natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Those minutes show that Fraport was being used as a vehicle by Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Land Hessen in order to pursue regional and structural political goals, such as creating more jobs in the region.
Poleg tega preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu za povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 ter pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 temelji na pričakovanju precejšnje rasti, kar zadeva letne finančne rezultate družbe FFHG (glej preglednico 23).
Since that resolution required a majority of votes representing at least three quarters of the authorised capital taking part in the vote, and the public authorities held 100 % of the shares at the time (see recital 305), that resolution was effectively taken by the public authorities.
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004
Therefore, through the political involvement of the two Länder, directly on a political level and indirectly through the supervisory board and as the public shareholders of Fraport, Fraport was involved with FFHG and signed the 2001 PLTA for taking over the losses of FFHG until at least 2005.
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001
Furthermore, §13 of FFHG's articles of association [71] stated that until 31 December 2027 any sale of shares by one of the shareholders would have to be authorised in writing by the other shareholders.
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001 – letne spremembe v %
Since FFHG only had two shareholders at that time, Fraport and Land Rhineland-Palatinate, this meant that Fraport needed the agreement in writing from Land Rhineland-Palatinate in order to sell its shares.
Poročilo družbe PwC, 24. oktober 2008, str. 45, in ocena Komisije [98]
Already in 2001, when the 2001 capital increase was discussed, it appeared that the management of FFHG was in direct negotiations with Land Hesse and Land Rhineland-Palatinate [72].
Vendar se socialni in regionalni dejavniki pri preskusu udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu ne morejo upoštevati.
It should be noted that Land Hesse was at that point in time not yet FFHG's shareholder, but a shareholder of Fraport (with a 45,2 % shareholding).
Komisija glede na te posebne dejavnike v zvezi z odločitvijo zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška o dokapitalizaciji družbe FFHG (uvodne izjave 376 do 380) meni, da povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, ni bilo v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu in da je bila z njim družbi FFHG dodeljena prednost.
Against that political and legal background, it then became evident in January 2001 [73] that further investments into FFHG were urgently needed in order to allow FFHG to become profitable.
Uporaba preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu – zvezna dežela Hessen
Moreover, Land Rhineland-Palatinate directly induced Fraport to adopt the 2001 capital increase.
Nemčija je poudarila, da je ta razvoj omogočal celovito izkoriščanje obstoječih priložnosti za rast v okviru dovoljenja letališča Frankfurt Hahn za 24-urno obratovanje v povezavi s predvideno uvedbo letališkega sistema med letališčema Frankfurt na Majni in Frankfurt Hahn.
In a proposal for the supervisory board's meeting from 20 June 2001, it is noted that, in view of the capital increase of EUR 27 million in connection with the development of Frankfurt Hahn airport, the shareholder Land Rhineland-Palatinate had insisted that the investments to be financed by the 2001 capital increase were the condition for the continuation of the public infrastructure investments, such as for the construction of the road leading towards Frankfurt Hahn airport amounting to approximately EUR […] million.
Poleg tega je lahko zvezna dežela Hessen s sodelovanjem v povečanju kapitala iz leta 2004 nadalje podprla razvoj zračnega prometa na območju Rhein-Main.
In that regard, the committee on the acquisitions of Fraport's supervisory board noted in a meeting on the 2001 capital increase, dating from 23 November 2001, so less than a month before the supervisory board approved the 2001 capital increase, that Fraport could not disengage itself from FFHG at that time, since it was ‘not to be expected that Land Rhineland-Palatinate would agree to that’ [74].
Prvič, Komisija ugotavlja, da zvezna dežela Hessen ni pripravila posebnega predhodnega izračuna donosnosti.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the 2001 capital increase is imputable to the State.
Poleg tega pri izvedbi preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu ni mogoče upoštevati razlogov zvezne dežele za naložbo v letališče Frankfurt Hahn, kot so razvoj zračnega prometa na območju Rhein-Main ali drugi pomembni preudarki socialne in strukturne politike.
Economic advantage
Komisija glede na te posebne dejavnike v zvezi z odločitvijo zvezne dežele Hessen, da postane delničarka družbe FFHG (uvodne izjave 383 do 384), meni, da povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla zvezna dežela Hessen, ni bilo v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu in da je bila z njim družbi FFHG dodeljena prednost.
An advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty is any economic benefit which an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, that is to say, in the absence of State intervention [75].
