natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany started its comments with further clarifications regarding the context of the investigated measures.
Poudarila je še, da je nemško zvezno upravno sodišče (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) s sodbo z dne 4. aprila 2012 potrdilo prepoved nočnih letov na letališču Frankfurt na Majni, ki je največje nemško vozlišče za zračni tovorni promet.
According to Germany, a master plan for the development of the airport was set up and it was decided to develop a system of two parallel runways.
Nemčija je navedla, da družba FLH ni bila zmožna financirati načrtovanih infrastrukturnih ukrepov z lastnimi sredstvi.
Against this background, Germany asserted that due to its parallel runway system and the relocation of several large air cargo operators, Leipzig/Halle airport had been able to position itself as the second largest air cargo hub in Germany.
Po njenem mnenju se zlasti velike kratkoročne naložbe ne morejo financirati iz lastnih sredstev družbe FLH zaradi znatne razlike med obsegom naložb (225,6 milijona EUR) in letnimi prihodki letališča (ki so leta 2009 znašali 80 milijonov EUR).
In this context, Germany submitted that since 2010 the airport had been able to foster its place as one of the most important air freight transhipment centres in Europe.
POJEM GOSPODARSKE DEJAVNOSTI IN PRISTOJNOST JAVNE POLITIKE
Germany added also that currently 133 companies were present at the airport, employing a total of 5106 people in 2010 (an increase by 14,4 % in comparison to 2009).
Pojem gospodarske dejavnosti in uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za letališko infrastrukturo
In the view of Germany, the airport is therefore a driver for economic development in the region and plays an important role for the regional employment.
Nemčija je najprej opozorila, da se ne strinja z mnenjem Komisije, da je gradnja letališke infrastrukture gospodarska dejavnost.
Germany emphasised that this is also confirmed by an increase in revenue and freight volumes handled at the airport: in the period 2005 to 2009 the revenue generated by FLH rose from EUR 47 million to EUR 80 million.
Zato je trdila, da priglašeni ukrepi ne predstavljajo državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
With regard to cargo volumes, Germany stated that in comparison to other airports, Leipzig/Halle is registering constant growth rates (whereas 101364 tonnes of freight were processed in 2007, this figure rose to 442453 tonnes in 2008, 524084 tonnes in 2009 and 663059 tonnes in 2010).
V zvezi s tem je Nemčija navedla, da se pojem „podjetje“ v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe ne uporablja za letališča, vsaj kar zadeva financiranje letališke infrastrukture.
In order to complement its statement, Germany pointed out that the air cargo volume rose by 18,5 % in 2009 and 26,5 % in 2010.
Poudarila je, da vzpostavitev letališke infrastrukture ne pomeni gospodarske dejavnosti, ampak splošen ukrep prometne, regionalne in gospodarske politike.
According to Germany, a further increase in the cargo volume was expected.
Sklicevala se je na točko 12 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 1994, ki določa, da „[g]radnja ali širitev infrastrukturnih projektov […] predstavlja splošen ukrep gospodarske politike, ki ga Komisija ne more nadzorovati na podlagi pravil Pogodbe o državni pomoči.
In this respect Germany clarified that approximately 820000 tonnes of air cargo were expected to be handled by 2020 [17].
Odločitve o razvoju infrastrukture ne spadajo v področje uporabe tega sporočila“, in trdila, da smernice za letalski sektor iz leta 2005 ne nadomeščajo te točke.
However, Germany submitted that, this forecast will be already met by 2015 [18].
Nemčija je izjavila tudi, da gradnja letališke infrastrukture ne pomeni gospodarske dejavnosti, ker se zasebni sektor navedene dejavnosti ne bi lotil sam.
Moreover, Germany stated that the airport had experienced a gradual increase in passenger numbers in recent years (from 1988854 passengers in 2002 to 2723748 passengers in 2007).
V zvezi s tem je dejala, da naložba nikakor ne more biti donosna, ker stroškov gradnje ni mogoče pokriti z letališko pristojbino, ki se zaračunava uporabnikom letališča.
Although, according to Germany, there has been a decline in passenger traffic since 2007 (only 2352827 passengers in 2010), in the medium- to long-term, Germany expected an increase in passenger traffic up to 4,6 million passengers by 2020.
Tako je po njenem mnenju zato, ker mora te pristojbine odobriti ustrezni upravljavec letališča v posamezni deželi, v kateri se letališče nahaja, in zasebni vlagatelji ne morejo vplivati na odločitve, sprejete na višji ravni.
