natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Aéroports de Paris [37], the Court held that the operation of an airport consisting in the provision of airport services to airlines and to the various service providers also constitutes an economic activity.
Kadar je v okviru danega pravnega reda običajno, da morajo civilna letališča kriti nekatere stroške, povezane z njihovim delovanjem, medtem ko drugim letališčem teh stroškov ni treba kriti, se slednjim zato lahko daje prednost, ne glede na to, ali so ti stroški povezani z dejavnostjo, ki se na splošno šteje za negospodarsko.
In its judgment in the Leipzig/Halle airport case [38], the General Court clarified that the operation of an airport is an economic activity, of which the construction of airport infrastructure is an inseparable part.
Komisija mora zato na podlagi uvodnih izjav 209 in 212 analizirati naravo infrastrukturnih ukrepov iz tega sklepa, ki se izvajajo na letališču Leipzig/Halle.
The Commission recalls that in its Leipzig/Halle airport judgment, the General Court held that, from 2000, the application of State aid rules to the financing of airport infrastructure could no longer be excluded [39].
Nemčija je trdila, da priglašeni ukrepi M1–M11 zadevajo dejavnosti, ki so v pristojnost javne politike, in da je financiranje teh dejavnosti strogo omejeno na obseg stroškov, potrebnih za izvedbo teh ukrepov.
Consequently, from the date of the judgment in Aéroports de Paris (12 December 2000), the operation and construction of airport infrastructure must be considered as falling within the ambit of State aid control.
Menila je tudi, da ti stroški ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
The General Court also held in its Leipzig/Halle airport judgement that it is not relevant whether the construction or the extension of an airport infrastructure pursues objectives of regional, economic or transport policy.
V zvezi s tem je trdila, da se ukrepi M1–M11 uvrščajo v eno od naslednjih kategorij:
According to established case law it is not relevant which purposes are followed by specific measures but rather what effects they cause [40].
ukrepi za varovanje civilnega letalstva pred dejanji nezakonitega vmešavanja [47] iz nemškega zakona o varnosti letalstva LuftSiG, zlasti člena 8;
Moreover, the General Court has confirmed in its Leipzig/Halle airport judgment that the existence of a market for airport infrastructure is shown by the fact that Leipzig Halle Airport competed with other regional airports, in particular with Vatry (France) and Brussels (Belgium) to become DHL’s European air freight hub.
ukrepi v zvezi z operativno varnostjo iz člena 45 Pravilnika o izdaji dovoljenj v zračnem prometu (Luftverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pravilnik o izdaji dovoljenj v zračnem prometu LuftVZO); ali
According to the case law it be also must considered that, for the purpose of assessing the economic nature of airport manager’s activities in the context of the public financing of infrastructure development measures, there is no reason to dissociate the activity of building or enlarging infrastructure, from its subsequent use [41].
ukrepi v zvezi z zaščito tretjih oseb pred operativnimi tveganji zračnega prometa (kot je obremenjevanje s hrupom).
Moreover, the General Court has held in its Leipzig/Halle airport judgment that: ‘[r]unways are essential elements for the economic activities engaged in by an airport operator.
Glede ukrepov, povezanih z operativno varnostjo, Komisija meni, da je zagotavljanje varnih operacij na letališču običajen del gospodarske dejavnosti upravljanja letališča [48].
The construction of landing and take-off runways thus permit an airport to engage in its principal economic activity or develop that activity, where what is in question is the construction of an additional runway or the development of an existing runway.’
V tem smislu je treba opozoriti, da se prav tako ne more šteti, da stroški, povezani z regulativnimi zahtevami in standardi, spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
In the light of the case law cited in recitals 196 and 204, the Commission notes that the infrastructure, which is the subject of this Decision, will be either directly operated on a commercial basis by FLH, the airport manager, or will indirectly support and enable the commercial operation of the airport as a whole.
Komisija je na podlagi podrobnejšega pregleda posameznih dejavnosti in stroškov ugotovila, da ukrepi, katerih namen je zagotoviti varne operacije na letališču, ne pomenijo dejavnosti, ki spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
In this respect, the Commission observes that according to German law, in particular the […] the charges have to be established by the airport operator and submitted for approval to the Federal Ministry for Transport.
