natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘Lufthansa’) pointed out in its comments that the business development of the three Berlin airports (Tegel, Schönefeld and Tempelhof) was extremely positive and the profit-sales ratio in the last three years had been around […] %.
Zveza evropskih letalskih prevoznikov je poleg tega trdila, da ukrepi iz sklepa o začetku postopka niso bili objektivno upravičeni; popusti in spodbude so bili samovoljni in diskriminatorni, zato niso bili združljivi s smernicami za letalski sektor.
Lufthansa took the view that Schönefeld was subsidised by the airlines operating from Tegel.
Družba Germanwings
Germania
Družba Germanwings je trdila, da je družba FBS z njo vedno ravnala, kot bi ravnal zasebni vlagatelj.
Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH (‘Germania’) took the view that the benefits provided at Schönefeld were financed by the passengers using Tegel as a result of the control and profit transfer agreement between FBS and BFG.
Poudarila je, da je kljub postopnemu zmanjševanju popustov v daljšem časovnem obdobju razširila svojo mrežo povezav z letališča Schönefeld.
According to Germania, the way in which the charges were calculated and the links between the companies operating Schönefeld and Tegel, which according to Germania amounts to collusion, results in cross-subsidisation.
Navedla je, da je bila prepričana, da so bili finančni dogovori, sklenjeni z družbo FBS, v skladu z zakonom, zlasti ker so vsa tri berlinska letališča tvorila enoten sistem letališč.
Germania considers that FBS did not act in relation to the offsetting of losses as a market economy operator would have done.
Družba Germanwings je navedla, da letališč Hamburg, Dresden, Leipzig ali Lübeck [30] ni štela za ustrezne konkurenčne alternative letališču Schönefeld, ker je lete opravljala v glavnem na nemških domačih povezavah.
Germania considers it unlikely that operations could cover FBS’ costs at Schönefeld.
Navedena letališča so bila zaradi kratkega trajanja letov na domačih povezavah preveč oddaljena od Berlina, da bi bila ustrezen nadomestek za letališče Schönefeld.
Germania stated that airlines at Schönefeld would receive operating aid, as a result of individual agreements on airport charges.
Družba Germanwings je nadalje navedla, da je bilo dajanje terminala B v najem družbi easyJet v nasprotju s konkurenčnim pravom in zakonodajo o državni pomoči, ker družba easyJet na noben način ni sodelovala pri financiranju terminala B, ki se je v najem oddal brez ustreznega postopka oddaje javnega naročila.
Germania added that the 2004 Schedule was neither approved nor published.
Poleg tega je bila glede na to, da je imel terminal B v nasprotju s terminaloma A in C sodoben sistem za sprejem in odpremo prtljage, najemnina prenizka.
Germania considered that the rent charged to easyJet for the use of Terminal B was not the normal market rate.
Letališče Lübeck
This would amount to favourable treatment and State aid.
Letališče Lübeck je navedlo, da ni opazilo nobenih negativnih učinkov poslovne strategije družbe FBS na trgu.
The exclusive use of the entire terminal would allow easyJet to provide a more efficient service, whereas other airlines would not have that opportunity.
Družba Ryanair
DBA
Družba Ryanair je menila, da glede rednih letov na kratkih in srednje dolgih progah med letališči Dresden, Hamburg in Lübeck ter letališčem Schönefeld ni bilo nobene konkurence.
According to DBA Luftfahrtgesellschaft (‘DBA’), a low cost airline which was controlled by Air Berlin until it ceased operations in 2008, price competition on the Berlin air transport market would be particularly strong.
Razdalja med letališčem Schönefeld in letališči Dresden, Hamburg in Lübeck je prevelika, da bi bila taka konkurenca prisotna.
The competitive environment would had sharpened further with the implementation of the LCC Strategy at Schönefeld, particularly with the entry of Germanwings and easyJet.
Dogovor v zvezi z letališčem Schönefeld zato ni vplival na druga navedena letališča.
