natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is further submitted that an exception from this principle, according to which a holding company does engage in an economic activity where it exercises influence over the companies it owns shares in, does not apply in the case of vh Saar.
Nadalje zatrjuje, da so iz istih razlogov, kot so navedeni v zvezi s skladnostjo z merili iz sodbe Altmark, izpolnjeni pogoji iz členov 4 in 5 odločbe SSGP iz leta 2005.
Advantage
Nemčija ponavlja tudi, da v regiji obstaja precejšnje povpraševanje po letalskih storitvah, ki ga sosednja letališča ne morejo zadovoljiti, s čimer zavrača namigovanje v sklepu o začetku postopka, da letališče ni bilo nujno za zadovoljevanje lokalnega povpraševanja po storitvah zračnega prevoza.
Germany argues, with respect to vh Saar, that the company did not receive any advantage from State resources, as it passed all funds received from the Saarland on to FSBesitzG/FSG.
Poudarja, da ustrezne študije dokazujejo možnosti za nadaljnjo rast zaradi napovednega povečanja povpraševanja potnikov, ki ga sosednja letališča ne bodo mogla zadovoljiti (Nemčija se sklicuje na svoja pojasnila glede nenadomestljivosti med letališči v regiji in posledičen neobstoj konkurence med njimi).
In consequence, it denies that vh Saar could be considered a beneficiary.
Kar nazadnje zadeva navedbe v sklepu o začetku postopka, da ni bilo formalnega akta o pooblastitvi, omejitve na osnovne dejavnosti letališča in pregledne določitve meril za izračun nadomestila, se Nemčija sklicuje na svoje trditve v zvezi s skladnostjo z merili iz sodbe Altmark in trdi, da se obrazložitev, predstavljena v zvezi z navedenimi merili, uporablja tudi v tem okviru.
As regards the funds received by FSBesitzG/FSG from vh Saar via the P&L agreement, Germany asserts that no advantage was granted as all financing merely compensated the FSBesitzG/FSG for providing a service of general economic interest (SGEI) in accordance with the Altmark jurisprudence.
Odločba SSGP iz leta 2012
First Altmark criterion: entrustment with a SGEI
Smernice za letalski sektor iz leta 2005
Germany argues that the operation of the airport, including the construction and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure, constitutes a SGEI.
Nemčija najprej trdi, da so ukrepi splošnega financiranja združljivi z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 106(2) Pogodbe v povezavi z oddelkom 4.2 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005 (pomoč za obratovanje letališke infrastrukture).
The notion of SGEI is defined by Germany as services rendered on a market, in the reliable and stable provision of which the public has a general interest, which the market itself cannot provide, and which are provided by an entity which has been entrusted with a corresponding obligation.
V podporo tej trditvi se zgolj sklicuje na argumente, predstavljene v zvezi s skladnostjo z merili iz sodbe Altmark in odločbo SSGP iz leta 2005.
As regards the operation of Saarbrücken Airport, Germany maintains that it involves offering services on a market.
V zvezi z združljivostjo na podlagi oddelka 4.1 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005 (financiranje letališke infrastrukture) trdi, da so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz navedenega oddelka.
It further argues that, having less than 500 000 passengers per year and being thereby below the threshold in the 2005 Aviation Guidelines from which an airport can be expected to be profitable, the airport offers services that the market would otherwise not provide.
Izgradnja in uporaba infrastrukture ustrezata jasno opredeljenemu cilju splošnega interesa (regionalni razvoj, dostopnost itd.)
According to Germany, Saarbrücken Airport has been entrusted with the obligation to provide these services.
Nemčija se sklicuje na svoje trditve v zvezi z obstojem SSGP, da bi dokazala, da letališče Saarbrücken ustreza cilju splošnega interesa.
That obligation, so Germany states, results from the operating licence and the provision of German aviation law.
