili stroški storitev zemeljske oskrbe višji, kot so jih bile te letalske družbe pripravljene plačevati.
However, the 2002 forecasts for the aviation transport sector indicated a high growth potential for low-cost carriers, such as Ryanair, of approximately 30 % a year.
Napovedi iz leta 2002 za sektor letalskega prevoza pa so navajale visok potencial rasti za nizkocenovne prevoznike, kot je družba Ryanair, in sicer približno 30 % na leto.
The Commission observes further that the empty cargo hangar was fully depreciated and the refurbishment costs for transforming the hangar into a low-cost passenger terminal amounted to EUR 760612. Even if the cargo hangar had not been converted into a passenger terminal, Finavia would have nonetheless had to undertake certain refurbishment works amounting to approximately EUR 100000.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da so se stroški za prazen tovorni hangar v celoti amortizirali in da so stroški prenove za preoblikovanje hangarja v nizkocenovni potniški terminal znašali 760612 EUR. Družba Finavia bi morala izvesti nekatera obnovitvena dela v vrednosti približno 100000 EUR, tudi če tovorni hangar ne bi bil preoblikovan v potniški terminal.
In addition, Finavia was obliged to keep TMP airport’s runway available for military purposes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Poleg tega je morala družba Finavia vzletno-pristajalno stezo na letališču TMP še naprej dajati na voljo za vojaške namene 24 ur na dan in 365 dni na leto.
Therefore, an increase in traffic at the airport might well result in a better allocation of resources and a reduction in possible overcapacities.
Zato je zelo verjetno, da se s povečanjem prometa na letališču zagotavljata boljša porazdelitev sredstev in zmanjšanje morebitnih prekomernih zmogljivosti.
At the same time, the diversification of airlines using the airport might also reduce the business risks of the airport (such as the risk of unused capacity in the event that one of the airlines terminated its operations) and improve the efficient utilisation of the runway.
Hkrati bi lahko diverzifikacija letalskih družb, ki uporabljajo letališče, tudi zmanjšala poslovna tveganja letališča (na primer tveganje neizkoriščene zmogljivosti, če ena od letalskih družb preneha s svojimi dejavnostmi) in izboljšala učinkovitost uporabe vzletno-pristajalne steze.
This situation is explained in Finavia’s business plan for implementing the low-cost strategy.
Ta položaj je pojasnjen v poslovnem načrtu družbe Finavia za izvajanje strategije zniževanja stroškov.
As shown in the worst-case scenario in Finavia’s business plan, the investment project was expected to make a positive contribution: the average profit margin [20] was expected to be around […] (see table in paragraph (20)), which according to the data available to the Commission is broadly in line with the profit margins of other airports in the Union [21].
Kot je prikazano v scenariju za najslabši primer iz poslovnega načrta družbe Finavia, se je pričakovalo, da bo naložbeni projekt zagotovil pozitiven prispevek: pričakovalo se je, da bo povprečna stopnja dobička [20] okrog […] (glej preglednico v točki obrazložitve (20)), kar je po podatkih, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija, na splošno v skladu s stopnjami dobička drugih letališč v Uniji [21].
The Commission observes further that the ex ante business plan was based on prudent assumptions which led to an underestimation of the revenue and an overestimation of the costs in the last years of the period under consideration.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da je predhodni poslovni načrt temeljil na preudarnih predpostavkah, zaradi česar so bili prihodki podcenjeni, pričakovani stroški v zadnjih letih obravnavanega obdobja pa precenjeni.
In addition, the ex ante business plan did not take into account the profit gained by Finavia from the landing charges, as these costs were deducted from the expected revenue.
V predhodnem poslovnem načrtu prav tako ni bil upoštevan dobiček družbe Finavia od pristajalnih pristojbin, ker so bili ti stroški odšteti od pričakovanega prihodka.
Furthermore the refurbishment costs and an appropriate remuneration for the capital invested were fully reflected in the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia, which was also deducted from the expected revenue.
Poleg tega so bili stroški prenove in ustrezno nadomestilo za vloženi kapital v celoti upoštevani v najemnini, ki jo je družba Airpro plačevala družbi Finavia in ki je bila prav tako odšteta od pričakovanega prihodka.
In order to assess the low-cost strategy of Finavia and Airpro on the basis of an integrated approach, the Commission’s expert consolidated the revenues and costs of the ex ante business plan (base-case scenario).
Da bi strokovnjak Komisije ocenil strategijo družb Finavia in Airpro za zniževanje stroškov na podlagi celostnega pristopa, je konsolidiral prihodke in stroške predhodnega poslovnega načrta (osnovni scenarij).
In particular, the inter-company payments (such as the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia for the use of T2, landing charges and terminal navigation charges) were taken into account as revenue.
Kot prihodek so se upoštevala zlasti plačila med družbama (na primer najemnina, ki jo družba Airpro plačuje družbi Finavia za uporabo T2, pristajalne pristojbine in pristojbine za navigacijske storitve na terminalu).
The following table summarises the revenue and cost calculations related to the implementation of the low-cost strategy at TMP airport as described above and its contribution to the earnings before interest and taxes (‘EBIT’) at a consolidated level (i.e. for Finavia and Airpro) over the next ten years: […] [22]
V naslednji preglednici je povzetek izračunov prihodkov in stroškov v zvezi z izvajanjem strategije zniževanja stroškov na letališču TMP, kot je opisano zgoraj, ter njenega prispevka k dobičku pred obrestmi in davki na konsolidirani ravni (tj. za družbi Finavia in Airpro) v naslednjih desetih letih: […] [22].
The Commission observes that on the basis of the ex ante business plan and the positive NPV [23] Finavia’s decision to implement the low-cost strategy at TMP airport was in line with the behaviour of a market economy investor.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila odločitev družbe Finavia glede izvajanja strategije zniževanja stroškov na letališču TMP ob upoštevanju predhodnega poslovnega načrta in pozitivne neto sedanje vrednosti [23] v skladu z ravnanjem vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The positive NPV of the low-cost strategy increased the equity value of Finavia.
Pozitivna neto sedanja vrednost strategije zniževanja stroškov je povečala vrednost lastnega kapitala družbe Finavia.
The Commission further notes that the assumptions of the ex ante business plan and the expected results of the low-cost strategy are further supported by the actual positive results of Airpro’s activity at TMP airport (see in particular the table in paragraph (26)).
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da predpostavke iz predhodnega poslovnega načrta in pričakovane rezultate strategije zniževanja stroškov podpirajo tudi dejanski pozitivni rezultati dejavnosti družbe Airpro na letališču TMP (glej zlasti preglednico v točki obrazložitve (26)).