This would put pressure on the airlines operating out of Tegel, especially the other low-cost airlines such as Air Berlin/DBA.
Družba Ryanair je trdila, da so bile pristojbine, ki jih je plačevala na letališču Schönefeld, enake kot tiste iz seznama pristojbin, ki so bile v skladu z običajno prakso v zadevnem sektorju.
DBA took the view that the rent paid by easyJet for Terminal B could not be regarded as the normal market rate.
Dogovor z družbo FBS je bil podoben dogovorom s številnimi zasebnimi letališči in bi ga enako sklenil tudi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Moreover, the exclusive use of the baggage handling equipment in Terminal B would represent a favourable treatment and was relevant in terms of State aid legislation.
Predložila je študijo svetovalne družbe ([…]), ki je proučila pogodbene ureditve med družbama Ryanair in FBS.
Association of European Airlines
Svetovalna družba je na podlagi primerjalne analize letališča Schönefeld z letališčema Liverpool in Luton ugotovila, da je bilo ravnanje družbe FBS v zvezi z družbo Ryanair v skladu s tem, kar se pričakuje od zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Association of European Airlines (‘AEA’), which represents the interests of European network carriers, considers that cross-subsidisation between Tegel and Schönefeld, and between the AEA members operating predominantly out of Tegel and the subsidised airlines competing against them and based at Schönefeld, constituted discrimination.
Družba Ryanair je trdila tudi, da je Berlin tako kot London in Milano veliko evropsko gospodarsko in upravno središče, zato je pomemben evropski namembni kraj.
According to the AEA, without this anti-competitive cross-subsidisation, the airlines operating from Schönefeld would not be economically viable and the charges at Tegel could be significantly lower.
Letalski prevozniki, ki dejavnost opravljajo v Berlinu, se lahko zato zanašajo na zadostno število potnikov, ki si želijo potovati v Berlin.
As Tegel was close to Schönefeld there would be no public need for the subsidies.
Družba easyJet
The AEA argued in addition that the measures referred to in the opening decision were not objectively justifiable and the reductions and incentives were arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore incompatible with the Aviation Guidelines.
Družba easyJet je glede dogovora z družbo easyJet iz leta 2003 trdila, da bi udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki bi nadomestil družbo FBS, prav tako sprejel tako strategijo.
Germanwings
Dejansko je ta ukrep družbi FBS prinesel znatno povečanje števila potnikov in izboljšal letne rezultate.
Germanwings argued that FBS had behaved vis-à-vis it at all times like a private investor would have done.
Družba easyJet je nadalje navedla, da posamezen dogovor glede pristojbin med družbama FBS in easyJet ni nujno pomenil, da so bili dodeljeni diskriminatorni popusti.
Germanwings pointed out that in spite of the phasing out of its discounts over time, it had extended its route network from Schönefeld.
Menila je, da bi bili drugi letalski prevozniki, ki bi opravljali dejavnost s primerljivimi cilji glede rasti, deležni popolnoma enake obravnave kot družba easyJet.
Germanwings stated that it it had been confident that the financial arrangements with FBS would comply with the law, especially as the three Berlin airports would form a unified airport system.
Popusti so bili v vsakem primeru upravičeni ob upoštevanju ekonomij obsega, ki jih je zagotavljala družba easyJet, ki je predstavljala velik delež potnikov na letališču Schönefeld in je nesorazmerno prispevala k izboljšanju rezultatov družbe FBS.
Germanwings indicated that that it did not regard the airports of Hamburg, Dresden, Leipzig or Lübeck [30] as suitable competitive alternatives to Schönefeld because it mainly operates on German domestic routes.
Glede uporabe terminala B je družba easyJet navedla, da ta letališki terminal ni bil zaprtega tipa.
In view of the short flight times on domestic routes, the above-mentioned airports would be too far away from Berlin to be valid substitutes for Schönefeld.