Ponavlja, da letališče zadovoljuje potrebe lokalnega prebivalstva, da dostopnosti regije ne morejo zagotavljati sosednja letališča in da je letališče bistvenega pomena za gospodarski razvoj regije.
Germany refers specifically to § 45(1) of the Aviation Licencing Regulation (Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung), which provides that an airport undertaking has to ‘maintain the airport in a safe–to–operate state and to properly operate it’.
Infrastruktura je potrebna in sorazmerna z zadanim ciljem
The obligation to operate involves the duty to make airport services available to aircraft without any discrimination during the regular operating hours, which are themselves laid down in the operating licence and cannot be changed unilaterally by the airport operator.
Po mnenju Nemčije je infrastruktura, zlasti stavba terminala, ki se uporablja od leta 2000, in posodobljena vzletno–pristajalna steza, nujno potrebna za uresničitev cilja in ni nesorazmerno velika ali zapletena.
Any violation of the obligation to operate the airport would result in fines of up to EUR 50 000 pursuant to § 108 Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung in connection with § 58(1)(10)(2) Luftverkehrsgesetz.
Naložbe v infrastrukturo so bile nujne za ohranitev ali zamenjavo izrabljene infrastrukture ter za prilagoditev vse večjemu številu potnikov, večjim zahtevam glede udobja in strožjim zahtevam glede varnosti in varovanja.
Germany finally submits that, in addition, the Land ensures the proper operation by means of its comprehensive control over the operator.
Brez naložb letališče ne bi obratovalo.
Commenting on the opening decision’s observation that no formal entrustment act appeared to be in place, Germany asserts that the combination of the factors mentioned in recital 103, and in particular the comprehensive and strict control over the airport exercised by the Saarland, ensure that the purposes of entrustment are realised in at least the same way as it would be the case if a formal entrustment act were in place.
Nemčija tudi opozarja, da je bila obstoječa infrastruktura pred izgradnjo novega terminala (ki se je začela leta 1999) pogosto preobremenjena […].
In supporting its claim that the operation of the airport constitutes an SGEI, Germany asserts that the airport forms an essential part of the traffic infrastructure in the Saarland, which is necessary in particular to connect the region with the rest of the country and major aviation hubs.
Nazadnje trdi, da potrebnih naložb ni bilo mogoče financirati iz lastnega kapitala družbe upravljavke letališča.
The particular importance of this connection is said to stem from the Saarland’s geographical position on the margin of Germany, far away from the country’s major metropolitan centres.
Infrastruktura ponuja zadovoljive možnosti srednjeročne uporabe
The airport is, first, claimed to serve the region’s population by catering to their touristic and private traffic needs.
Glede na že obstoječo uporabo in pričakovano nadaljnje povečanje števila potnikov Nemčija trdi, da infrastruktura ponuja več kot zadovoljive možnosti za uporabo.
The Saarland is said to increasingly develop as a destination for tourism.
Sklicuje se na napoved razvoja zračnega prometa v regiji, iz katere izhaja, da bo povpraševanje naraščalo.
Germany secondly asserts that it is vital for the connection of the Saarland’s scientific, cultural, and social institutions, which are predominantly located in the City of Saarbrücken.
Nemčija trdi, da leta 1999, ko se je začela gradnja nove stavbe terminala, ni bilo mogoče predvideti, da bodo dogodki 11. septembra 2001 v Združenih državah Amerike, oblak pepela po izbruhu vulkana na Islandiji leta 2010 in svetovna gospodarska kriza med letoma 2008 in 2011 negativno vplivali na število potnikov na letališču Saarbrücken.
Thirdly, the significance of the airport for the local economy and regional development is emphasised, especially in light of the ongoing structural transition away from an economy based on coal–mining and towards an international and innovative economy.
Ti dogodki naj bi prizadeli celotni evropski letalski sektor in zaustavili sicer pozitivni razvoj.
Germany points out that companies base their decision to move to the Saarland often on the fact that there is an airport.
