natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, France maintains that a subsidy justified by the need to develop an area facing structural difficulties, and which financed only 28 % of the total project cost, could not have affected intra-Community trade.
Kar zadeva prispevke v višini […]* milijonov EUR, ki so jih javni organi nakazali zbornici CCIMP, Francija trdi, da ne pomenijo subvencij za tekoče poslovanje, ampak nadomestilo za storitve splošne službe zbornice CCIMP za letališče Marseille Provence.
It believes that the project financing cannot be called into question as the ERDF eligibility criteria were met.
Pojasnjuje, da ob upoštevanju ločenega računovodstva med službo zbornice za letališče in njenimi drugimi službami, zneski, ki so predmet tega sklepa, ustrezajo prefakturiranjem, povezanim s storitvami splošne službe za letališče, in torej pomenijo prispevke, ki ustrezajo zaračunanim storitvam za obdobje 2001–2010.
France underlines that the financing granted helped to improve road access to the airport infrastructure and remedy the issues preventing the free movement of goods.
Francija poudarja, da potrdilo revizorja zbornice CCIMP potrjuje neobstoj finančnih tokov od osrednjih služb zbornice CCIMP do letališča Marseille Provence.
Compatibility of the subsidy of 26 June 2003 for the extension and restructuring of the airport
Francija je tudi pojasnila delovanje sistema letališke takse, da bi izključila morebitni obstoj državne pomoči v zvezi s tem mehanizmom.
As a preliminary point, France notes that part of the subsidy was for investments in non-economic activities and that only the remainder of the aid granted, i.e. EUR 888457,18, therefore needs to be recognised as compatible with the TFEU rules.
Francija opozarja, da je letališka taksa določena v členu 1609w splošnega davčnega zakonika, ki določa, da se pobira v korist javnih ali zasebnih upravljavcev letališč, da jo mora plačevati vsako podjetje za javni zračni prevoz in da je namenjena izključno povračilu stroškov, ki jih imajo upravljavci letališč za opravljanje državnih nalog, kot so storitve zagotavljanja požarne varnosti, boj proti nevarnostim trkov s pticami in varovanje.
France maintains that this subsidy met a clearly defined objective of general interest involving the economic development of the Bouches-du-Rhône department and Provence.
Nadalje pojasnjuje, da se višina letališke takse določi letno za vsako letališče posebej glede na storitve, ki se zagotavljajo na podlagi veljavnih predpisov, in glede na predvideno gibanje podatkov v zvezi s prometom, stroški in drugimi proizvodi upravljavca.
France believes that the investments concerned were necessary and proportional to that objective as they aimed to increase the number of hourly aircraft movements by renovating runway 1, constructing ramps and creating quick exits.
Upravljavci letališč v zvezi s tem vsako leto pripravijo izjavo o stroških in prometu, ki se pošlje v potrditev lokalnim direkcijam za varnost v civilnem letalstvu.
France maintains that the investments were essential in order to handle additional traffic.
Stopnja se izračuna na ravni osrednje uprave generalne direkcije za civilno letalstvo, pri čemer se upoštevajo skupni rezultati predhodnih let.
As a result, the work carried out increased the runway capacity to 140000 commercial aircraft movements per year.
Francija zavrača ugotovitev, da bi lahko ta mehanizem vključeval elemente državne pomoči.
However, in its response, France cites traffic targets of 113909 movements in 2015 and 122449 movements in 2020.
Na prvem mestu poudarja, da je ta mehanizem splošen in da se za vsa francoska letališča uporablja v skladu z istimi pravili.
The improvements made therefore meant that runway capacity work would not have to be envisaged for the next 10 years, while benefiting from satisfactory medium-term prospects for use according to France.
Nadalje pojasnjuje, da je glede na to, da se višina takse določi na podlagi predvidenih podatkov o stroških in prometu, uskladitev prihodkov in stroškov v enem letu težko popolna, vendar zanika, da bi lahko pri tem šlo za čezmerno nadomestilo.