Dejansko je območje, ki ga je najela družba easyJet, obsegalo ločeno območje za prijavo na let in povezane pisarne na severnem terminalu letališča Schönefeld.
Germanwings further stated that the letting of Terminal B to easyJet was contrary to antitrust and State aid law because easyJet was not in any way involved in the financing of Terminal B and the letting took place without a corresponding tendering procedure.
Večina območja je bila javno dostopna in so ga uporabljali tudi potniki drugih prevoznikov.
Moreover, the rent would be too low given that Terminal B, unlike Terminals A and C, had a modern baggage-handling facility.
V času podpisa dogovora z družbo easyJet je bilo na terminalu B dovolj dodatne zmogljivosti, zato drugi letalski prevozniki niso utrpeli nobene škode.
Lübeck Airport
Družba easyJet je poudarila, da je bila vse od začetka opravljanja dejavnosti na letališču Schönefeld leta 2004 letalski prevoznik z daleč največjim pretokom potnikov.
Lübeck Airport indicated that it had not observed any negative impact of FBS’s commercial strategy on the market.
Izključna pravica do uporabe nekaterih delov terminala B je bila torej objektivno upravičena.
Ryanair
Družba easyJet je navedla tudi, da je bil sistem za sprejem in odpremo prtljage na terminalu B zgolj v skladu z običajnimi tehničnimi standardi in da zaradi njega družba glede na druge letalske prevoznike ni imela nobene prednosti.
Ryanair took the view that with regard to short and medium-haul flights, there was no competition between the airports of Dresden, Hamburg and Lübeck on the one hand and Schönefeld on the other hand.
Glede tržne vrednosti terminala B je družba easyJet navedla, da je bila najemnina, ki jo je plačevala, višja od tržne najemnine terminala B glede na to, da ni izpolnjeval njenih zahtev glede zmogljivosti.
The distance between Schönefeld and, respectively, Dresden, Hamburg and Lübeck would be too great for such competition to take place.
Najemnine bi se lahko primerjale le z najemninami za podobna območja na letališču Schönefeld ali, kar zadeva pisarne, z najemninami za pisarne v neposredni bližini letališča.
An agreement regarding Schönefeld would thus have no effect on the other airports mentioned.
Družba FBS
Ryanair claims that the charges it pays at Schönefeld would be identical to those in the schedule of charges, which were in line with standard practice in the sector.
Družba FBS je omenila poseben položaj Berlina, tj. sistem letališč (prvotno sestavljen iz treh letališč) in načrte za izgradnjo osrednjega letališča Berlin Brandenburg (BER).
The agreement with FBS would be similar to those with a number of private airports and would have been concluded in the same way by a market economy investor.
Na letališču Schönefeld je bila leta 2003 izkoriščena le približno polovica njegove prometne zmogljivosti, zato letališče ni moglo kriti svojih stroškov.
Ryanair provided a study by a consultancy firm ([…]), which examined the contractual arrangements between Ryanair and FBS.
Po mnenju družbe FBS bi letališče Schönefeld z zaprtjem med drugim izgubilo svoje dovoljenje za poslovanje, ki je bilo bistvenega pomena za opravljanje dejavnosti letališča BER.
Based on a comparative analysis of Schönefeld with Liverpool and Luton airports, the consultancy firm came to the conclusion that FBS acted vis-à-vis Ryanair in line with what would be expected from a private market economy operator.
Družba FBS je poudarila, da domnevno konkurenčna letališča, ki jih je Komisija navedla v sklepu o začetku postopka, berlinskim letališčem niso dejansko konkurirala, ker so bila predaleč.
Ryanair also argued that Berlin, like London and Milan, was a major European economic and administrative centre and therefore an important European destination.
Glede pogodbe o prenosu nadzora in dobička je družba FBS trdila, da so taki dogovori med družbami v skupini v poslovnem svetu običajni.
Airlines operating in Berlin could therefore rely on a sufficient number of passengers willing to travel there.