Kljub temu je pozitivni trend, ki je bil opazen že leta 1999, po mnenju Nemčije še vedno zaznaven, zato je mogoče pričakovati, da bo zmogljivost letališča Saarbrücken srednjeročno popolnoma izkoriščena (ob upoštevanju tudi predvidenega sodelovanja z letališčem Zweibrücken).
It further refers to a study of 2009 according to which the demand for the provision of air passenger transport is supposed to increase in the future.
Kar zadeva finančne obete, Nemčija poudarja, da se pozitivni EBITDA pričakuje v letu 2020 in da to zadostuje za izpolnitev zahteve po zadovoljivih možnostih srednjeročne uporabe.
Germany underpins its foregoing submission by asserting that the steady increase of passengers at Saarbrücken over the last decades, the results of a study showing further growth potential, and the fact that other airports in the region cannot satisfy the local demand, all demonstrate the importance of the airport for the local population and economy.
Opozarja, da je Komisija sama priznala, da regionalna letališča običajno ne ustvarjajo dobička, ki bi ga bilo mogoče ponovno vložiti v infrastrukturo, to pa je dejstvo, ki ne more izključiti združljivosti ukrepov podpore na podlagi smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005.
Germany invokes the 2005 Aviation Guidelines, which state that ‘it is not impossible to consider the overall management of an airport, in exceptional cases, to be considered a service of general economic interest’, for example where an airport is located in an ‘isolated region’, and assert that Saarbrücken is such an exceptional case because of its geographical position and the on–going structural changes of the local economy.
Dostop do infrastruktur je odprt za vse morebitne uporabnike enako in brez razlikovanja
It finally submits that the financing does not fund activities going beyond the ‘basic activities’ in point 53(iv) of the 2005 Aviation Guidelines.
Ker imajo vsi letalski prevozniki dostop do letališča brez razlikovanja in zanje velja splošno veljaven seznam pristojbin, vključno s popusti, ki jih vsebuje, Nemčija meni, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
Germany next asserts that the existence of an SGEI cannot be undermined by the allegedly missing necessity of the airport.
Poudarja, da zlasti popusti niso oblikovani tako, da bi ustvarjali de facto selektivno prednost za nekatere letalske prevoznike.
It argues that other airports in the region cannot satisfy the needs that Saarbrücken Airport caters to.
Nazadnje trdi, da individualni pogodbi, sklenjeni z družbama Cirrus in Air Berlin, nista upoštevni v tem okviru in da so vsekakor imeli take pogodbe možnost skleniti vsi letalski prevozniki.
In particular, it is submitted that the other airports in the region are either too distant from Saarbrücken Airport’s core catchment area (such as the airports in Luxembourg, Netz–Nancy–Lorraine, and Frankfurt–Hahn) or not comparable to Saarbrücken because of their smaller size and limited services offered (Zweibrücken, above all).
Vpliv na razvoj trgovine ni v nasprotju z interesom Unije
Second Altmark criterion: compensation parameters
Nemčija ne razume, kako bi ali je lahko „zmerna“ razširitev infrastrukture na letališču Saarbrücken vplivala na trgovino.
Germany argues that the purpose of the second Altmark criterion is to avoid overcompensation and to ensure efficient utilisation of public funding.
Opozarja, da je Komisija priznala, da podpora majhnim regionalnim letališčem običajno nima takega vpliva.
It asserts that based on the strict control exercised by the local authorities over the airport, ensuring responsible economic behaviour, and the fact that the latter’s activities are limited to providing a SGEI, the purpose of the second criterion is fulfilled.
Kar zadeva morebiten vpliv na letališče Zweibrücken, Nemčija ponavlja, da si ti letališči ne konkurirata, ampak se dopolnjujeta.
It is finally asserted that, in any event, the financing modalities are designed in such a way as to exclude any possibility of abusive reliance on SGEI compensation.
Trdi tudi, da infrastrukturni ukrepi niso vplivali na letališči Metz–Nancy–Lorraine in Luxembourg tako, da bi bilo to v nasprotju z interesi Skupnosti.