France confirms that the infrastructure is accessible to all users and maintains that the only commercial airport less than 60 minutes away by road is Avignon Airport.
Francija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da upravljavci letališč dobijo stroške povrnjene šele naknadno na podlagi amortizacije in da se po ugotovitvi pozitivne bilance ta prenese v skupne račune za predhodna leta in se dodeli za kritje finančnih stroškov, ki jih mora plačati upravljavec, ter privede do prilagoditve stopnje v naslednjem letu.
As this is a Category D airport, with which Marseille Provence Airport is not in competition, the aid in question has not affected intra-Community trade.
Francija pojasnjuje, da sistem letališke takse že več let na splošno izkazuje primanjkljaj (približno 110 milijonov EUR konec leta 2010), zaradi česar se del odhodkov za varnost in varovanje, ki jih imajo letališča, ne nadomesti, ampak se pripiše finančnim stroškom v breme države.
As a preliminary point, France notes that part of the subsidy was for investments in non-economic activities and that only the remainder of the aid granted, i.e. EUR 816535, therefore needs to be recognised as compatible with the TFEU rules.
Nazadnje, Francija omenja mehanizem „ponovnega začetka“ v primeru spremembe upravljavca letališča, ki upravljavca obvezuje, da povrne morebitno pozitivno bilanco, ugotovljeno ob koncu njegovega mandata.
France maintains that this subsidy met a clearly defined objective of general interest involving the development of the Marseille metropolis and region, by consolidating national traffic and developing international traffic at Marseille Provence Airport, as well as its rail connection.
V zvezi z letališčem Marseille Provence Francija pojasnjuje, da je skupni primanjkljaj iz sistema letališke takse konec leta 2000 znašal 2,7 milijona EUR, da je bilo ravnotežje ponovno doseženo leta 2010, ko je bila stopnja takse določena na 8,20 EUR, in da je bila taksa leta 2011 znižana (7,774 EUR), da ne bi ustvarjala presežkov.
France asserts that meeting this objective necessitated the work carried out, namely an increase in the capacity of Hall 1 and its upgrading in line with international standards, optimisation of runway 1 and reconstruction of runway 2, and construction of a railway station accessible to the TGV.
DOLOČITEV POTNIŠKIH PRISTOJBIN NA TERMINALIH MP1 IN MP2
France maintains that the increase in passenger traffic proves that these facilities have satisfactory long-term prospects for use.
Francija trdi, da je razlikovanje v stopnjah med terminaloma mp1 in mp2 v skladu z določbami Direktive 2009/12/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [25], in opozarja, da je terminal mp2 na voljo vsem letalskim prevoznikom.
It adds that the planned construction of the railway connection could only increase use of the airport.
Pojasnjuje, da razlika v stopnjah med terminaloma mp1 in mp2 temelji na razliki v osnovnih stroških potniške funkcije teh terminalov.
According to France, the infrastructure is accessible to all users without discrimination.
Francija navaja, da je Conseil d'État v odločbi z dne 26. julija 2011 priznalo, da so bile stopnje, določene za terminal mp1, veljavne, s čimer naj bi posredno potrdilo veljavnost pravil o računovodski razdelitvi stroškov in prihodkov med terminala mp1 in mp2.
It underlines that the allocation of the halls to national, Schengen and international flights is necessary for the smooth management of passenger flows in line with the rules on border control, and that the location of flights at one or other of the terminals does not alter the fact that all airlines are free to access both terminals according to the flights that they operate.
Nazadnje, Francija poudarja, da zaradi načela enojnega obračunavanja, ki se uporablja za letališče Marseille Provence, razliko med neto stroški potniške pristojbine in stopnjo te pristojbine sestavljajo sredstva iz neletalskih dejavnosti zadevnega letališča, ki jih bo preudaren udeleženec upošteval za določitev stopenj, ki se uporabljajo na terminalu.