Vsako podjetje, ki bi želelo delovati na nekem trgu, mora zagotoviti varno infrastrukturo (v primeru letališča so to vzletno-pristajalne steze, vozne steze in letališke ploščadi) in skladnost z regulativnimi standardi.
The Commission notes that the airport charges are set by the airport operators within the regulatory constrains to avoid any undue discrimination between the airport users and possible abuses of a dominant position of the airport manager.
Komisija v zvezi z vzletno-pristajalnimi stezami, voznimi stezami in letališkimi ploščadmi meni, da gre za bistvene elemente gospodarskih dejavnosti upravljavca letališča.
However, the Commission considers that this does not preclude airport managers from setting the level of airport charges taking into account the necessary investments and its costs.
Slednjemu gradnja vzletno-pristajalnih stez, voznih stez in letaliških ploščadi omogoča izvajanje svojih glavnih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
This is in particular confirmed by the requirements of […] and […] of the […]
Kar zadeva ukrepe, se v skladu s členom 8 zakona o varnosti letalstva LuftSiG lahko šteje, da nadzor zračnega prometa, meteorološke storitve in gasilci pomenijo dejavnosti, ki spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
The Commission notes further that the construction and the development of the infrastructure subject to this Decision, will allow FLH to increase its capacity and its economic activity as operator of Leipzig/Halle Airport.
Glede veljavnega pravnega okvira je Nemčija dejala, da za gasilce ne obstajajo stroga pravna pravila, po katerih bi moral te stroške kriti upravljavec letališča.
FLH, the airport manager, provides airport services for money, resulting, in particular, from airport charges, but also from other revenue related to the exploitation of the infrastructure and the provision of ancillary services, such as for example renting out of hangars, which must be regarded as remuneration for the provision of services rendered.
Komisija ugotavlja, da povračilo stroškov za gasilce spada v pravno pristojnost dežele in da te stroške običajno povrne ustrezni regionalni organi.
Hence, the Commission considers that the infrastructure subject to this Decision is commercially exploitable infrastructure.
Ti stroški se povrnejo v znesku, potrebnem za njihovo kritje.
FLH is therefore an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Kar zadeva nadzor zračnega prometa in meteorološke storitve, Komisija ugotavlja, da člen 27(d) in (f) akta o zračnem prometu LuftVG določa, da stroške iz člena 27(c) navedenega akta za nekatera posebna letališča krije država.
Activities falling within public policy remit
Letališča so po členu 27(d) in (f) akta o zračnem prometu LuftVG upravičena do kritja stroškov kot „priznana letališča“, če Zvezno ministrstvo za promet prizna potrebo po tem, ki izhaja iz varnostnih razlogov in interesov, povezanih s prometno politiko [49].
However, not all the activities of an airport are necessarily of an economic nature [42].
V skladu s členom 27(d) in (f) akta o zračnem prometu LuftVG nemška letališča, ki niso bila priznana, niso upravičena do kritja stroškov in morajo zato načeloma sama kriti stroške, povezane z ukrepi iz člena 27(c) navedenega akta.
Since the classification of an entity as an undertaking is always in relation to a specific activity, it is necessary to distinguish between the activities of a given airport and to establish to what extent those activities are of an economic nature.
Ti stroški so neločljivo povezani z upravljanjem letališč.
If an airport carries out both economic and non-economic activities, it is to be regarded as an undertaking only with regard to the former.
Ker morajo nekatera letališča te stroške kriti sama, druga pa ne, se slednjim lahko daje prednost, čeprav nadzor, ukrepi za varnost v zraku in meteorološke storitve štejejo za negospodarsko dejavnost.
The Court has held that activities that normally fall under the responsibility of the State in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority are not of an economic nature and in general do not fall within the scope of the rules on State aid [43].
Letališče Leipzig/Halle je priznano kot eno takih letališč in je zato v skladu s členom 27(d) in (f) akta o zračnem prometu LuftVG upravičeno do kritja stroškov.
At an airport, activities such as air traffic control, police, customs, firefighting, activities necessary to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference and the investments relating to the infrastructure and equipment necessary to perform those activities are considered in general to be of a non-economic nature [44].