Third Altmark criterion: avoidance of overcompensation
Člen 107(3)(c) Pogodbe
Germany maintains that the public financing never went beyond the amount necessary to facilitate the provision of the SGEI, taking into account all the relevant revenues.
Nemčija trdi, da je vsaj za obdobje 2000–2005 mogoče ugotoviti, da je bila finančna podpora za letališče združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe.
The activities of the airport, it is stressed, are limited to providing the SGEI in question, with the consequence that no other costs that could have been cross–subsidised arose.
Da bi dokazala pomen letališča Saarbrücken za regionalni gospodarski razvoj in dostopnost regije, se sklicuje na svoje trditve v zvezi z obstojem SSGP.
It is further submitted that the infrastructure and the airport operations are necessary and appropriate to satisfy the air traffic needs in Saarbrücken Airport’s catchment area.
Finančna podpora je bila skoraj izključno uporabljena za infrastrukturne projekte, ki so bili v skladu s cilji regionalnega razvoja.
FSBesitzG and FSG did not and do not generate profits, and FSBG only achieved marginal profits.
Nemčija kot primer navaja obsežna pojasnila v zvezi z nujnostjo treh največjih posameznih naložb v infrastrukturo.
Germany asserts that the local authorities closely monitored the utilisation of public funds and would have intervened if inefficiencies had existed.
Kar zadeva spodbujevalni učinek, Nemčija pojasnjuje, da je letališče pomembna spodbuda podjetjem, ki niso iz regije, za naložbe v Posarju.
Fourth Altmark criterion: public tender or benchmarking
Prav tako je to spodbuda za širitve in nadaljnje naložbe podjetij, ki so že prisotna v regiji.
As the airport has been in existence for a long time well before the provision of airport services came to be considered as an economic activity, Germany submits that it chose not to tender the SGEI, but rather to continue relying on the existing airport.
Trdi, da bi zvezna dežela Posarje ob upoštevanju svojega težkega proračunskega položaja znova razmislila o podpori za letališče, če spodbujevalnega učinka ne bi bilo.
It is nevertheless submitted that the fourth criterion is fulfilled, as Germany considers that the local authorities have closely monitored the activities of the airport, thereby ensuring that only efficient costs were reimbursed.
Nazadnje, Nemčija znova poudarja, da to ne vpliva na obratovanje letališča Zweibrücken.
While the Saarland does not have precise data on other regional airports, it assumes that Saarbrücken Airport’s efficiency is average, and that the local authorities would have recognised and eliminated any inefficiency.
Nemčija meni, da je bil prenos zemljišč opravljen za namene varnosti in da je spadal na področje javne politike, zato ne spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Germany finally submits that due to the various differences existing between regional airports in Germany, a simple comparison is not meaningful.
Natančneje, trdi, da so bila po spremembi vzletno–pristajalne steze prenesena zemljišča potrebna za razširitev območij varnosti in varovanja ob koncih vzletno–pristajalne steze in prilagoditev obstoječe zaščitne ograje.
In this situation, the Commission should be content with the fact that there is no indication that Saarbrücken is inefficient.
Po mnenju Nemčije je zavarovanje območja letališča v javnem interesu in pomeni nalogo javne oblasti, ne gospodarsko dejavnost.
Intermediary conclusion on Altmark/SGEI
Podlaga za te varnostne ukrepe so bile zakonodajne spremembe po dogodkih 11. septembra 2001 v Združenih državah Amerike.
As Germany is of the opinion that all four Altmark criteria are fulfilled, it submits that the financing of the airport from State resources does not constitute an advantage, but merely a compensation for the provision of a SGEI.
Nemčija poleg tega trdi, da prenosi zemljišč po letu 2000 v skupni vrednosti […] nikakor niso izkrivljali konkurence ali vplivali na trgovino iz istih razlogov, kot so bili navedeni v zvezi z ukrepi splošnega financiranja.