France notes its belief that the work carried out has not affected intra-Community trade, given the absence of any airport in the same category located within the same area of activity, and it also stresses that the investments covered by the subsidy of 26 July 2004 were not directly intended to increase the airport's capacity.
Francija zanika, da je zbornica CCIMP upoštevala samo dodatne stroške, ki so neposredno povezani z začetkom obratovanja in obratovanjem terminala mp2.
France maintains that the conditions for the granting of the subsidy in question were such that they guaranteed compliance with the principle of proportionality [23].
Francija nadalje podrobno opredeli elemente, na podlagi katerih so bili določeni stroški obratovanja za terminal mp2:
It notes that the public authority's commitment was limited to EUR 1 million over three years.
terminal mp2 zavzema samo 8,9 % skupnih terminalskih površin letališča, zato predstavlja samo 9,8 % skupnega zneska postavke „davki, dajatve in zavarovanja“;
MARKET ECONOMY OPERATOR TEST APPLIED TO TERMINAL MP2
ker se stroški vzdrževanja in servisiranja nanašajo predvsem na popravilo mehanskih delov, kot so dvigala, tekoči trakovi in tekoče stopnice, terminal s poenostavljenimi storitvami, ki nima niti tekočih trakov niti tekočih stopnic, predstavlja samo 5 % postavke odhodkov za „vzdrževanje in servisiranje“;
France maintains that PwC's criticism that deducting a proportion of the investment subsidy from the depreciation of the Terminal mp2 infrastructure distorts the market economy operator test is unfounded.
terminal mp2, ki je nov, bolje izoliran in katerega svetla višina je bistveno nižja od terminala mp1 ter ki zavzema 8,9 % terminalskih površin letališča, predstavlja samo 8,6 % odhodkov za „tekočine“ (energija);
According to France, the accounting rules in force require equipment subsidies attributable to future years to be deducted from the net book values of fixed assets.
stroški čiščenja so terminalu mp2 pripisani v višini 7,8 % ob upoštevanju sorazmernega deleža površin, ki jih zaseda (8,9 %), talnih oblog (plošče na terminalu mp2, tekstilne obloge na terminalu mp1) in enake pogostosti čiščenja na obeh terminalih;
Moreover, the treatment of subsidies has been the same for Terminals mp1 and mp2, which have both benefited from a subsidy amounting to 30 % of the cost of the work on the terminal.
zaradi vzpostavitve terminala mp2 niso potrebni dodatni odhodki za osebje, razen zaposlitve na delovno mesto za koordinacijo terminala (PCA) leta 2007, zaposlitve na delovno mesto za koordinacijo obratovanja (PCE) in zaposlitve v informacijsko pisarno (BI) leta 2010, predpostavka, ki je razvidna iz preglednice, ki jo je predložila Francija, ki je v svojem odgovoru tudi podrobno predstavila razdelitvene ključe, uporabljene za pripis odhodkov iz poslovanja med terminala.
Lastly, if the gross flows had been taken into account in the basis for the passenger charge costs, this would have led the operator to invoice users for costs that it had not actually incurred.
Francija tako trdi, da ker so bili stroški iz poslovanja pripisani ob nespremenjenemu številu zaposlenih, stroški, pripisani terminalu mp2, pomenijo prihranek iz naslova potniške pristojbine za terminal mp1.
More broadly, as France has judged that the subsidy received from the Departmental Council was compatible with French and EU law, it considers that the CCIMP acted as a market economy operator by not including, in the business plan produced, any costs that it may not have actually incurred.
Poleg tega poudarja, da stroški, pripisani terminalu mp2, dejansko ustrezajo dodatnim stroškom, ki bi jih imel terminal mp1, če drugi terminal ne bi bil zgrajen (prilogi 44 in 25).