Menila je, da je bil prenos dobička med tremi berlinskimi letališči izključno interna zadeva podjetja.
easyJet
Po mnenju družbe FBS je sistem letališč tvoril eno podjetje, ki je uveljavljalo skupne interese, zavezovalo pa ga je pravo gospodarskih družb.
With respect to the 2003 easyJet agreement, easyJet argued that a market economy operator acting in lieu of FBS would also have adopted this type of strategy.
Sistem letališč je predstavljal en geografski in proizvodni trg.
Indeed, the measure had brought FBS a substantial increase in passenger numbers and improved annual results.
Šlo je za običajno tržno prakso, v tem primeru pa je bilo to tudi v poslovnem interesu družbe.
easyJet further stated that the existence of an individual fee arrangement between FBS and easyJet did not necessarily mean that discriminatory rebates had been granted. easyJet took the view that other airlines operating with the same growth targets would have been granted exactly the same treatment as easyJet.
Družba FBS je nasprotovala nekaterim začasnim ugotovitvam iz sklepa o začetku postopka glede prisotnosti državnih sredstev.
In any event, the rebates would be justified in light of the economies of scale provided by easyJet. easyJet accounted for a large proportion of all passengers at Schönefeld and would have made a disproportionate contribution to the improvement of FBS’s results.
Po mnenju družbe FBS dejstvo, da so morali seznam pristojbin odobriti javni organi, ni zadoščalo za ugotovitev, da je sredstva družbe FBS nadzorovala država.
Regarding its use of Terminal B, easyJet remarked that this was not a closed-off airport terminal.
Sistem seznamov pristojbin je veljal enako za javne in zasebne delničarje na letališčih ter upošteval javni interes glede opravljanja zračnega prevoza v skladu s pravnimi standardi.
In fact the area rented by easyJet was a separate check-in area and associated office space at Schönefeld’s North Terminal.
Sicer pa ministrski predsednik Brandenburga, ki je bil član nadzornega odbora družbe FBS, ni mogel dajati navodil ministrstvu, pristojnemu za odobritev seznama pristojbin.
Most of the area was publicly accessible and was also used by other carriers’ passengers.
Poleg tega je glede določanja pristojbin pravno razmerje med letališčem in letalskimi prevozniki urejalo izključno zasebno pravo in je bilo zavezujoče na podlagi civilnega prava, ne glede na odobritev zadevnega organa.
At the time when the agreement with easyJet was signed there would have been sufficient spare capacity at Terminal B. Other airlines would therefore not have suffered from any disadvantage. easyJet stressed that since it began its operations at Schönefeld in 2004, it was the airline with by far the largest passenger throughput.
Družba FBS je trdila, da je morala zaradi različne izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti na dveh glavnih berlinskih letališčih, ko je letališče Tegel delovalo blizu polne zmogljivosti in ga ni bilo mogoče znatno razširiti, letališče Schönefeld pa je imelo ustrezno dodatno zmogljivost in je bilo poleg tega tudi prihodnja lokacija letališča BER, leta 2003 po neuspešni privatizaciji družbe sprejeti ukrepe, ki bi pripomogli k izvajanju zračnega prometa v somestju Berlina na trajnostni in gospodarsko učinkoviti podlagi.
Its exclusive use of certain parts of Terminal B would therefore be objectively justified.
Družba FBS je trdila tudi, da je bilo ohranjanje delovanja letališča Schönefeld v interesu skupine FBS zaradi prihodnjega delovanja letališča BER.
In addition, easyJet stated that the baggage handling system at Terminal B merely reflected usual technical standards and did not provide it with any advantage over other airlines.
Po mnenju družbe FBS bi tudi začasno zaprtje letališča Schönefeld dejansko onemogočilo dolgoročni strateški cilj glede delovanja centraliziranega berlinskega letališča na lokaciji letališča Schönefeld.
As regards the market value of Terminal B, easyJet stated that the rent it paid was higher than what would reflect the market value of Terminal B, given that it was insufficient to meet easyJet’s capacity requirements.