Germany stated that contrary to many other Union airports, such as the three major German cargo airports, Frankfurt/Main, Cologne-Bonn and Munich, Leipzig/Halle airport has an unrestricted night flight permission for commercial air cargo traffic.
Poleg tega je menila, da iz tega razloga upravljavec letališča ne more prosto določiti teh pristojbin na podlagi gospodarskih vidikov in da so te dejansko določene brez upoštevanja stroškov naložb.
According to Germany, this was one of the reasons why the airport has good prospects for the future.
Površine, dane v najem v komercialne namene, ki ne spadajo med letališke dejavnosti, po mnenju Nemčije niso pomembne.
Germany also pointed out that the German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) confirmed the prohibition of night flights at Frankfurt/Main airport, the biggest German air cargo hub, by judgment of 4 April 2012.
V zvezi s tem je dejala tudi, da so fiksni stroški letališča, namenjeni infrastrukturi, opremi in upravljanju, višji od povprečja.
Germany stated that at Frankfurt/Main airport departures and arrivals were therefore totally prohibited between 23:00 and 5:00.
Zato svobodno delovanje letališč omejujejo stroge pravne obveznosti in pogoji.
Germany submitted also that FLH was not able to finance the planned infrastructure measures from its own resources.
Nadalje je Nemčija menila, da sklicevanja na sodbi v zadevah Aéroports de Paris [19] in Flughafen Leipzig/Halle [20] niso pomembna.
In this context, Germany emphasised that due to the investment backlog stemming from the time of the former German Democratic Republic, the airport had to make investments in a much shorter time than airports located in the Western parts of Germany.
Glede sodbe v zadevi Aéroports de Paris je navedla, da slednja ne obravnava gradnje letališke infrastrukture, ampak obratovanje letališča.
According to Germany, in particular, the significant short-term investments cannot be financed out of FLH’s own resources, as there is a substantial gap between the investment volume (EUR 225,6 million) and the airport’s annual revenues (EUR 80 million in 2009).
Dodala je, da navedena sodba ne vsebuje razlage pojma „podjetja“ v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, ampak zadeva kršitev prepovedi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja v smislu člena 102 Pogodbe.
NOTION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND PUBLIC POLICY REMIT
Glede sodbe Splošnega sodišča v zadevi Flughafen Leipzig/Halle je menila, da ta v sodni praksi nikakor ne vpliva kot precedens, ker je zoper nje mogoča pritožba.
Notion of economic activity and applicability of State aid rules to airport infrastructure
Pristojnost javne politike
Germany first recalled that it did not agree with the Commission’s position that the construction of airport infrastructure constitutes an economic activity.
Nemčija je menila, da četudi bi za financiranje infrastrukturnih ukrepov veljala pravila o državni pomoči, državna pomoč ne bi pomenila pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, ker financiranje infrastrukturnih ukrepov v glavnem pomeni potrebno in sorazmerno povračilo stroškov za izvajanje nalog, ki sodijo med posebne pristojnosti države.
Hence, Germany submitted that the notified measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V zvezi s tem je trdila, da v skladu s smernicami za letalski sektor iz leta 2005 dejavnosti, za katere je običajno pristojna država pri izvajanju svojih uradnih pooblastil kot javni organ, niso gospodarske in ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
In this regard, Germany submitted that the concept of an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty does not apply to airports, at least in regard to financing of airport infrastructure.
Nemčija je dejala je, da je Komisija glede izvajanja nalog, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, razlikovala vsaj med naslednjimi kategorijami ukrepov, povezanih z varnostjo: zaščita zračnega prometa pred zunanjimi grožnjami, kot so ugrabitev letala in druga nasilna dejanja v zračnem prometu, zaščita zračnega prometa pred operativnimi tveganji in zaščita tretjih oseb pred operativnimi nevarnostmi zračnega prometa.
Germany stressed that the establishment of airport infrastructure did not constitute an economic activity, but rather a general transport, regional and economic policy measure.
Po mnenju Nemčije je upravljavec letališča v zvezi z zaščito zračnega prometa pred operativnimi tveganji dolžan prenoviti, posodobiti in razširiti letališko infrastrukturo, da prepreči operativne nevarnosti.
It referred to point 12 of the 1994 Aviation Guidelines which stated that ‘the construction or enlargement of infrastructure projects […] represents a measure of economic policy which cannot be controlled by the Commission under the Treaty rules on State aids.