As regards the inclusion in the business plan of the net book value (NBV) amount of the investments made during the period according to the cash flow taken into account, France asserts that this simply expresses, in accounting terms, the provisions of the schedule of conditions of the 1987 concession agreement.
Francija zanika tudi ugotovitev družbe PwC, v skladu s katero je treba naložbe, ki niso neposredno pripisane terminaloma, pripisati posredno, in podrobno pojasni naložbe, ločene od potniške pristojbine, in njihovo upoštevanje na računovodski ravni (naložbe v ločene stavbe terminalov, ki so predmet ločenih najemniških prihodkov, enkratne naložbe za zamenjavo zastarelih naprav, dodeljene posebnim analitskim centrom, naložbe v cestno mrežo, informatiko, koridorje, pripisane posebnemu analitskemu centru in po potrebi vključene v delež splošnih stroškov).
France maintains that this type of provision is common in concession agreements and seeks to take account of the respective durations of the investment project and concession agreement.
Francija nadalje zanika trditev družbe PwC, da bi bilo treba 10 % amortizacije terminala mp1 pripisati terminalu mp2, ker so potniki terminala mp2 lahko uporabljali naprave terminala mp1.
To justify the value of 7,5 % used to reflect the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), France maintains that this is consistent with the average estimate of the WACC for French airports [24], although it is slightly higher due to the airport's regulated scope and due to the fact that the estimate was made in a period (2004) prior to the referenced estimates.
Trdi, da je zaradi jasne ločenosti infrastrukture na letališču taka uporaba malo verjetna, da bi to pomenilo, da bi se enaka površina pripisala skupni površini terminala mp2, in da bi to zahtevalo, da se komercialni prihodki terminala mp1 v istem deležu pripišejo terminalu mp2, kar bi pomenilo znižanje marže glavnega terminala za […]* milijonov EUR.
France points out that the Mazars consultancy uses, in its study, the same WACC assumption as the operator of Marseille Provence Airport.
V zvezi s tem poudarja, da družba Air France nazadnje ni izvedla svojega projekta prenosa letov „redne proge“ z letališčem Orly na terminal mp2 in da je promet družbe Air France v obdobju 2008–2011 ostal stabilen na obeh destinacijah, na katerih konkurenčne lete s terminala mp2 od leta 2009 zagotavlja družba Ryanair.
France maintains that the Commission has wrongly highlighted the absence of any increase in external costs associated with modulations for objectives of general interest (incentive for the creation of new routes), as these modulations were in fact taken into account, not in the costs, but as discounts on the landing, lighting and parking charges in all the cases studied.
Francija trdi, da so trditve družbe PwC neutemeljene, zato je stopnja v višini 3,84 EUR na potnika neutemeljena, in poudarja, da je višja od stopnje, ki je leta 2007 veljala na terminalu mp1.
France adds that these modulations benefited users of both Terminal mp2 and Terminal mp1 and that their application between 2005 and 2010 reveals that, overall, the discounts granted were balanced between the two terminals (EUR […]* million for Terminal mp1 and EUR […]* million for Terminal mp2).
Francija opozarja, da je potem, ko je Conseil d'État razveljavilo stopnje, ki so se uporabljale na terminalu mp2 za leta 2006, 2007 in 2008, in stopnje, ki so se uporabljale na terminalu mp1 za leto 2008, upravljavec letališča določil nove stopnje za vsak terminal.
France has also submitted a business plan produced ex post for the years 2005-2010, which confirms that the business plans presented in September 2005 and May 2006 were based on forecast figures close to the actual figures, and that the profitability of Terminal mp2 has proved to be better than that envisaged at the time of the investment decision.
Povišanje stopenj na terminalu mp2 je utemeljeno z zahtevo regulatorja (ministrov, pristojnih za gospodarstvo in civilno letalstvo), da se stroški pogodbe o oglaševanju z družbo AMS pripišejo samo temu terminalu, ne da bi bili ključi razdelitve stroškov med terminala postavljeni pod vprašaj.