Market economy operator principle
Glede na majhno vrednost prenosov zemljišč naj bi ti spadali pod uredbo de minimis.
Germany explains that because of Saarbrücken Airport’s great structural and economic significance for the region, the Saarland considers the operation as an SGEI, not as a for–profit business activity.
Trdi torej, da nobeno od treh jamstev ni moglo pomeniti ukrepa državne pomoči.
Accordingly, a closure of the airport is no option and no analyses of the costs and benefits of a closure exist.
Če bi Komisija vseeno ugotovila, da so navedena jamstva pomenila državno pomoč, Nemčija trdi, da bi jih bilo treba oceniti kot obstoječo pomoč, tako da bi kakršna koli odločitev Komisije učinkovala samo ex nunc.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade
V zvezi s priporočilnima pismoma se Nemčija sklicuje na svojo obrazložitev v zvezi z ukrepom splošnega financiranja v korist letališča (uvodne izjave 93 do 121) in trdi, da se uporablja tudi v tem okviru.
Saarbrücken Airport falls within this category of cases, and according to Germany there are no reasons to depart from the general presumption: Saarbrücken Airport is a typical regional airport catering to the needs of the population in the region and the majority of passengers are in fact from the region.
V zvezi z najemno pogodbo iz leta 1997 zatrjuje, da bi bila opredeljena kot obstoječa pomoč, če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da pomeni državno pomoč.
With a view to other airports in the region, especially those located in other Member States, it is argued that the catchment area of Saarbrücken Airport covers Saarbrücken and the surrounding areas, but hardly extends to other Member States.
Če bi Komisija ugotovila, da ta pogodba pomeni nezdružljivo državno pomoč, bi taka odločitev učinkovala samo za prihodnost, ne za preteklost.
Indeed, it is said that only [less than 14 %] of passengers stem from either France […] or Luxembourg […].
V zvezi z najemno pogodbo iz leta 2006 Nemčija trdi, da je ta pogodba pomenila samo spremembo obstoječe pomoči in je ni bilo mogoče opredeliti kot novo pomoč.
Germany considers that the only foreign airports in potential competition with Saarbrücken are Metz–Nancy–Lorraine Airport and Luxembourg Airport.
Poudarja zlasti, da se zakon, na podlagi katerega je bilo mogoče skleniti tako najemno pogodbo, ni spremenil.
These two airports are, however, over an hour’s drive away from Saarbrücken, so that — assuming an airport’s catchment area covers all locations from which that airport can be reached within 60 minutes — their catchment areas only marginally overlap.
Trdi, da bi bila za opredelitev pomoči kot nove pomoči potrebna sprememba zakonodajne podlage.
What is more, the locations in which they do overlap are sparsely populated and said to generate few passengers, while Saarbrücken Airport’s core catchment area does not fall within the catchment area of the mentioned foreign airports.
Nemčija poleg tega zatrjuje, da je bila najemna pogodba iz leta 2006 v skladu s takratnimi tržnimi pogoji.
In addition, it is argued that the profiles of the two mentioned foreign airports and of Saarbrücken Airport are very different: Luxembourg is significantly larger (approximately 1,5 million passengers per annum) and offers more diverse routes, while Metz–Nancy–Lorraine is significantly smaller and offers exclusively scheduled flights within France and charter flights to North Africa Germany maintains that, as regards Luxembourg Airport in particular, no competition exists as the two airports complement rather than substitute each other.
Trdi, da variabilna najemnina ni bila neobičajna in da nič ne kaže na to, da je bil dejanski zaračunani znesek nenavadno nizek.
As regards the neighbouring airports in Germany, Germany submits that Saarbrücken Airport is not in competition with either Frankfurt–Hahn or Zweibrücken.
Poleg tega navaja, da je variabilna najemnina pomenila tudi možnost pridobitve bistveno višjih najemnin kot na podlagi predhodne pogodbe.