Dejala je, da tretja kategorija ukrepov običajno zajema zaščito tretjih oseb pred hrupom zrakoplovov in drugimi škodljivimi vplivi na okolje.
Infrastructure development decisions fall outside the scope of application of this communication’ and argued that the 2005 Aviation Guidelines did not replace this point.
V zvezi z različnimi infrastrukturnimi ukrepi je Nemčija trdila, da ti v glavnem pomenijo nadomestilo za izvajanje dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, ker so bile s temi ukrepi tretje osebe zaščitene pred operativno nevarnostjo zračnega prometa.
Moreover, Germany asserted that the construction of airport infrastructure does not constitute an economic activity because a private investor would not engage in that activity.
V zvezi z ukrepi za zmanjšanje hrupa je Nemčija dejala, da bi bilo v okviru postopka za odobritev načrtovanja te ukrepe treba izvesti na približno 10000 stanovanjskih objektih.
In this regard, Germany stated that there is no possibility of the investment being profitable, since it is not possible to recover the construction costs from the users of the airport by means of airport charges.
V zvezi s tem je dejala, da ima letališče Leipzig/Halle bistveno večje stroške kot njegovi konkurenti (v Nemčiji in zunaj Unije).
That is so, according to Germany, because those charges require an authorisation from the relevant airport authority of the respective Land in which the airport is located and private investors have no influence over their level.
Poleg tega je letališče kupilo tudi nepremičnine najbolj prizadetih prebivalcev in jim izplačalo odškodnino.
According to Germany, those charges cannot therefore be fixed freely by the operator in the light of economic considerations, and in fact, they are set without any relation to the investment costs.
Nemčija je še dejala, da je letališče izvajalo nekatere dejavnosti ohranjanja narave, da bi nadomestilo škodo, ki je nastala zaradi njegovih gradbenih dejavnosti.
Areas let for commercial purposes other than airline operation are, in view of Germany, irrelevant.
Trdila je, da je bil namen tega preprečiti ali zmanjšati vpliv hrupa zrakoplovov in gradbenih del na tretje osebe, zato je bila to naloga javne politike.
Germany stated further, in that regard, that airports have higher than average fixed costs relating to infrastructure, equipment and operation.
Po njenem mnenju je zaščita tretjih oseb pred hrupom, zlasti hrupom zrakoplovov, ena od temeljnih uradnih dolžnosti in nalog države.
In addition, their freedom of action is limited by strict legal obligations and conditions.
Nemčija je trdila tudi, da objekt za preskušanje hrupa motorjev, tj. M2, spada v ukrep, ki je v pristojnosti javne politike.
Germany considered further that the references to the Aéroports de Paris judgment [19] and to the Leipzig/Halle judgement [20] were irrelevant.
Dejala je, da se omejitve hrupa, določene v okviru sklepa o odobritvi načrtovanja za gradnjo južne vzletno-pristajalne steze, lahko spoštujejo podnevi (od 6.00 do 22.00 ure) brez zaprtega prostora za preskušanje motorjev.
With regard to the Aéroports de Paris judgment, Germany submitted that the judgment does not deal with the construction of airport infrastructures, but with the operation of an airport.
Vendar mora letališče po njenih navedbah v skladu z dovoljenjem za uporabo z dne 31. julija 2007 preskušanje izvajati v zaprtem prostoru za preskušanje tudi podnevi.
Additionally, Germany considered that the Aéroports de Paris judgment does not deal with the interpretation of the concept of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, but concerns an infringement of the prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 of the Treaty.
Pojasnila je tudi, da se preskušanje motorjev zahteva zaradi ohranjanja varnosti delovanja zrakoplova in bi presegalo omejitve hrupa, če bi se ponoči izvajalo zunaj zaprtega prostora.
According to Germany, even if the financing of infrastructure measures was subject to State aid rules, it would not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty since the financing of infrastructure measures mainly constituted the necessary and proportionate reimbursement of costs for the performance of tasks falling within the prerogative powers of the State.
Ne glede na obseg prometa, ki je predviden v prihodnosti, so bile povezave obstoječih voznih stez že v preteklosti nezadostne, da bi zagotavljale varno in nemoteno upravljanje zračnega prometa.
In this regard, Germany stated that according to the 2005 Aviation Guidelines, the activities that normally fall under State responsibility in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority were not of an economic nature and did not fall within the scope of State aid rules.
Dejala je tudi, da je nova vozna steza pot za dostop gasilcev v nujnih primerih z vzhodne gasilske postaje na severno območje letališča.