Druga letališča morajo te stroške kriti sama.
The public funding of such non-economic activities does not constitute State aid, but has to be strictly limited to compensating the costs to which they give rise and may not be used to finance other activities [45].
Zato je v skladu s členom 27(d) in (f) akta o zračnem prometu LuftVG letališče Leipzig/Halle s kritjem stroškov, povezanih z nadzorom zračnega prometa, ukrepi za varnost v zraku in meteorološkimi storitvami pridobilo prednost.
Any possible overcompensation by public authorities of costs incurred in relation to non-economic activities may constitute State aid.
Kar zadeva ukrepe iz člena 8 zakona o varnosti letalstva LuftSiG, se zdi, da bi po mnenju Nemčije vse stroške, povezane z ukrepi, predvidenimi v navedenem zakonu, lahko krili ustrezni javni organi.
Moreover, if an airport is engaged in non-economic activities, alongside its economic activities, separated cost accounting is required in order to avoid any transfer of public funds between the non-economic and the economic activities.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da se v skladu s členom 8(3) zakona o varnosti letalstva LuftSiG lahko povrnejo samo stroški, povezani z zagotavljanjem in vzdrževanjem prostorov in objektov, ki so potrebni za izvajanje dejavnosti iz člena 5 navedenega zakona.
Public financing of non-economic activities must not lead to undue discrimination between airports.
Vse druge stroške mora kriti upravljavec letališča.
Indeed, it is established case law that there is an advantage when public authorities relieve undertakings of the costs inherent to their economic activities [46].
Če je javno financiranje, odobreno družbi FHL, slednjo razbremenilo za stroške, ki bi jih morala kriti v skladu s členom 8(3) zakona o varnosti letalstva LuftSiG, se šteje, da tako javno financiranje spada na področje uporabe pravil Unije o državni pomoči.
Therefore, when it is normal under a given legal order that civil airports have to bear certain costs inherent to their operation, whereas other civil airports do not, the latter might be granted an advantage, regardless of whether or not those costs relate to an activity which in general is considered to be of a non-economic nature.
Ne glede na to, ali so ti stroški pravno razvrščeni v pristojnost javne politike ali ne, je bilo dokazano, da jih mora kriti upravljavec letališča v skladu z veljavnim pravnim okvirjem.
In the light of recitals 209 and 212, the Commission has therefore to analyse the nature of the infrastructure measures subject to this Decision which are carried out at Leipzig/Halle airport.
Kadar te stroške krije država, je upravljavec letališča razbremenjen za stroške, ki bi ga običajno bremenili.
Germany asserted that the notified measures M1 to M11 concern activities falling within the public policy remit and that the financing of these activities is strictly limited to the extent of costs necessary for these measures.
Glede na ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 215 in 220 je po mnenju Komisije primerno natančneje opredeliti stroške naložb, ki domnevno spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
Hence, Germany was of the opinion that these costs do not fall within the ambit of State aid rules.
Ukrep M1 (nakup zemljišča, preselitev, zmanjšanje hrupa in načrtovanje ohranjanja okoliške krajine), ukrep M2 (objekt za preskušanje motorjev) in ukrep M10 (dodatno zmanjšanje hrupa)
In this respect, Germany asserted that the measures M1 to M11 fall within one of the following categories:
Nemčija je navedla, da ukrepi M1, M2 in M10 spadajo v pristojnost javne politike, ker je njihov cilj zaščititi tretje osebe pred operativnimi tveganji zračnega prometa, kot je zaščita lastnikov hiš in okolja pred vplivi obremenitve s hrupom.
measures that safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference [47], which are subject to the German Luftsicherheitsgesetz (Air Security Law, ‘LuftSiG’), in particular §8 thereof;
Komisija meni, da stroški, povezani z ukrepi M1, M2 in M10, pomenijo običajne stroške, ki bi jih moralo podjetje kriti pri gradnji objektov, ki so v skladu z nekaterimi regulativnimi standardi.
measures relating to operational safety, subject to §45 Luftverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (Air Traffic Licensing Regulation, ‘LuftVZO’); or
Poleg tega se ti ukrepi ne morejo ločiti od gospodarske dejavnosti letališča.
measures relating to protection of third parties against operational risks of air transport (such as noise pollution).