Komisija glede na navedene premisleke ugotavlja, da je s povečanjema kapitala iz leta 2004, ki sta ju izvedli zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen, družbi FFHG dodeljena prednost.
Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, not the cause nor the objective of the State intervention [76].
Ker sta bili povečanji kapitala iz leta 2004, ki sta ju izvedli zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen, izvedeni samo v korist družbe FFHG, sta ta ukrepa torej po definiciji selektivna v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Whenever the financial situation of the undertaking is improved as a result of State intervention, an advantage is present.
Iz istih razlogov, kot so predstavljeni v uvodni izjavi 360 in naslednjih, Komisija meni, da je lahko vsaka selektivna gospodarska prednost, dodeljena družbi FFHG, izkrivljala konkurenco in vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
Furthermore, ‘capital placed directly or indirectly at the disposal of an undertaking by the State in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions cannot be regarded as State aid’ [77].
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004, ki sta ga družbi FFHG odobrili zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
In this case, in order to determine whether the 2001 capital increase grants an advantage to FFHG that it would not have received under normal market conditions, the Commission has to compare the conduct of the public authorities providing the direct investment grants and capital injections to that of a MEO who is guided by prospects of profitability in the long-term [78].
Pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004, na podlagi katere je družba Fraport prevzela vse izgube, nastale družbi FFHG med letoma 2004 in 2009, ter povečanja kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla družba Fraport, ni mogoče pripisati državi.
The assessment should leave aside any positive repercussions on the economy of the region in which the airport is located, since the Court has clarified that the relevant question for applying the Market Economy Operator ('MEO') principle is whether ‘in similar circumstances a private shareholder, having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional-policy and sectoral considerations, would have subscribed the capital in question’ [79].
Ker eno od kumulativnih meril iz člena 107(1) Pogodbe ni izpolnjeno, Komisija meni, da pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 ter povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla družba Fraport, ne pomenita državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
In Stardust Marine the Court stated that, ‘[…] in order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken in order to assess the economic rationality of the State's conduct, and thus to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation.’ [80].
Tudi če bi pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 ter povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 pomenila državno pomoč, bi bila ta pomoč združljiva na podlagi premislekov, predstavljenih v oddelku 10.
Furthermore, the Court declared in the EDF case that, ‘[…] for the purposes of showing that, before or at the same time as conferring the advantage, the Member State took that decision as a shareholder, it is not enough to rely on economic evaluations made after the advantage was conferred, on a retrospective finding that the investment made by the Member State concerned was actually profitable, or on subsequent justifications of the course of action actually chosen.’ [81].
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 293, čeprav je treba družbo FFHG šteti za podjetje v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, je treba spomniti, da niso vse dejavnosti lastnika in upravljavca letališča nujno gospodarske [99].
In order to be able to apply the MEO principle, the Commission has to place itself at the time when the decision to increase the capital of FFHG was taken.
Sodišče [100] je razsodilo, da dejavnosti, ki običajno spadajo v pristojnost države pri izvrševanju njenih uradnih pooblastil kot javnega organa, niso gospodarske in ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
Also, the Commission must in principle base its assessment on the information and assumptions which were at the disposal of FFHG's public shareholders at the time when the decision regarding the financial arrangements at stake was taken.
Take dejavnosti lahko vključujejo na primer varnost, kontrolo zračnega prometa, dejavnosti policije, carino itd. Financiranje mora biti strogo omejeno na nadomestilo za stroške, ki nastanejo zaradi teh dejavnosti, in se ne sme uporabiti za financiranje drugih gospodarskih dejavnosti [101].
The Commission recognises that it may be difficult for the relevant Member State and for the operators concerned to provide full contemporaneous evidence in respect of financial arrangements concluded many years ago and will take that into account when applying the criterion at stake in the present case.
Zato financiranje dejavnosti, ki spadajo na področje javne politike, ali infrastrukture, ki je neposredno povezana z navedenimi dejavnostmi, na splošno ne pomeni državne pomoči [102].
Germany argues that FFHG's shareholders based their decision to inject additional capital on several documents drawn up by FFHG, Fraport and external advisers, showing that the decision was justified.
Dejavnosti na letališču, kot so kontrola zračnega prometa, policija, carina, gasilci, dejavnosti, nujne za varovanje civilnega letalstva pred dejanji nezakonitega vmešavanja, in naložbe v zvezi z infrastrukturo in opremo, potrebno za izvajanje navedenih dejavnosti, se na splošno štejejo za negospodarske [103].