Germany claimed that in connection with the performance of tasks falling within the public policy remit, the practice of the Commission distinguished at least between the following categories of security-related measures: the protection of air traffic against external threats, such as hijacking and other acts of violence against air traffic, the protection of air traffic against operational risks and the protection of third parties against operational hazards from air traffic.
Po njenem mnenju je treba upoštevati, da so kljub veljavnosti pravil o državni pomoči nekateri od teh stroškov za vozno stezo povezani z razsvetljavo.
In the view of Germany, with regard to the protection of air traffic against operational risks, the airport operator has the duty to renovate, modernise and expand the airport infrastructure in order to prevent operational hazards.
V zvezi s slednjo je poudarila, da je Komisija v svojem sklepu o zadevi Memmingen [21] že odločila, da razsvetljava pomeni element usmerjanja in nadzora zrakoplovov in se zato lahko uvršča med dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, za katero ne veljajo pravila o državni pomoči.
Germany stated that the third category of measures typically covers the protection of third parties against aircraft noise and other harmful environmental effects.
Po mnenju Nemčije se bo ukrep M4 prav tako izvajal v okviru dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, ker se je zaradi operativne zmogljivosti in varnostnih razlogov zahtevalo, da se zagotovi širokotrupni zrakoplov, ki v določenih klimatskih pogojih vzleta z dovoljeno največjo težo z dodatno razdaljo za vzletanje, vključno z dodatnim območjem za zmanjšanje hitrosti v primeru prekinjenega vzleta.
Regarding the different infrastructure measures at stake, Germany argued that these measures mainly constituted compensation for the performance of activities falling within the public policy remit since the measures protected third parties against operational hazard from air traffic.
Glede ukrepa M5 je Nemčija menila, da je bilo območje za gradnjo vozne steze Victor pravočasno očiščeno v okviru dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, zaradi zahteve, da se na tej vozni stezi zagotovijo varne operacije in preprečijo nesreče, varnostna tveganja in škodljiv vpliv na okolje.
With regard to the noise abatement measures, Germany stated that in the context of the planning approval procedure, noise abatement measures in approximately 10000 dwelling houses would need to be installed.
V nasprotju s Komisijo je menila, da vozna steza Victor ni bila zgrajena, da bi se povečala zmogljivost in posredno promet.
Germany argued that according to the provisions of the recently amended Gesetz zum Schutz gegen Fluglärm (Aircraft Noise Act, ‘FluglärmG’), the noise abatement measures would only cover an area of just 78 km2 with about 3000 dwelling houses and costs amounting to EUR […] million.
Dejala je, da je bila zgrajena izključno zaradi varnosti operacij in iz okoljskih razlogov.
However, according to Germany, FLH did not benefit from this amendment of FluglärmG, and a more strict protection area still applies.
Poleg tega sta bili po mnenju Nemčije novi gasilski postaji zgrajeni v okviru dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, ker se v skladu z določeno prakso Komisije šteje, da ukrepi glede požarne varnosti, zlasti gradnja in upravljanje letaliških gasilskih postaj in nabava ustrezne opreme, spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
In the regard, Germany asserted that Leipzig/Halle airport has to bear significantly higher costs than its competitors (in Germany and outside the Union).
Izpostavila je, da se gradnja gasilskega objekta na nemških letališčih običajno financira z javnimi sredstvi.
In addition, the airport also acquired properties of badly affected residents and paid them compensation.
Nadalje je Nemčija menila, da je bil večnamenski hangar zgrajen v okviru dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnosti javne politike, ker se bo uporabljal samo za skladiščenje zimske delovne opreme in kot zavetišče za ljudi v nujnih primerih.
Furthermore, Germany stated that the airport carried out some nature conservation activities in order to compensate for its building activities.
Pojasnila je, da je zagotavljanje prostorov za zimsko delovno opremo uradna dolžnost države, ker se s tem zagotavlja varno upravljanje letališča pozimi.
Germany argued that this was intended to prevent or reduce the impact of aircraft noise and of the construction works on third parties, and was thus a public policy function.
Poleg tega je dejala, da to letališču omogoča stalno spoštovanje zakonske obveznosti upravljanja letališča.
According to Germany, protecting third parties from noise, particularly aircraft noise, was one of the fundamental official duties and functions of the State.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da je zagotavljanje zavetišča za ljudi v nujnih primerih v splošnem interesu, ker pomeni varovanje človekovega življenja.
Germany also argued that the engine noise testing facility, that is to say M2, constituted a public policy remit measure.
