natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, Lufthansa and BDF claim that the slightly positive EBITDA was only possible after the release of legacy liabilities, which reduced the operational losses.
Nemčija je zavrnila trditev družbe Lufthansa in združenja BDF, da letališče Frankfurt Hahn ni pomagalo razbremeniti letališča Frankfurt na Majni, in poudarila, da trditve nista utemeljila z dokazi.
Hence, Lufthansa and BDF suggest that the Commission should seek to get access to all of FFHG's annual balance sheets.
Nemčija je zlasti nasprotovala trditvi družbe Lufthansa in združenja BDF, da je vprašljivo, ali so bila z letališčem Frankfurt Hahn ustvarjena številna delovna mesta.
In this regard Lufthansa argued, that in contrast to what Germany has stated, the depreciation of investments did not increase much during the years and cannot be considered very high in comparison to the costs related to marketing support for Ryanair, which are included in ‘other operating costs’, as Table 18 shows.
V zvezi s tem je trdila, da ni mogoče dvomiti, da je letališče Frankfurt Hahn močno vplivalo na gospodarski in družbeni razvoj strukturno šibke regije v njegovi okolici.
Lufthansa and BDF also suggest that the Commission should request the full, non-publicised annual balance sheets of FFHG.
Nemčija je poleg tega zavrnila trditev družbe Lufthansa in združenja BDF, da so imele potniške pristojbine in podpora za trženje diskriminacijske učinke.
Table 18
Zagotovila je, da so bile določene na podlagi ekonomskih razmislekov in izračunov ter da so bile letalskim prevoznikom na voljo enotno in nediskriminacijsko.
Relationship of depreciation and other operating costs
Nemčija je nazadnje zavrnila dvome družbe Lufthansa in združenja BDF v zvezi s pristopom enojnega obračunavanja na letališču Frankfurt Hahn.
Depreciations
Navedla je, da je bil ta sistem ekonomsko upravičen, kot je pokazal preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je opravila družba PwC, in da letalskih prevoznikov ne bi bilo mogoče privabiti na letališče Frankfurt Hahn, če bi bile potniške pristojbine tako visoke, da bi od začetka zagotavljale njegovo donosno obratovanje.
Losses
Kar zadeva trditve družbe Lufthansa in združenja BDF v zvezi s pomočjo, dodeljeno družbi Ryanair na podlagi pogodb z njo iz let 1999, 2002 in 2005, se je Nemčija sklicevala na podrobne preskuse udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki jih je opravila družba PwC, in navedla, da te pogodbe ne morejo pomeniti državne pomoči, saj so v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Other operational costs
Po mnenju Nemčije so izračuni, ki sta jih predložila družba Lufthansa in združenje BDF, neverjetni in temeljijo na napačnih podatkih o številu potnikov.
Lufthansa and BDF also claimed that a study submitted by Germany containing statistics on the effects of FFHG on tourism in Hunsrück and Land Rhineland-Palatinate should not be taken into account as the numbers on passenger growth and job growth around the airport were provided by FFHG and remained unchecked by the authors of the study.
Nemčija je znova poudarila, da letališče, kot je Frankfurt Hahn, ne more že od samega začetka poslovati donosno, ampak je to mogoče šele srednje- do dolgoročno.
Lufthansa and BDF claimed furthermore that it was known, even when the study was conducted, that the numbers given were not realistic.
Nemčija je tudi navedla, da so dvomi družbe Lufthansa in združenja BDF v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali bi bilo mogoče pomoč za družbo Ryanair upravičiti, neutemeljeni.
Furthermore, Lufthansa and BDF submitted that FFHG did not have a clear business model, which could be shown by the changing plans for additions to the airport, such as malls or places for excursions, which did not have anything to do with the operation of the airport.
Poleg tega je trdila, da tudi če bi podpora za trženje pomenila prednost za družbo Ryanair, kar pa je po mnenju Nemčije ni, bi bila celo v takem primeru ta pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi meril iz točke 79 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005.
Furthermore, according to Lufthansa and BDF, the conflicting declarations by FFHG that Frankfurt Hahn airport should have been profitable first by 2005, then by 2008 and then 2013, point in the same direction that no consistent business plan was being followed.
PRIPOMBE GLEDE PRIPOMB DRUŽBE AIR FRANCE IN ZDRUŽENJA AEA
The last prognosis made, namely that Frankfurt Hahn airport should become profitable from 2016 onwards, would therefore also seem doubtful and this prognosis was apparently even based on the assumption that further, substantial investments would be made.
