natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission noted in this respect that the charges imposed by FFHG on Ryanair did not cover FFHG's full costs and therefore appeared to confer an advantage to Ryanair.
Nemčija je poleg tega navedla, da državna sredstva niso bila uporabljena.
The Commission also pointed out that the costs of the new terminal of approximately EUR […] million had not been taken into account in the MEOT submitted by Germany.
V zvezi s tem je pojasnila, da izgube, ki jih je prevzela družba Fraport, niso bremenile proračuna države.
As a preliminary observation, the Commission rejected Germany's argument that in 1999 HHN was anyway in need of a new passenger terminal, and that the capacity of 1,25 million passengers per year was far above the expected passenger volume to be generated by Ryanair, since Ryanair was the only major passenger air carrier at Frankfurt Hahn airport in 1999.
Poleg tega je trdila, da odločitev, ki jih je sprejela družba Fraport, ni bilo mogoče pripisati Nemčiji, saj javni delničarji niso mogli izvajati odločilnega vpliva.
For those reasons, the Commission raised doubts as to the MEOT handed in by Germany.
V zvezi s tem je poudarila, da bi bilo treba v vsakem posameznem primeru preveriti, ali je sredstva družbe dejansko nadzorovala država.
The Commission also considered that the 1999 Ryanair agreement is a selective and specific measure as only Ryanair received such conditions in the negotiations with FFHG, and that the measure concerned distorts or threatens to distort competition within the market of airlines and affects trade between the Member States.
Po mnenju Nemčije dejstvo, da je bila večina delničarjev javnih, ne zadostuje za sklepanje, da pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 vključuje državna sredstva.
Therefore, the Commission took the preliminary view that, since it appeared that it did not fulfil the MEOT and was imputable to the State, the 1999 Ryanair agreement would constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Po navedbah Nemčije delničarji v primeru nemške delniške družbe, tj. Aktiengesellschaft, kot je družba Fraport, ne morejo določati ravnanja upravnega odbora.
Furthermore, the Commission did see not legal grounds for declaring such a permanent operating aid for an airline compatible with the internal market.
Po njenem mnenju je družba Fraport neodvisna delniška družba, uvrščena na borzo, javni regionalni organi pa ne izvajajo stalnega nadzora nad njenimi sredstvi.
In the 2008 opening decision, the Commission also analysed whether the 2001 schedule of airport charges possibly constituted State aid to Ryanair.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da ima v skladu s členom 76 Aktiengesetz (nemški zakon o delniških družbah, v nadaljnjem besedilu: AktG) upravni odbor široka pooblastila za odločanje, neodvisno od delničarjev.
It considered in that respect that, as companies in which the public authorities have a predominant share, FFHG's and Fraport's resources constitute State resources and that their conduct would also be imputable to the State.
Trdila je, da je Sodišče v zadevah Stadtwerke Brixen AG [33] in Carbotermo [34] že priznalo naravo nemške delniške družbe, katere delnice kotirajo na borzi, in precejšnjo neodvisnost njenega upravnega odbora od njenih delničarjev.
The Commission expressed doubts as to whether the fee structure of the 2001 schedule of airport charges was set in a manner which would allow the airport to run profitably as Germany had not provided a MEOT for this schedule.
V skladu s tem javni organi niso mogli nadzorovati vsakodnevnega poslovanja družbe Fraport.
As Ryanair seemed to have been the only passenger airline using the airport between 2001 and 2003, and retained more than 95 % of the passenger volume until 2006, the results of the MEOT for the 2002 Ryanair agreement, which was based on the 2001 schedule of airport charges and introduced an additional marketing support, served as a benchmark.
Nemčija je v zvezi s tem pojasnila, da ni bila družba Fraport nikakor vključena v strukture javne uprave, da za svoja dejanja ni odgovarjala Nemčiji in da ni bila nikakor podrejena javni upravi.
Based on the information provided, the Commission doubted whether the MEOT for the 2001 schedule of airport charges was fulfilled.
Čeprav je priznala, da so bili javni delničarji vključeni v odločanje na generalni skupščini delničarjev, na kateri je bilo odločeno o pogodbi o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001, je trdila, da to ne pomeni, da so javni delničarji kaj več kot zgolj uresničevali zakonite pravice in obveznosti, ki jih imajo kot delničarji.