While it is true that a long-term plan 2001-2015 for investments into FFHG was drawn up, at the time of the 2001 capital increase the investment was considered by Fraport's consultants BCG and SD as involving high risks, because FFHG would reach an annual profit of EUR […] under disproportionately high growth assumptions only in 2015.
Vendar javno financiranje negospodarskih dejavnosti, ki so tesno povezane z izvajanjem gospodarske dejavnosti, ne sme povzročiti neupravičene diskriminacije med letalskimi prevozniki in upravljavci letališča.
In that context, several observations can be made concerning the timing of the 2001 capital increase and the available information at the time this measure was decided by Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Fraport.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je namreč prednost zagotovljena, kadar javni organi prevzamejo breme stroškov, ki jih imajo podjetja pri izvajanju gospodarskih dejavnosti [104].
The decision to inject additional capital into FFHG was taken against the background of the worsening financial situation of the airport in 2001.
Če je torej v nekem pravnem sistemu običajno, da letalski prevozniki ali upravljavci letališča krijejo stroške nekaterih storitev, medtem ko nekaterim letalskim prevoznikom ali upravljavcem letališča, ki zagotavljajo enake storitve po pooblastilu istih javnih organov, ni treba kriti teh stroškov, imajo lahko zadnjenavedeni prednost, čeprav te storitve same po sebi veljajo za negospodarske.
In January 2001, a report on the economic situation of FFHG was presented.
Zato je treba opraviti analizo pravnega okvira, ki se uporablja za upravljavca letališča, da se ugotovi, ali morajo v tem pravnem okviru upravljavci letališča ali letalski prevozniki kriti stroške zagotavljanja nekaterih dejavnosti, ki bi lahko bile same po sebi negospodarske, vendar so neločljivo povezane z izvajanjem njihovih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
This report concluded that, even though the preliminary goals which Fraport had set itself for FFHG had been reached swiftly and the passenger numbers were increasing, the overall economic situation was declining dramatically since two of FFHG's major clients (Malaysian Airlines Cargo and MNG Airlines) shifted their activities from, or reduced their activities at, Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Nemčija je navedla, da je treba za stroške, ki izhajajo varnostnih pregledov v skladu s členom 8 Luftsicherheitsgesetz (zakon o varnosti v zračnem prometu, v nadaljnjem besedilu: LuftSiG), šteti, da spadajo na področje javne politike.
Against this background, Fraport mandated BCG and SD to develop a strategy for FFHG.
Komisija se strinja, da je mogoče za ukrepe v skladu s členom 8 LuftSiG načeloma šteti, da pomenijo dejavnosti, ki spadajo na področje javne politike.
BCG's report shows that even in the event of disproportionate growth no profitability of the investments into FFHG could be expected until 2015.
Kar zadeva stroške izvajanja takih ukrepov, Nemčija očitno meni, da bodo vse nosili ustrezni javni organi.
Such growth assumptions were also confirmed as unrealistic by Interplan [82] [83].
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da se v skladu s členom 8(3) LuftSiG lahko povrnejo samo stroški, povezani z zagotavljanjem in vzdrževanjem prostorov in objektov, ki so potrebni za izvajanje navedenih dejavnosti v skladu s členom 5 navedenega zakona.
Moreover, BCG stated in its report that under realistic growth assumptions no profitability of the investments undertaken could be expected.
Vse druge stroške, ki vključujejo zlasti stroške varnostnih pregledov, mora kriti upravljavec letališča.
To support this, BCG calculated the Net Present Value (NPV) of the investment as summarised in Table 19.
Kolikor je bila torej družba FFHG z javnim financiranjem, ki ji je bilo dodeljeno, razbremenjena stroškov, ki bi jih običajno morala kriti v mejah, določenih s členom 8(3) LuftSiG, navedeno javno financiranje ni izvzeto iz pregleda na podlagi pravil EU o državni pomoči.
Table 19
Državna sredstva in pripisljivost državi
BCG's profitability calculation of investments into FFHG [84]
Ker v tej zadevi zvezna dežela ni samo prenesla prihodkov, pobranih od letalskih prevoznikov za varnostne preglede, na družbo FFHG, so bila zagotovljena sredstva dodeljena iz proračuna zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška.
Assumptions [85]
Zato Komisija meni, da se financirajo iz državnih sredstev in jih je tudi mogoče pripisati državi.