Nemčija je v zvezi s pripombami združenja AEA poudarila, da niso podprte z dokazi.
The origin of such investments was, however, completely unclear according to Lufthansa and BDF.
Poleg tega je trdila, da tudi če so obstajali negativni učinki za konkurenčna letališča, kot je navedlo združenje AEA, se ta niso pritožila glede tega niti niso predložila pripomb k sklepu o začetku postopka iz leta 2008.
Moreover, Lufthansa and BDF stated that, in contrast to what Germany is claiming, PwC has not provided a proper MEOT since its assessment does not take into account the case law of the Court of Justice on at least two points.
OCENA – OBSTOJ POMOČI
Firstly, Lufthansa and BDF referred to the argumentation of Germany that the accumulated losses of FFHG could be compensated by Fraport as its shareholder.
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF argued that it is not important whether losses can be compensated within a group of companies, but whether the individual measures taken as such are measures which a market economy investor would have taken as well (or not) and that this argumentation was therefore unacceptable.
Merila iz člena 107(1) Pogodbe so kumulativna.
Secondly, Lufthansa and BDF submitted that the argumentation in the assessment by PwC was not sufficient to prove that a market economy investor would have taken the same decision since PwC argued, for example concerning the 1999 Ryanair contract, that a reduction of losses by increasing the passenger volume could be achieved.
Za ugotovitev, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, morajo biti torej izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji.
Lufthansa and BDF referred to the case WestLB, according to which a market economy investor would normally ‘seek to achieve the maximum reasonable return on his investment, according to the particular circumstances and the satisfaction of his short-, medium- and long-term interests, even where he is investing in an undertaking of which he is already a shareholder’ [43].
Finančna podpora mora namreč:
Hence a reduction of losses would not suffice for a measure to pass the MEOT and therefore PwC already disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice in this respect, Lufthansa and BDF argued.
biti odobrena s strani države ali iz državnih sredstev;
Also, Lufthansa and BDG pointed out that the assessment submitted on behalf of FFHG did not include any own MEOT as it only referred to the test made by PwC.
dajati prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga;
In addition, Lufthansa and BDF contested the argument made by PwC in relation to the capital increases that long planning horizons of more than 30 years and amortisation of investments over 20 years are normal business practice for infrastructure investments (see recital 103 of the 2008 opening decision).
izkrivljati konkurenco ali ustvarjati možnost izkrivljanja konkurence in
In this respect, Lufthansa and BDF claimed that the comparisons made by PwC to concession contracts at Budapest airport, Da Vinci and Campiano airports, Sparta airport and Belfast City airport were completely indefensible since the situation of none of these airports is even remotely comparable to the situation of FFHG and Frankfurt Hahn airport.
vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
Lufthansa and BDF argued that unlike all of the airports mentioned by PwC, Frankfurt Hahn was a military airport at which the major part of the civil use started only in 1999 and was then supported by infrastructure developments exactly matching Ryanair's needs.
NARAVA POMOČI UKREPOV, ODOBRENIH LETALIŠČU
This is why, according to Lufthansa and BDF, the break-even analysis is not accurate since the costs for the terminal were not taken into account.
UPORABA PRAVIL O DRŽAVNI POMOČI ZA LETALIŠČA
Lufthansa and BDF also argued on the basis of the 2008 opening decision that the overcompensation of security fees clearly constituted State aid.
Nemčija trdi, da je bila pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 sklenjena, preden se je za javno financiranje letališč štelo, da pomeni državno pomoč, in ni bila spremenjena, dokler je ni nadomestila pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004.
In this regard Lufthansa and BDF advanced the argument, firstly, that the security checks had not been publicly procured.
Komisija mora torej najprej ugotoviti, ali so se za pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 ob njeni sklenitvi uporabljala pravila o državni pomoči.
However, Lufthansa and BDF pointed out that the fees at Frankfurt Hahn airport have remained at the same level between 2003 and 2008, whereas at other airports traffic fluctuations could be observed.
Delovanje letališč je bilo organizirano kot del javne uprave in ne kot gospodarska dejavnost.
In contrast to the comments from Germany concerning the legal assessment, Lufthansa and BDF were of the opinion that the aid granted by Fraport to FFHG originated from State resources.