The Commission considered that the measure was selective as only airlines that use Frankfurt Hahn airport benefited from the 2001 schedule of airport charges and that it distorted or threatened to distort competition and affected trade between the Member States.
Nemčija je poleg tega navedla, da s pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 družbi FFHG ni bila dodeljena nikakršna prednost.
Therefore, concerning the 2001 schedule of airport charges, the Commission took the preliminary view that it might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Pri tem se je sklicevala na preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je opravila družba PwC, ki je menila, da bi tudi vsak vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu sklenil navedeno pogodbo.
Furthermore, the Commission did not find legal grounds for declaring such a permanent operating aid for an airline compatible with the internal market.
Navedla je tudi, da so bili tveganja in koristi pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 enakomerno porazdeljeni ter da je bila smiselna tudi z vidika davčne zakonodaje.
Regarding the question of State resources, the Commission applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis as for the 1999 Ryanair agreement, discussed in Section 4.2.1 (recital 110 and following).
Na splošno je Nemčija pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 predstavila kot popolnoma običajen ukrep v skupini podjetij za izvajanje globalne ali sektorske strukturne politike.
Concerning imputability of the measure, the 2002 Ryanair agreement was formally approved by the Supervisory Board of FFHG, which is dominated by members nominated by the public authorities.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da je bilo povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001 nujno, saj bi zunanje financiranje naložb v infrastrukturo družbe FFHG kratkoročno preveč obremenilo njene letne rezultate.
Hence, the Commission took the preliminary view that the 2002 Ryanair agreement was imputable to Germany.
Nemčija je poleg tega trdila, da sredstva, ki jih je vložila družba Fraport (19,7 milijona EUR od 27 milijonov EUR), niso bila državna sredstva, saj država ni imela nadzora nad družbo Fraport.
Furthermore, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether a market economy investor would have concluded the 2002 Ryanair agreement.
V zvezi s tem se je sklicevala na svoje utemeljevanje v zvezi z državnimi sredstvi pri pogodbi o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 (glej uvodno izjavo 136).
In this respect, the Commission doubted the calculation presented by Germany.
Poleg tega je navedla, da povečanja kapitala tudi ni mogoče pripisati Nemčiji, in se sklicevala na svoja pojasnila glede pripisljivosti v zvezi s pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 (glej uvodno izjavo 134).
Furthermore, the Commission raised doubts regarding the calculation of costs since the costs for general airport infrastructure and general airport administration handed in by Germany were based on marginal, rather than average costs.
Dodala je, da odobritev povečanja kapitala iz leta 2001 s strani delničarjev družbe FFHG ne more biti odločilen dejavnik za to, da se pripiše državi.
Also, the level of airport charges was frozen until 30 April 2004, and thereafter was to be adjusted corresponding to the German Consumer Price Index only if this index increased by more than […] % compared to the previous year.
Po njenem mnenju je treba državi pripisati ravnanje podjetja, ki je dodelilo morebitno pomoč, in ne ravnanja podjetja, ki je pomoč prejelo.
Concerning selectivity, distortion of competition and effect on trade, the Commission applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis as for the 1999 Ryanair agreement, see Section 4.2.1 (recital 110 and following).
Ker je bila družba FFHG podjetje, ki je prejelo pomoč, njena odobritev povečanja kapitala ne pomeni, da je odobritev pomoči mogoče pripisati Nemčiji.
The Commission therefore took the preliminary view that the 2002 Ryanair agreement might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Po mnenju Nemčije kot znak pripisljivosti tudi ni mogoče razumeti odobritve nadzornega odbora družbe Fraport, saj je takrat nadzorni odbor že sestavljalo enako število predstavnikov zaposlenih in delničarjev s pravico soodločanja, kar pomeni, da je bilo deset predstavnikov zaposlenih in deset predstavnikov delničarjev.
Regarding the question of State resources, the Commission applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis as for the 1999 Ryanair agreement discussed in Section 4.2.1 (recital 110 and following).
Nemčija je poudarila, da je družba Fraport povečala kapital, saj je bilo v oceni skupine BCG navedeno, da letališče Frankfurt Hahn ne bo moglo postati donosno brez nadaljnjih gradbenih in infrastrukturnih ukrepov.
On the question of whether there was an economic advantage, the Commission expressed doubts with regard to the MEOT presented by Germany since there was insufficient information for verifying the calculations and because the investments induced by increasing passenger numbers were not in any way taken into account or allocated to Ryanair.