Po mnenju družbe FBS je bilo zato treba na čim bolj gospodarsko učinkovit način ohraniti delovanje letališča Schönefeld od leta 2003 do odprtja letališča BER.
A rent comparison could only be made with similar areas at Schönefeld airport or, in relation to the offices, with office space in the immediate vicinity of the airport.
Družba FBS je dodala, da se je zaradi boljše izkoriščenosti razpoložljive zmogljivosti letališča Schönefeld odločila za izvajanje strategije za nizkocenovne prevoznike, ki jo je predlagala znana svetovalna družba.
FBS
Navedena strategija za nizkocenovne prevoznike se je štela za gospodarsko najugodnejšo možnost za družbo FBS, saj je bilo verjetno, da bo predlagani seznam pristojbin z vključenimi shemami spodbud kratkoročno povečal promet na letališču Schönefeld z usmerjenimi finančnimi spodbudami, ki so se postopno zmanjševale.
FBS referred to Berlin’s particular situation, namely the airport system (originally made up of three airports) and the plans for the construction of the central Berlin Brandenburg airport (BER).
Po mnenju družbe FBS je bila strategija za nizkocenovne prevoznike zelo uspešna.
In 2003, Schönefeld was operating at about half its traffic-handling capacity only and the airport was failing to cover its costs.
Število potnikov na letališču Schönefeld je zelo naraslo, število potnikov na drugih berlinskih letališčih pa se ni zmanjšalo.
With regard to the control and profit transfer agreement, FBS argued that in the business world, such agreements between companies within a group were commonplace.
Po mnenju družbe FBS se bo to pozitivno gibanje nadaljevalo, kar je bilo zlasti pomembno za finančno zmogljivost novega letališča.
FBS took the view that a transfer of profits between the three Berlin airports was a purely internal matter for the undertaking.
Družba FBS je trdila, da je bila strateška sprememba, ki se je začela leta 2003, ključna iz gospodarskih razlogov in da je pri sprejetju tega ukrepa ravnala kot preudaren vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
According to FBS, the airport system formed a single undertaking, pursuing common interests, and mutually bound by company law.
Na podlagi poslovnega načrta, ki je bil osnova strategije za nizkocenovne prevoznike, je lahko predvidevala, da dejavnosti letališča ne bodo več nedonosne.
The airport system would constitute a single geographic and product market.
Sklicevala se je na študijo, ki jo je naročila pri revizijski družbi […] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: študija prvega strokovnjaka), ki je bila končana leta 2007 in je potrdila, da sta bila z vidika vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu izvajanje strategije za nizkocenovne prevoznike in vzpostavitev ustreznega seznama pristojbin razumna.
It would be normal market practice, and in the present case it would also make commercial sense.
Družba FBS je trdila, da je bila sklenitev posameznih dogovorov z nekaterimi nizkocenovnimi prevozniki pred začetkom veljavnosti seznama pristojbin iz leta 2004 potrebna za izvajanje strategije za nizkocenovne prevoznike, da bi se letalskim prevoznikom lahko ponudila spodbuda za vzpostavitev baze na letališču Schönefeld.
FBS disputed some of the provisional findings arrived at in the opening decision as regards the involvement of State resources.
Vsi ti posamezni dogovori z različnimi letalskimi prevozniki so bili sklenjeni na podlagi izključno gospodarskih vidikov zaradi kratkoročnega izboljšanja gospodarskega položaja družbe FBS.
According to FBS, the fact that the schedule of charges had to be approved by public authorities was not sufficient to conclude that FBS’s resources were under State control.
Družba FBS je trdila, da je bil dogovor z družbo easyJet iz leta 2003 ključni sestavni del izvajanja strategije za nizkocenovne prevoznike in da ne vključuje državne pomoči.
According to FBS, the system of charge schedules applied equally to public and private shareholders at airports and took account of the public interest in the operation of air transport, in line with legal standards.