Konkurenca med letališči in upravljavci letališč je bila prav tako omejena in se je razvijala postopno.
According to Lufthansa and BDF, Fraport had expressly admitted in all of its annual balance sheets between 2001 and 2006 that because of a consortium agreement between the public shareholders, it is a ‘dependent, publicly held undertaking’.
Ob upoštevanju teh razmer je Komisija državno financiranje letališč in letališke infrastrukture nekaj časa obravnavala kot splošni ukrep gospodarske politike, za katerega ni mogoče uporabljati pravil o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe.
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF point to a number of indications that the funds of Fraport were State resources according to the judgment in case Stardust Marine [44] and Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC [45].
Vendar pa se je tržno okolje spremenilo.
Furthermore, Lufthansa and BDF considered that the actions of Fraport are also imputable to the State.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi Aéroports de Paris navedlo, da je upravljanje letališča, vključno z zagotavljanjem letaliških storitev letalskim prevoznikom in različnim ponudnikom storitev na letališčih, gospodarska dejavnost [48].
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF referred to indications for imputability such as the fact that FFHG's meeting of shareholders, meaning Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Fraport, agreed to the conclusion of the Ryanair agreements.
Zato od izdaje navedene sodbe (12. decembra 2000) upravljanja in gradnje letališč ni več mogoče obravnavati kot nalogo, ki jo v okviru javne politike izvaja uprava in ne spada na področje nadzora državne pomoči.
Furthermore, Lufthansa and BDG claimed that there is a remarkable temporal relationship between the second capital increase and the application for recognition of a common airport system in 2005.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi Leipzig/Halle Airport potrdilo, da ni mogoče a priori izključiti uporabe pravil o državni pomoči za letališča, saj sta upravljanje letališča in gradnja letališke infrastrukture gospodarska dejavnost [49].
According to Lufthansa and BDF, within two weeks the shareholders of FFHG decided on the capital increase, which resolved FFHG's financial difficulties, and subsequently the application for a common airport was made by Germany.
Ko začne upravljavec letališča opravljati gospodarske dejavnosti, se ne glede na njegov pravni status ali način financiranja šteje za podjetje v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, zato se uporabljajo pravila Pogodbe o državni pomoči [50].
Lufthansa and BDF therefore claimed that the public shareholders made this application possible through the new capital increase.
Družba FFHG se ukvarja z gradnjo, vzdrževanjem in upravljanjem letališča Frankfurt Hahn.
Lufthansa and BDF moreover claimed that no market economy investor would have undertaken to finance and invest into FFHG, since according to the case law of the Court of Justice, a market economy investor is always profit oriented.
V tem okviru zagotavlja letališke storitve in uporabnikom – ponudnikom komercialnega letalstva in uporabnikom nekomercialnega splošnega letalstva – zaračunava za uporabo letališke infrastrukture, s čimer infrastrukturo izkorišča v komercialne namene.
A mere reduction of losses would not be enough to convince a market economy investor and he would not take social or local political considerations into account.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da družba FFHG od datuma sodbe Aéroports de Paris (tj. 12. decembra 2000) opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost.
Lastly, Lufthansa and BDF claimed that the aid granted to FFHG for new infrastructure, as well as the aid granted to Ryanair are incompatible with the internal market under the 2005 Aviation Guidelines as well as under the 2014 Aviation Guidelines.
Vendar Komisija glede na razvoj (kot je predstavljen v uvodnih izjavah 294 do 296) meni, da so javni organi pred sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi Aéroports de Paris lahko upravičeno menili, da ukrepi financiranja v zvezi z letališči ne pomenijo državne pomoči in jih zato ni treba priglasiti Komisiji.
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF claimed that in this case there was no conversion of a military airport, given that the airport had been built 6 years after the end of military use.
Komisija torej ne more na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči dvomiti o posameznih ukrepih financiranja (ki niso bili odobreni na podlagi sheme pomoči [51]), ki so bili dokončno sprejeti pred sodbo Aéroports de Paris.
Furthermore, they argued that Frankfurt Hahn airport did not decongest Frankfurt Main airport and especially that it was doubtful whether the airport helped the development in the region and created jobs there.
Komisija mora torej oceniti, prvič, ali je bila pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 sklenjena pred sodbo Aéroports de Paris (12. december 2000) in, drugič, ali je bil navedeni ukrep pozneje spremenjen.