V preskusu udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu so bili upoštevani vsi navedeni dokumenti.
The Commission furthermore indicated that although the 2005 Ryanair agreement, differed from the 1999 and 2002 Ryanair agreements, by introducing a kind of contractual penalty system if Ryanair did not generate the contractually determined passenger volume, it doubted whether those sanctions were effective.
Nemčija je po dvomih, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v zvezi s preskusom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je opravila družba PwC, predložila drugo, dodatno oceno za dopolnitev in izpopolnitev prvega preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki jo je izvedla družba PwC.
Concerning selectivity, distortion of competition and effects on trade, the Commission applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis as for the 1999 Ryanair agreement, see Section 4.2.1 (recital 110 and following).
V tej izpopolnjeni oceni je bilo ugotovljeno enako kot v prvi: da je preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu uspešno opravljen.
The Commission concluded that the 2005 Ryanair agreement would also constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Nemčija je zavrnila dvome Komisije, da družba PwC ni ocenila umika družbe Fraport in da je bilo torej brez poznavanja stroškov umika nemogoče preveriti, ali je družba Fraport ravnala kot vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Commission did not find any legal grounds for declaring such a permanent operating aid for an airline compatible with the internal market.
Trdila je, da stroški umika v oceni niso bili pomembni.
With regard to the 2006 schedule of airport charges, Germany had only partially provided an economic justification in the form of a MEOT to the Commission.
Po mnenju Nemčije bi bilo treba povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 oceniti na podlagi teh okoliščin.
The Commission indicated in its 2008 opening decision that with the incomplete information it was unable to verify whether, as Germany argued, economies of scale justified the differentiation in passenger charges.
Kot navaja Nemčija, je družba PwC v prvem in dodatnem preskusu udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu ugotovila, da je bilo treba za povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 in tudi sklenitev nove pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube šteti, da sta bila takrat kvalitativno in kvantitativno ugodna za družbo Fraport.
Furthermore, the economic justifications given for the 2006 schedule of airport charges left several questions open, such as which costs are included in the cost coverage and why the marketing support was not included in the economic justification of the schedule.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bilo to utemeljeno z ugotovitvijo družbe PwC, da je bila donosnost vloženega kapitala (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ROIC) ob naložbi v družbo FFHG nad alternativno donosnostjo enakovredne kapitalske naložbe.
The Commission considered that the measure was selective as only airlines using Frankfurt Hahn airport benefited from the 2006 schedule of airport charges and that the measure concerned distorted or threatened to distort competition and affected trade between the Member States.
Nemčija je v zvezi z zvezno deželo Porenje – Pfalška opozorila na ugotovitev družbe PwC, da je tudi zvezna dežela ravnala kot vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, saj je bil ROIC za zvezno deželo podobno kot za družbo Fraport nad primerljivo alternativno naložbo.
Therefore, concerning the 2006 schedule of airport charges, the Commission took the preliminary view that it might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Nemčija je v zvezi z ravnanjem zvezne dežele Hessen trdila, da je bil po mnenju te dežele nadaljnji razvoj letališča Frankfurt Hahn nujen zaradi omejenih možnosti rasti letališča Frankfurt na Majni, ki so med drugim izhajale iz prepovedi nočnih letov.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
V nasprotnem primeru bi lahko letališče Frankfurt na Majni naletelo na resne gospodarske posledice.
Germany submitted extensive observations and economic analysis in the course of this procedure.
Nemčija je poudarila, da je bil ta razvoj nujen, da bi se v celoti izkoristile obstoječe 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.
GENERAL REMARKS
Po mnenju Nemčije je bila torej vključitev zvezne dežele Hessen v povečanje kapitala neizogibna.
In its comments, Germany first of all provided some general background considerations concerning Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Nemčija je navedla, da je mogoče pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 razumeti le ob upoštevanju povečanja kapitala in sprememb v strukturi delničarjev leta 2004, zlasti ker sta zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen prerazporeditev delnic družbe FFHG pogojevali s sklenitvijo pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 med družbama Fraport in FFHG do leta 2014.
Germany insisted that the Frankfurt Hahn airport project was meant to become a profitable private company from the moment of its conversion.
Nemčija se je sklicevala na svoje argumente v zvezi s povečanjem kapitala iz leta 2004 in trdila, da se pravila o državni pomoči ne uporabljajo niti za pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 (glej uvodno izjavo 146 in naslednje).