OPERATING CONTRIBUTION GRANTED TO THE CCIMP
Po navedbah Francije je zbornica CCIMP določila tako višino stopnje, ki je omogočala enako raven kritja stroškov za vsak terminal (tj. […]* %).
With regard to the contributions totalling EUR […]* million paid by public authorities to the CCIMP, France maintains that they do not constitute operating subsidies, but rather compensation for services rendered by the general arm of the CCI to Marseille Provence Airport.
Francija navaja, da Direktiva 2009/12/ES določa, da se višina letaliških pristojbin razlikuje zlasti glede na njihove stroške in da je treba za zagotovitev, da je to razlikovanje v stopnjah dejansko utemeljeno z razliko v stroških, zagotoviti enakovredno raven kritja teh stroškov s potniško pristojbino za vsak terminal.
France explains that, given the accounting separation between the airport arm of the CCI and its other arms, the sums covered by this Decision correspond to the rebilling of services rendered by the general arm to the airport, and therefore constitute contributions corresponding to services billed for the 2001-2010 period.
Dodaja, da je lahko ta stopnja kritja nižja od 100 %, ker sistem enojnega obračunavanja upošteva skupno ekonomsko ravnovesje letališča z vključitvijo prihodkov iz neletalskih dejavnosti.
France highlights that a certificate issued by the CCIMP's auditor confirms the absence of financial flows from the central services of the CCIMP to Marseille Provence Airport.
Francija opozarja, da je skupina Mazars v svojem poročilu ocenila, da je v letu 2007 kritje potniških stroškov s prihodki od potniških pristojbin znašalo […]* % na terminalu mp1 in […]* % na terminalu mp2.
France has also explained how the airport tax system works in order to show that there is no State aid involved in this mechanism.
Francija na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da stopnje potniške pristojbine na terminalu mp2 ne morejo pomeniti gospodarske prednosti v korist letalskega prevoznika v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ker so določene glede na stroške, povezane z izgradnjo in obratovanjem terminala mp2, ker je razlika med potniškimi pristojbinami za uporabo vsakega od terminalov objektivna, pregledna in utemeljena s stroški, pripisanimi vsakemu terminalu, in ker je razlikovanje v tem okviru izrecno določeno s členom 10 Direktive 2009/12/ES.
Aerodrome operators therefore produce an annual declaration of costs and traffic, which is sent to the local civil aviation safety directorate for validation.
ZNIŽANJA PRISTOJBIN ZA ODPRTJE NOVIH POVEZAV
The tax is calculated by the national government's Directorate-General for Civil Aviation, based on the cumulative results from previous years.
Francija najprej trdi, da prilagoditve stopenj, odobrene letalskim prevoznikom, ki so predmet ocene Komisije v uvodnih izjavah od (116) do (137) sklepa o začetku postopka, v Franciji obstajajo na vseh državnih letališčih in številnih decentraliziranih letališčih.
France disputes the finding that this mechanism could involve elements of State aid.
Dodaja, da so ti ukrepi namenjeni spodbujanju odprtja novih zračnih povezav.
First of all, it underlines that this general system is applicable to all French airports according to the same rules.
Ustrezali naj bi cilju splošnega interesa, povezanemu z izboljšanjem oskrbe in povezljivosti ozemlja, ureditvijo ozemlja in povezovanjem evropskega trga.
It further states that, given the fact that the tax rate is set according to forecast cost and traffic figures, it is difficult to ensure that the tax revenue perfectly matches the costs in any given year, but disputes that there may be overcompensation.
Po mnenju Francije mora Komisija navedeni cilj splošnega interesa upoštevati pri svoji analizi združljivosti tako dodeljenih pomoči z evropskim pravom.
France points out in this respect that airport operators are reimbursed for costs only ex post according to the depreciation charge and that, when a positive balance is recorded, this is added to the cumulative accounts from previous years and carries financial charges payable by the operator, which gives rise to a tax adjustment in the following year.