According to Lufthansa and BDF, this argument could in any case not justify the aid since the job generation started only in 1999, six years after the military use of the airport had ended.
Poleg tega pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 ni bila spremenjena, dokler ni bila nadomeščena s pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004.
Even if one would accept this as a justification, the numbers given by FFHG in its studies would be completely overestimating the effects on the economy and job creation.
Javni organi so torej takrat lahko upravičeno menili, da pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube za kritje letnih izgub družbe FFHG ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Furthermore, Lufthansa and BDF claimed that the rebates granted through the airport charges for passenger numbers of 1 to 3 million or more were discriminatory.
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV
Lufthansa and BDF argued that only Ryanair was eligible for these rebates as it was the only airline generating that many passengers and Frankfurt Hahn airport did not even have the capacity to host another airline which could have provided such passenger numbers.
Komisija glede na premisleke iz uvodne izjave 292 in naslednjih ugotavlja, da so lahko javni organi ob sklenitvi pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 upravičeno menili, da pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube za kritje letnih izgub družbe FFHG ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The granting of marketing support was also discriminatory in the opinion of Lufthansa and BDF as the proportion of the marketing support is dependent on the number of passengers the airline has already brought to the airport and the number of destinations already offered by the airline at the airport.
Povečanje kapitala, ki sta ga izvedli družba Fraport in zvezna dežela, je začelo veljati 9. januarja 2002.
Since these factors do not have any relation to the amount of marketing support for new destinations, this system will provide Ryanair with a much higher amount of marketing support, which according to Lufthansa and BDF is unjustifiable.
Pojem podjetje in gospodarska dejavnost
As far as operating aid for the airport is concerned, according to Lufthansa and BDF emphasised it is obvious that the single-till-approach applied at Frankfurt Hahn airport does not work since overall the revenues are not able to cover the losses.
Kot je bilo analizirano v uvodni izjavi 293 in naslednjih, je treba družbo FFHG od 12. decembra 2000 šteti za podjetje, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Therefore, the compensation of these losses through the financing of FFHG constitutes operating aid.
Državna sredstva in pripisljivost
As concerns aid to Ryanair, Lufthansa and BDF stated that Ryanair has received advantages through the airport charges and the agreements with Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Da bi zadevni ukrepi pomenili državno pomoč, se morajo financirati iz državnih sredstev, odločitev o odobritvi ukrepa pa mora biti mogoče pripisati državi.
Lufthansa and BDF claimed that no market economy investor would have taken these measures since Frankfurt Hahn airport is obviously unable to operate profitably on this basis.
Pojem državna pomoč se uporablja za vsako prednost, ki jo iz državnih sredstev dodeli država sama ali posrednik, ki deluje na podlagi dodeljenih pooblastil [53].
Lufthansa and BDF claimed that through the 2001 and 2006 schedule of airport charges, Ryanair had been given an additional advantage in form of the additional reductions granted in relation to the total volume of passengers departing with the airline.
Za uporabo člena 107(1) Pogodbe so sredstva lokalnih organov državna sredstva [54].
Lufthansa and BDF argued that, as Fraport has to be considered as a publicly held undertaking, FFHG is a publicly owned undertaking and therefore its resources have to be considered as State resources.
S tega vidika Komisija v skladu s svojo ustaljeno prakso meni, da se vsa sredstva javnega podjetja ne glede na to, ali slednje ustvarja izgubo ali dobiček, štejejo za državna sredstva [55].
The advantages granted by FFHG to Ryanair are also imputable to the State, according to Lufthansa and BDF, since the PLTA also comprises a control agreement (‘Beherrschungsvertrag’) and the public shareholders can steer the behaviour of FFHG.
Delež zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška v povečanju kapitala iz leta 2001
In this regard, Lufthansa and BDF argued that it should also be taken into account that the manager of FFHG is always an employee of Fraport.
Zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška je svoj delež v povečanju kapitala iz leta 2001 financirala neposredno iz svojega splošnega proračuna.
Lufthansa and BDF argued that none of the aid to Ryanair is compatible with the internal market.
Zato je mogoče ugotoviti, da se je navedeni ukrep financiral iz državnih sredstev in ga je tudi mogoče pripisati državi.
The Ryanair agreements and the 2001 schedule of airport charges should be assessed directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Delež družbe Fraport v povečanju kapitala iz leta 2001
In this regard, the Commission decision in Chareloi [46] should also be taken into account.