As far as the former is concerned, it is asserted that the catchment areas overlap only insignificantly due to the distance between the two airports, that Frankfurt–Hahn is much larger (approximately 3,5 million passengers per annum), and offers almost exclusively international routes by low–cost carriers, while these carriers do not serve Saarbrücken.
Trdi, da se je z najemno pogodbo iz leta 2006 izboljšala sposobnost delovanja družbe FSBG.
Additionally, air freight is important in Frankfurt–Hahn, but plays no role in Saarbrücken.
Nazadnje, Nemčija trdi, da je bilo v interesu družbe FSBesitzG, da družbo Fraport obdrži kot delničarja, saj je vključenost navedene družbe omogočala dostop do znanja in ustvarjala sinergije.
With respect to Zweibrücken, Germany emphasises that while Zweibrücken Airport is, due to its close proximity with Saarbrücken, most likely to be in competition with that airport, the relationship between the two airports is in fact complementary and not competitive.
Vsekakor Nemčija trdi, da čeprav ni na voljo dokumentov, ki bi dokazovali, kako so se najemnine izračunavale, dejanski znesek najemnine ni bil pomemben, saj je tesna povezava med družbama FSBesitzG in FSBG pomenila, da je bil splošni gospodarski učinek nevtralen.
While Zweibrücken does not offer any scheduled flights, but is exclusively used for charter flights, Saarbrücken specialises in scheduled flights for business travellers.
Višja najemnina bi privedla do tega, da bi družba FSBesitzG prejela manj sredstev od družbe vh Saar, medtem ko bi bila nižja najemnina izravnana z večjimi prenosi z družbe vh Saar.
These different profiles are reflected in the respective infrastructure, with Saarbrücken’s higher–quality facilities being typical for airports focusing on scheduled flights.
Kar zadeva izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino, se Nemčija sklicuje na argumente, predstavljene v zvezi s tem v okviru ukrepov splošnega financiranja, in trdi, da se uporabljajo tudi v tem okviru.
In addition, air freight plays a role in Zweibrücken, while the same is not true in Saarbrücken due to the latter’s short runway and ban on night flights.
Nemčija trdi, da so bili popusti za letališke pristojbine, uvedeni leta 2007, ekonomsko razumni, da z njimi ni bila dodeljena selektivna prednost in da niso izkrivljali konkurence ali vplivali na trgovino.
Building on the perceived complementarity between Zweibrücken and Saarbrücken airports, Germany declares that a closer cooperation between the two airports is envisaged.
Preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu
The respective regional governments have already decided to cooperate more closely in the future, envisaging the creation of a joint airport (‘Saar–Palatinate–Airport’) with two locations (Saarbrücken and Zweibrücken).
Po odhodu družbe Hapag Lloyd/TUIFly leta 2006 se je število potnikov na letališču Saarbrücken zmanjšalo za 30 %.
The cooperation should lead to synergies and safe funds.
Po mnenju Nemčije so bili v takih okoliščinah potrebni ukrepi za zagotovitev ustrezne srednje– in dolgoročne uporabe obstoječe zmogljivosti ter ohranitev konkurenčnosti in privlačnosti letališča.
Finally, Germany emphasises the demand for aviation services in the region (both airports taken together already have 750 000 pax), maintaining that only Saarbrücken and Zweibrücken together can properly satisfy this demand, in particular because the other neighbouring airports cannot serve as substitutes.
Predhodni seznam pristojbin se je izkazal za konkurenčno neugodnega, saj je imelo letališče med vsemi letališči v Nemčiji najvišje pristojbine.
Germany stresses that even if the airports in Saarbrücken, Zweibrücken, and Frankfurt–Hahn were found to be in competition with each other, any public support measures would not affect trade between Member States.
Nemčija svojo trditev, da so bili popusti ekonomsko razumni, podpira s trditvijo, da so bili odobreni samo novim letalskim prevoznikom ali za nove proge.