NPV [86] (in EUR)
Komisija ugotavlja, da se je z zadevnimi ukrepi kril delež stroškov, ki so družbi FFHG nastali v okviru njene gospodarske dejavnosti.
20 % growth as from 2005
Upravljavec letališča mora običajno kriti vse stroške, povezane z gradnjo in upravljanjem letališča (razen tistih stroškov, ki spadajo na področje javne politike in jih upravljavcu letališča v skladu z veljavnim pravnim okvirom običajno ni treba kriti).
10 % growth as from 2005
Zato je s kritjem dela teh stroškov družba FFHG razbremenjena bremena, ki bi ga običajno morala nositi, in ji je torej zagotovljena gospodarska prednost.
7 % growth as from 2005
Ker so bili zadevni ukrepi odobreni samo družbi FFHG, jih je treba opredeliti kot selektivne po naravi.
The overall amount of the necessary investments was estimated to be up to EUR […] million and would have involved the extension of the runway, taxiways, aprons and other infrastructure measures.
Iz istih razlogov, kot so predstavljeni v uvodni izjavi 360 in naslednjih, Komisija meni, da lahko vsaka selektivna gospodarska prednost, dodeljena družbi FFHG, izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
However, as stated by BCG, no detailed assessment underpinning this considerable investment plan was conducted.
Komisija glede na premisleke iz uvodne izjave 392 in naslednjih meni, da javno financiranje, odobreno družbi FFHG, v obsegu, v katerem so plačila zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška za varnostne preglede presegala prihodke, pobrane od letalskih prevoznikov, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
For these reasons, BCG considered that the investment involved high risks and recommended to share these risks with an additional investor or to consider selling Fraport's share in FFHG.
UKREP 6: NEPOSREDNA NEPOVRATNA SREDSTVA ZVEZNE DEŽELE PORENJE – PFALŠKA
Germany submitted a MEOT conducted by PWC to justify the market conformity of the 2001 capital increase.
Uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za javna nepovratna sredstva, o katerih je bilo odločeno pred letom 2000, in pojem podjetje
That document does, however, not support Germany's argument that FFHG's shareholders acted like prudent investors as assessed in recital 348 and following.
Iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 293 in naslednjih, je treba družbo FFHG od 12. decembra 2000 šteti za podjetje v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The Commission takes note of the long-term business plan drawn up by Fraport's SD in 2001, which served as the basis for the MEOT conducted by PWC in 2006 and 2008, respectively.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da je zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška leta 2001 družbi FFHG dodelila […] EUR, da bi podprla nekatere od njenih infrastrukturnih naložb.
Status quo: no further investments to be undertaken by Fraport;
Iz istih razlogov, kot so predstavljeni v uvodni izjavi 293 in naslednjih, Komisija meni, da so lahko javni organi za nepovratna sredstva (kot so opisana v uvodni izjavi 405), o katerih je bilo odločeno pred sodbo Sodišča Aéroports de Paris, upravičeno menili, da financiranje ne pomeni državne pomoči in da ga zato ni treba priglasiti Komisiji.
Alternative scenario 1: limited investments into the extension of the runway under very pessimistic traffic forecasts; and
Iz tega sledi, da Komisija o takih nepovratnih sredstvih ne more dvomiti na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
Alternative scenario 2: with identical investments, but best case traffic forecasts.
Nemčija je poleg tega navedla, da je zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška delno financirala stroške osebja za varnostne preglede v letih 2001 ([…] % skupnih stroškov), 2002 ([…] %), 2003 ([…] %) in 2004 ([…] %).
However, PWC did not calculate the NPV of the different scenarios in order to allow for a comparison.
Kot je ocenjeno v uvodni izjavi 397 in naslednjih, je mogoče za izvajanje varnostnih pregledov (v skladu s členom 8 LuftSiG) načeloma šteti, da pomeni dejavnost, ki spada na področje javne politike.
The NPV established in Table 20 shows that in all scenarios the NPV2001-2015 would be negative.
Vendar se lahko v skladu s členom 8(3) LuftSiG povrnejo samo stroški, povezani z zagotavljanjem in vzdrževanjem prostorov in objektov, ki so potrebni za izvajanje navedenih dejavnosti v skladu s členom 5 navedenega zakona.
Also, the projections underlying PWC's profitability assessment show that the alternative scenarios would only under very optimistic traffic forecasts, assuming a disproportionately high growth, result in losses that are smaller (by EUR […] million) than in the status quo scenario (without taking into account that an additional investment of EUR […] million would be required).