Therefore, Fraport strategically got involved with a view to the airport's long-term profitability.
V zvezi z vključenostjo državnih sredstev se je Nemčija sklicevala na svoja pojasnila v zvezi s pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 (glej uvodno izjavo 134 in naslednje).
With its low-cost carrier business model, considerably simplified infrastructure and low capital costs, Frankfurt Hahn airport has been a pioneer in Europe, according to Germany.
Po njenem mnenju torej sredstva družbe Fraport niso bila državna sredstva, saj družba Fraport ni bila pod nadzorom države.
Germany pointed out that Frankfurt Hahn airport has had a positive result in EBITDA for the first time in 2006, so already 8 years after its market entry, which would prove its economic viability.
Poleg tega je bilo preostalih 30 % delnic družbe Fraport razpršenih.
According to Germany, Frankfurt Hahn airport was the fastest growing airport in Germany.
Odločitev je bila sprejeta z 99,992 % pozitivnih glasov, tako da so tudi vlagatelji v tržnem gospodarstvu glasovali za pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004.
Furthermore, Germany is of the opinion that the measures concerning Frankfurt Hahn airport were taken exclusively according to the market economy investor principle.
Glede obstoja gospodarske prednosti se je Nemčija znova sklicevala na pojasnila v zvezi s pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 (glej uvodno izjavo 137), v skladu s katerimi je razdelitev dobička in izgube popolnoma običajen ukrep v skupini podjetij.
According to Germany, if a private undertaking of the same size and in a comparable situation would also have undertaken the financing based on a commercial logic, this would exclude any advantage.
Poleg tega bi po mnenju družbe PwC vsak vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu sprejel enako odločitev o sklenitvi pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004, saj je bilo tedaj dobiček pričakovati od leta 2008/2009 dalje.
Germany argued that the Commission should only assess whether the respective measure is commercially defendable and not whether it will without reasonable doubt be successful.
Nemčija je nadalje navedla, da je družba PwC na podlagi dvomov, ki jih je izrazila Komisija, navedene ukrepe znova preskusila v dodatni oceni s kvalitativnimi izračuni in ugotovila enako.
Also, Germany referred to the principle of equality of public and private undertakings under which funds that the State is offering to an undertaking in accordance with market conditions will not be considered State aid.
Nemčija je nadalje trdila, da je bila pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 pogoj za povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 in da je bilo glede na pričakovani pozitivni razvoj od leta 2008/2009 v interesu družbe Fraport, da pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 sklene za najmanj pet let.
All in all, according to Germany, the measures for Frankfurt Hahn airport had all been granted in line with market conditions; the MEOTs which Germany presented would prove this.
Menila je tudi, da preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu podpira dejstvo, da so odločitev odobrili tudi zasebni vlagatelji, ki so takrat predstavljali 30 % delničarjev družbe Fraport.
Germany argued that the State aid rules are not applicable to the 2001 PLTA since it was concluded in August 1999, i.e. before the judgment by the Court of Justice in the case Aéroports de Paris [31] on 24 October 2002.
Nadalje je pojasnila, da so pristojbine za varnostne preglede plačevali letalski prevozniki zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška, ta pa jih je samo prenesla na družbo FFHG kot nadomestilo za varnostne preglede, ki jih je zadnja izvajala v imenu zvezne dežele.
According to Germany, the judgment at first instance by the General Court became definitive only after the judgment of the Court of Justice was delivered and only when it was clarified that airports were considered as undertakings and therefore fell within the scope of application of the State aid rules.
Po mnenju Nemčije torej v tem smislu pristojbine niso nikoli postale del sredstev zvezne dežele.
That approach would have been confirmed later on in the Leipzig-Halle judgment [32].
Nemčija je pojasnila, da je v skladu s členom 5 Luftsicherheitsgesetz (zakon o varnosti v zračnem prometu) država tista, ki preverja potnike in njihovo prtljago, da bi zagotovila varnost v zračnem prometu in preprečila teroristične napade.
Germany stated furthermore that no State resources had been employed.
Nadalje je navedla, da organi za to dejavnost letalskim prevoznikom zaračunavajo pristojbine na potnika.
In that regard, Germany elaborated that the losses taken over by Fraport did not burden the budget of the State.