Državna sredstva
On this basis Lufthansa and BDF stated that the aid to Ryanair could not be justified since it constituted partly operating aid, which could not be justified at all, and partly start-up aid, which pursued no legitimate goal and was not granted in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.
Po mnenju Nemčije deleža družbe Fraport v povečanju kapitala iz leta 2001 ni mogoče opredeliti kot financiranje iz državnih sredstev, saj je bila takrat družba Fraport neodvisna delniška družba zasebnega prava, uvrščena na borzo, javni organi pa niso izvajali stalnega nadzora nad njenimi sredstvi.
Lufthansa and BDF furthermore stated that the 2006 schedule of airport charges is not compatible with the 2005 Aviation Guidelines, since the conditions for compatibility in point 79 of the guidelines are not fulfilled in relation to the marketing support and the operating aid granted through the passenger fees.
V skladu s sodno prakso je treba sredstva podjetja šteti za državna sredstva, če lahko država z izvajanjem nadzora nad takimi podjetji usmerja uporabo njegovih sredstev [56].
This is due to the fact that the marketing support is discriminatory, Lufthansa and BDF explained, and that the passenger fees do not have a limited duration and have no incentive effect.
Komisija meni, da je v obravnavanem primeru država v vseh bistvenih trenutkih neposredno ali posredno nadzorovala zadevna sredstva.
Furthermore, in Lufthansa's and BDF's opinion all of the aid granted to Ryanair is of a cumulative nature and hence is not in line with the compatibility conditions.
Komisija opozarja, da je bila družba Fraport takrat, ko je bilo nepreklicno odločeno o povečanju kapitala iz leta 2001, v večinski javni lasti.
Therefore, in their view, it should be considered incompatible with the internal market.
Pred 11. junijem 2001 je bilo 100 % delnic družbe Fraport v lasti javnih delničarjev [57].
ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN AIRLINES (AEA)
Družba Fraport se je 11. junija 2001 uvrstila na borzo in 29,71 % njenih delnic je bilo prodanih zasebnim delničarjem.
The AEA stated that the fact that FFHG has been loss making since its opening and that the announced date for break-even has been constantly postponed shows that the business model is at best questionable and that there is a blatant disrespect of the market economy investor principle.
Po tem je imela zvezna deleža Hessen 32,04 % delnic, družba Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main GmbH (v 100-odstotni lasti občine Frankfurt na Majni) jih je imela 20,47 %, Zvezna republika Nemčija pa 18,32 %.
Concerning the possible aid to Ryanair, AEA was of the opinion that this aid has had negative effects for competing airlines and that the agreements with Ryanair constituted discriminatory measures.
Tako je bilo med 11. junijem 2001 in 26. oktobrom 2005 70,29 % delnic družbe Fraport v lasti javnih delničarjev, tako da jo je bilo mogoče šteti za javno podjetje v smislu člena 2(b) Direktive 2006/111/ES.
According to AEA, these agreements are discriminatory as their conclusion coincides with the beginning of any commercial use of the airport, meaning that the airport was tailor-made for Ryanair's needs.
Prav tako je dejstvo, da je bila večina delnic družbe Fraport v lasti javnih organov, pomenilo, da so ti lahko odločilno vplivali nanjo.
Air France remarked generally that it strongly supported the Commission's action in State aid matters in the aviation sector.
Komisija zato meni, da bi vsaka kapitalska injekcija, odobrena iz sredstev družbe Fraport, pomenila izgubo državnih sredstev in posledično prenos državnih sredstev.
More specifically in relation to the situation at Frankfurt Hahn airport, Air France concurred with the Commission's preliminary assessment that the measures in favour of FFHG and Ryanair constituted State aid.
Pripisljivost državi
Air France believes in particular that the three commercial agreements with Ryanair constitute a clear-cut discriminatory measure as no other airlines operating in the same airport system have ever been offered the same conditions.
Vendar je Sodišče tudi odločilo, da tudi če lahko država nadzoruje javno podjetje in njegovo poslovanje, ni mogoče samodejno predpostavljati, da se ta nadzor v konkretnem primeru dejansko izvaja.
Therefore, Air France concluded that such measures have inevitably been contributing to a significant distortion of competition between intra-EU carriers within the internal market.
Javno podjetje lahko glede na stopnjo samostojnosti, ki mu jo omogoča država, deluje bolj ali manj neodvisno.