Francija trdi tudi, da prilagoditve stopenj odobri vsako leto sama v okviru postopka odobritve, ki se uporablja za vsa državna letališča in omogoča zagotavljanje nediskriminatornosti ukrepov.
France notes that the airport tax system has been in overall deficit for a number of years (by around EUR 110 million at the end of 2010), meaning that part of the safety and security costs borne by airports is not compensated, with this part being allocated to financial costs payable by the State.
Trdi, da postopek letne odobritve stopenj tako zadostuje za izpolnitev zahteve, da je na ravni države članice določen mehanizem pravnih sredstev za odpravo vsakršne diskriminacije pri dodeljevanju pomoči, ki je eno od meril za združljivost obravnavane pomoči.
France underlines that tax increases occurring ex post have to take account of the effects on airlines, which prevents the deficit from being clawed back too quickly.
Francija opozarja, da je z nacionalnim pravom (člen R.224-2-2 zakonika o civilnem letalstvu), ki uvaja možnost prilagoditev stopenj, subjektu, pristojnemu za določitev stopenj, naloženo, da opredeli kazalnike spremljanja, ki ustrezajo zastavljenemu cilju splošnega interesa.
Lastly, France refers to the ‘reset’ mechanism that applies if an airport operator changes, which requires the operator to reimburse any positive balance recorded at the end of its term.
Trdi, da predvideni kazalniki spremljanja omogočajo, da se vsako leto prepriča, ali se ukrep dobro izvaja in ali ga je morebiti treba prilagoditi, ter da zadostujejo za izpolnitev merila združljivosti pomoči, povezanega z obstojem mehanizma sankcij, če prevoznik ne bi upošteval prevzetih obveznosti do letališča.
With regard to Marseille Provence Airport, France states that the cumulative deficit in the airport tax system was EUR 2,7 million at the end of 2000, that the balance was restored in 2010 with a tax rate set at EUR 8,20 and that the rate for 2011 was adjusted downwards (EUR 7,774) so that a surplus was not generated.
Francija pojasnjuje, da so bili rezultati prilagoditev stopenj od leta 2005, začetka izvajanja tega mehanizma, redno predstavljeni v gradivu za sestanke odbora Cocoéco, kar dokazuje javno naravo odobrenih ukrepov pri predstavnikih uporabnikov letališča in zadostuje za izpolnitev merila združljivosti pomoči, povezanega z javnim obveščanjem o zadevnih ukrepih.
SETTING OF PASSENGER CHARGES FOR TERMINALS MP1 AND MP2
Francija poudarja, da so obravnavane prilagoditve stopenj v skladu z določbami Direktive 2009/12/ES, s katerimi je državam članicam dovoljeno, da uvedejo prilagoditve letaliških pristojbin iz razlogov javnega in splošnega interesa.
It explains that this differentiation in charges between Terminals mp1 and mp2 is due to the underlying cost difference between the passenger functions of these terminals.
Poudarja, da v francoskem pravu obstajajo še druge prilagoditve stopenj iz razlogov splošnega interesa, zlasti iz okoljskih razlogov, kot je prilagoditev pristajalne pristojbine glede na kategorijo zrakoplova in obdobje dneva ob upoštevanju hrupa.
France states that, in its decision of 26 July 2011, the Council of State accepted that the charges for Terminal mp1 were valid, which, according to France, therefore means that it incidentally accepted the validity of the accounting rules allocating the costs and revenues between Terminals mp1 and mp2.
Francija zanika, da taki ukrepi pomenijo zagonsko pomoč, in trdi, da je njihov namen internalizirati nekatere elemente javnega interesa (nadomestilo za okoljsko škodo, izboljšanje povezljivosti ozemelj itd.), ki drugače ne bi bili upoštevani v stopnji pristojbin.