Organi lahko to nalogo zagotavljanja varnosti prenesejo tudi na upravljavca letališča, kar se je zgodilo v tem primeru, v katerem varnostne preglede izvaja družba FFHG, ki je to nalogo nadalje zaupala zunanji družbi za varovanje.
Furthermore, Germany argued that the decisions taken by Fraport were not imputable to Germany since the public shareholders were not able to exercise a determining influence.
Nemčija je poleg tega navedla, da varnostni pregledi spadajo na področje javne politike in ne pomenijo gospodarske dejavnosti.
In this regard, Germany emphasised that it would have to be verified in each individual case whether resources of a company were actually controlled by the State.
Nemčija se pri tem strinja z mnenjem Komisije, da ne bi smelo biti čezmernega nadomestila za storitve, ki jih opravlja družba FFHG.
In that respect, the public authorities could not control Fraport's day-to-day business.
Nemčija ni razumela, kako bi bila lahko s tem delnim financiranjem družbi FFHG dodeljena kakršna koli prednost, ker sta bili študiji v javnem interesu, niti kako bi lahko to financiranje izkrivljalo konkurenco.
Even though Germany recognised that the public shareholders were involved in the decision-making at the general meeting of shareholders during which the 2001 PLTA was decided, Germany argued that this did not mean that the public shareholders had done anything more than exercise their lawful rights and obligations as shareholders.
Nemčija je v zvezi s pogodbo z družbo Ryanair iz leta 1999 na splošno pripomnila, da je letališče Frankfurt Hahn od začetka gradilo samo zelo osnovno infrastrukturo, tako da bi bilo to letališče lahko stroškovno učinkovit in inovativen partner za nizkocenovne letalske prevoznike.
In addition, Germany stated that the 2001 PLTA did not confer any advantage on FFHG.
Po navedbah Nemčije so tudi na drugih evropskih letališčih tako imenovane „stabilne stranke“ naravni spodbujevalci začetnega razvoja letališča.
It referred to the MEOT undertaken by PwC in that regard, which considered that any market economy investor would also have concluded that agreement.
Za letališče Frankfurt Hahn je bila taka stranka, s pomočjo katere bi se lahko uveljavilo na trgu, družba Ryanair.
Furthermore, Germany stated that the risks and benefits of the 2001 PLTA were evenly distributed and that it also made sense from a tax law point of view.
Nemčija je trdila, da je bil ob sklenitvi prve pogodbe z družbo Ryanair koncept letališča z nizkocenovnimi letalskimi prevozniki še vedno v povojih.
Overall, Germany depicted the 2001 PLTA as a perfectly normal measure in a corporate group to apply global or sectorial structural policy.
S to pogodbo je bila torej družbi Ryanair dana spodbuda, da začne leteti na malo obiskano letališče Frankfurt Hahn.
Germany explained that the 2001 capital increase was necessary since an external financing of the investments into its infrastructure would have strained the annual results of FFHG too much in the short-term.
Nemčija je navedla, da je letališče Frankfurt Hahn zaradi pridobitve tako velikega letalskega prevoznika sklenilo še več pogodb z letalskimi prevozniki („načelo sledenja“).
Germany stated that the 2001 capital increase was decided by the supervisory board of FFHG on 14 December 2001 and led to a change in the articles of association of FFHG on 9 January 2002.
Na podlagi tako imenovanega učinka domin je to navsezadnje privedlo tudi do povečanja dobička za neletalski sektor.
Therefore, Germany disputed that the rules of State aid are applicable to that measure and referred here also to its reasoning concerning the 2001 PLTA (see recital 134).
Nemčija je trdila, da so imeli letalski prevozniki, kot je Ryanair, zaradi te dinamike veliko pogajalsko moč, ker so takrat z družbo Ryanair poskušala skleniti pogodbo številna druga majhna regionalna letališča.
Germany furthermore argued that the funds invested by Fraport (EUR 19,7 million out of EUR 27 million) were not State resources since the State had no control over Fraport.
Nemčija je poleg tega navedla, da s pogodbo z družbo Ryanair iz leta 1999 niso bila dodeljena državna sredstva.
In that respect Germany referred to its argumentation on State resources concerning the 2001 PLTA (see recital 136).
Trdila je tudi, da ni bil letalski prevoznik na podlagi pogodbenega razmerja med upravljavcem letališča in letalskim prevoznikom deležen nikakršne prednosti.