Navedla je določbe Mednarodne organizacije civilnega letalstva (ICAO), po katerih morajo upravljavci letališča zagotoviti prostor za zdravstveno oskrbo poškodovanih oseb in hranjenje trupel v nujnih primerih.
It stated that the noise limits set in the context of the planning approval decision for the construction of the southern runway could be fulfilled during daytime (6:00 to 22:00) without a closed engine testing structure.
Po njenem mnenju lahko tudi večnamenski hangar sprejme potnike, ki zaradi naravnega pojava (kot je bil na primer oblak vulkanskega pepela leta 2010) ne morejo nadaljevati potovanja.
However, according to Germany, pursuant to the operating permit of 31 July 2007, the airport had to run tests in the closed testing structure also during the day.
Nadalje je Nemčija poudarila, da je bila gradnja novega hangarja potrebna, ker širitev večnamenskega hangarja na prejšnji lokaciji ne bi bila mogoča.
Furthermore, Germany explained that the engine test were required in the context of maintaining the operational safety of aircraft and would exceed the allowed noise limits, if performed during the night outside a closed structure.
Kar zadeva ukrep M6, se je Nemčija sklicevala na navedbe v povezavi z ukrepom M5.
Therefore, in the view of Germany the construction of the engine testing facility in the form of a closed building serves to protect local residents against any unacceptable levels of aircraft noise.
Dejala je tudi, da je bila gradnja vozne steze Victor preložena.
Concerning measure M3, Germany argued that the construction of these infrastructure elements falls within the public policy remit since it was carried out in order to protect air traffic against operational hazards.
Po mnenju Nemčije se je širitev območij za odstranjevanje ledu (ukrep M7) prav tako izvedla v okviru uradne naloge države, ker so se te zmogljivosti zahtevale zaradi operativne varnosti in iz okoljskih razlogov.
Regardless of the volume of traffic which is supposed to be handled in the future, the existing taxiway links were already insufficient in the past to guarantee safe and smooth handling of air traffic.
Pojasnila je, da dodatna območja za odstranjevanje ledu niso bila zahtevana za zagotovitev zadostne zmogljivosti v primeru povečanja prometa, ker lahko letališče Leipzig/Halle oskrbi naraščajoči promet tudi brez dodatnih takih območij.
Moreover, Germany stated that the new taxiway is the emergency access route for the fire brigade from the eastern fire station to the northern area of the airport.
V zvezi s tem je navedla, da bi zamude same po sebi negativno vplivale na okolje zaradi porabe kerozena, škodljivih emisij in hrupa.
According to Germany, even if State aid rules were applicable, it has to be kept in mind that some of these costs of the taxiway were related to the lighting.
Nemčija je glede ukrepa M8 trdila, da se z gradnjo heliporta olajša reševanje v zraku na letališču in nasploh.
Regarding lighting, Germany pointed out that the Commission had already decided in its Memmingen decision [21] that lighting constituted an element of aircraft guidance and control and could therefore be classified as activities falling within the public policy remit that falls outside the ambit of State aid rules.
V zvezi z ukrepom M9.1. je Nemčija dejala, da je glede na Uredbo (ES) št. 300/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [22] ponovna gradnja kontrolne točke 1 povsem nujna.
According to Germany, M4 would also be carried out in the fulfilment of activities falling within the public policy remit since operational capacity and safety reasons required to provide wide-body aircraft that operate at their permitted MTOW under certain climatic conditions with additional take-off distance, including an additional deceleration area in case of an aborted take-off.
Poudarila je, da ponovna gradnja spada v pristojnost javne politike in da je njeno financiranje omejeno na stroške, ki pri tem nastanejo.
Regarding measure M5, in the view of Germany, the site clearance in time for the construction of the taxiway Victor had been carried out in fulfilment of activities falling within the public policy remit since the taxiway Victor was required to guarantee safe operation and to prevent accidents, safety risks and adverse environmental impact.
Nemčija meni tudi, da je gradnja funkcionalnega varnostnega objekta (ukrep M9.2) v pristojnosti javne politike in da je njeno financiranje omejeno na stroške, ki pri tem nastanejo.
According to Germany, contrary to the opinion of the Commission, the construction of the taxiway Victor was not intended to increase capacity and indirectly turnover.
Dejala je, da nov funkcionalni varnostni objekt zagotavlja združljivost z Uredbo (ES) št. 300/2008 in je nujen za izpolnjevanje potreb zvezne in regionalne policije, carinske službe ter Nemške meteorološke službe.