Strategija za nizkocenovne prevoznike je družbo easyJet, enega vodilnih nizkocenovnih prevoznikov v Evropi, spodbudila, da je vzpostavila bazo na letališču Schönefeld.
Besides, according to FBS, the Minister President of Brandenburg (Ministerpräsident des Landes Brandenburg), who sat in FBS’ supervisory board, could not issue instructions to the ministry responsible for approving schedules of charges.
Družba FBS je na podlagi uspešne sklenitve dogovora z družbo easyJet iz leta 2003 (ki se je štela za „ključnega najemnika“) na letališče Schönefeld lahko privabila druge letalske prevoznike.
Furthermore, when it comes to the determination of charges, the legal relationship between the airport and airlines was governed purely by private law and was binding under civil law, regardless of the approval by the relevant authority.
Pogodbeno razmerje z družbo easyJet (vključno z njeno obveznostjo glede uporabe najmanjšega števila zrakoplovov na letališču Schönefeld) je na obeh straneh zagotovilo visoko varnost načrtovanja in znatno prispevalo k povečanju donosnosti letališča Schönefeld.
FBS also stated that the schedule of charges would have the effect of general terms and conditions and would form an integral part of the contract between an airport and an airline, independently of any official approval.
Družba FBS je trdila, da dogovor z družbo easyJet iz leta 2003 ni bil bistveno drugačen od seznama iz leta 2004 in ni neupravičeno zagotavljal prednosti.
The schedule of charges, including the discount schemes, would have been offered to all airlines without distinction since 1 May 2004.
Poudarila je tudi, da je bil v spremenjenem dogovoru z družbo easyJet iz leta 2007 izrecno naveden seznam iz leta 2006, ki se je takrat uporabljal.
Individual contractual arrangements would have only been meant to establish bilateral settlement terms and to set forth the objectives in detail.
Družba FBS je poudarila tudi, da so bili posamezni dogovori z nizkocenovnimi prevozniki podpisani pred sprejetjem smernic za letalski sektor leta 2005, nekateri od teh pa celo pred sprejetjem odločbe Komisije v zadevi Charleroi [31].
No special advantages would have been granted through those agreements.
Poleg tega po mnenju družbe FBS oddajanje prostorov na terminalu B v najem družbi easyJet zadevni družbi ni zagotovilo posebne prednosti.
FBS argues that owing to the differing capacity utilisation patterns at Berlin’s two main airports, with Tegel operating at close to full capacity without any significant expansion possibilities, as opposed to Schönefeld which had substantial free capacities and was in addition the future location of BER, FBS had to take measures in 2003 after the failed attempt to privatise the company, with a view to managing air transport in the Berlin conurbation on a sustainable, economically efficient basis.
Družbi easyJet je bil celoten terminal dodeljen iz gospodarskih in praktičnih razlogov zaradi velikega pretoka potnikov te družbe na letališču Schönefeld.
According to FBS, even a temporary closure of Schönefeld would have made it de facto impossible to achieve the long-term strategic goal of operating a centralised Berlin airport on the Schönefeld site.
Dodeljevanje območij na terminalu je običajna praksa na nemških in mednarodnih letališčih.
According to FBS, it was therefore necessary to bridge, in as economically efficient a manner as possible, Schönefeld’s operation from 2003 until such time as BER would open.
Poleg tega niso bile dodeljene nobene pravice do oglaševanja, ki bi družbi easyJet dale prednost pred drugimi letalskimi prevozniki, saj je družba easyJet dobila pravice do trženja blagovne znamke le v svojem območju za prijavo na let, tako kot vsak letalski prevoznik.
FBS added that in order to better harness Schönefeld’s available capacities, it had launched the implementation of the LCC strategy proposed by a renowned consultancy firm.
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE
That LCC strategy would have been viewed as the economically most favourable option for FBS, since its proposed schedule of charges with embedded incentive schemes appeared likely to increase traffic at Schönefeld in the short term through targeted, degressive financial incentives.
Vpliv države