Vendar je v tej zadevi zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška prevzela stroške za varnostne preglede, ki jih mora kriti upravljavec letališča.
In the worst case scenario, the NPV of the alternative scenario would even be higher (by EUR […] million) than in the status quo scenario.
Zato javna podpora, dodeljena družbi FFHG na podlagi financiranja stroškov osebja za varnostne preglede, ni izvzeta iz pregleda na podlagi pravil EU o državni pomoči.
Table 20
Komisija meni, da se neposredna nepovratna sredstva financirajo iz državnih sredstev in jih je tudi mogoče pripisati državi.
Profitability assessment of the 2001 capital increase [88][…]
Upravljavec letališča mora običajno kriti vse stroške, povezane z gradnjo in upravljanjem letališča, vključno s stroški varnostnih pregledov, tako da je s kritjem dela navedenih stroškov družba FFHG razbremenjena bremena, ki bi ga običajno morala nositi, in ji je zagotovljena gospodarska prednost, ki je pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji navadno ne bi pridobila.
Source:
Poleg tega zadevni ukrepi niso bili vračljivi in niso ustvarili donosov iz naložb.
PWC Report, 24 October 2008, p. 39 and Commission's assessment [89].
Nemčija ni predložila dokazov, da so bila neposredna nepovratna sredstva družbi FFHG dana na voljo po tržnih pogojih.
Germany further argued that an exit of Fraport had been considered, but was not possible until at least 2005, therefore this was not considered as an option.
Poleg tega se ne opira na načelo udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu.
However, even though Fraport was bound by the 2001 PLTA, the NPV of the losses expected to be incurred from 2001 to 2005 amounted to EUR […] million.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila z zadevnimi ukrepi, ki jih je zvezna dežela družbi FFHG odobrila po 12. decembru 2000, družbi FFHG dodeljena gospodarska prednost.
Hence, the Commission considers that a coverage of losses of FFHG until 2005 without any further investments would have been less costly than investing further into the airport.
Komisija ob upoštevanju premislekov iz uvodne izjave 392 in naslednjih ugotavlja, da so javni organi o neposrednih nepovratnih sredstvih v višini […] milijonov EUR (leta 1997–2000) in […] milijonov EUR (plačana leta 2001) nepreklicno odločili pred sodbo Aéroports de Paris, zato so lahko upravičeno menili, da ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Moreover, it has to be also recalled that the profitability forecast of Fraport's investment into FFHG deteriorated substantially after the decision to conclude the 2001 PLTA was taken (namely after August 1999).
Komisija meni, da javno financiranje, odobreno družbi FFHG v višini 1,93 milijona EUR (leta 2001–2004), pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Accordingly, the NPV of FFHG's annual results for the same period decreased by approximately EUR […] million.
Razmerje med povečanjem kapitala in finančnimi ureditvami, že izvedenimi v korist družbe FFHG
Table 21
Pred oceno, ali povečanje kapitala v višini […] milijonov EUR v korist družbe FFHG pomeni državno pomoč, je treba ugotoviti, ali bi bilo treba to povečanje kapitala in finančne ureditve, predhodno izvedene v korist družbe FFHG, šteti za ločene ukrepe ali en sam ukrep.
Comparative assessment of the annual results of FFHG under the business plan for the 2001 PLTA versus the 2001 capital increase [90][…]
Nemčija je trdila, da je povečanje kapitala namenjeno refinanciranju posojil za naložbe v infrastrukturo, k financiranju ali refinanciranju katerih so se javni delničarji nepreklicno zavezali med letoma 1997 in 2012, vendar še niso bila plačana.
PWC Report, 24 October 2008, p. 32 and 39 and Commission's assessment [91].
Komisija zato meni, da je treba kapitalski vložek v višini […] milijonov EUR oceniti ob upoštevanju predhodnih zavez, ki so jih javni delničarji imeli, ko je bilo odločeno o teh naložbah.
The Commission further observes that according to the minutes of the supervisory board meeting on 16 November 2001 the profitability of the 2001 capital increase was discussed.
Komisija v zvezi s tem in glede na premisleke iz oddelka 8.1.1 ugotavlja, da je družba FFHG od datuma sodbe Aéroports de Paris (tj. 12. decembra 2000) opravljala gospodarsko dejavnost in da je podjetje v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.