To še zlasti ponazarja dejstvo, da brez teh ukrepov letališče ne bi smelo izvajati letov ponoči in se ne bi smelo osredotočiti na dejavnost zračnega tovornega prometa v zvezi s sklepom o odobritvi načrtovanja za gradnjo južne vzletno-pristajalne steze na letališču Leipzig/Halle in strategijo njene širitve.
With respect to measures relating to operational safety, the Commission considers that ensuring safe operations at the airport is a normal part of the economic activity of operating an airport [48].
Zato se po mnenju Komisije ne more šteti, da ukrepi M1, M2 in M10 spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
In this context, it needs to be noted, that costs related to regulatory requirements and standards also cannot be considered to fall within the public policy remit.
Ukrepi M3 (vozna steza in kotalni most „E7“), M4 (Podaljšanje severne vzletno-pristajalne steze (stroški načrtovanja), M5 (Očiščenje območja za pripravo na gradnjo vozne steze „Victor“), M6 (Vzporedna vozna steza „Victor“), M12 (Postopek za odobritev načrtovanja južne širitve (vozne steze in letališke ploščadi), M13 (Širitev severne letališke ploščadi), M14 (Širitev vzhodne letališke ploščadi), M15 (Infrastrukturna prilagoditev) in M16 (Dodatni infrastrukturni ukrepi, kot so širitev hangarja na severnem območju ter gradnja novega letalskega terminala in hale za mala letala)
Subject to a more detailed review with respect to individual activities and costs, the Commission finds that measures designed to ensure the safety of operations at the airport do not constitute activities falling within the public policy remit.
V tem primeru je vzletno-pristajalna steza načrtovana za zagotovitev, da tovorni zrakoplov z visoko največjo vzletno težo lahko vzleti brez omejitev, povezanih z obremenitvijo, medtem ko bi morala širitev letališke ploščadi zagotoviti boljšo razporeditev gibanja letov.
Any undertaking wishing to operate on a given market has to ensure the safety of the installations (for airports these are for example runways, taxiways and aprons), and has also to ensure compliance with regulatory standards.
Kar zadeva vozne steze, Komisija ugotavlja, da so te z vzletno-pristajalnimi stezami na letališču povezane prek ploščadi, hangarjev, terminalov in druge infrastrukture.
With regard to runways, taxiways and aprons, the Commission considers that those are essential elements for the economic activities engaged in by an airport manager.
Te povezave zrakoplovu omogočajo umik z vzletno-pristajalne steze, na kateri lahko pristane ali vzleti drug zrakoplov.
The construction of runways, taxiways and aprons thus allows an airport manager to exercise its primary economic activity.
Zato so vozne steze in kotalni mostovi neločljivo povezani z vzletno-pristajalnimi stezami, za katere upravljavec letališča prejme provizije.
With regard to the measures pursuant to §8 LuftSiG, meaning air traffic control, meteorological services and the fire brigade can, in principle, be considered to constitute activities falling within the public policy remit.
Poleg tega informacije, ki jih je zagotovila Nemčija, potrjujejo, da so ti ukrepi nujni glede na obseg in pretok prometa.
As regards the applicable legal framework, Germany has submitted that for the fire brigade there are no legal rules strictly imposing these costs on the airport operator.
Če se gradnja ne bi izvedla, letališče ne bi imelo koristi od pričakovanega povečanja pretoka prometa ali pa bi bilo treba sedanji obseg pretoka prometa zmanjšati, da bi se zagotovile varne operacije z zrakoplovom.
Furthermore, the Commission observes that the remuneration of costs for a fire brigade falls within the legal competence of the Länder and that these costs are usually remunerated by the relevant regional authorities.
Komisija meni, da to ne nasprotuje dejstvu, da se nekatere vozne steze in kotalni mostovi lahko varno uporabljajo samo za omejen obseg prometa.
The remuneration of these costs is limited to the extent necessary to cover these costs.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da so vzletno-pristajalne steze, vozne steze in letališke ploščadi bistveni elementi gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki jih opravlja upravljavec letališča.
As regards air traffic control and meteorological services, the Commission notes that §27(d) and §27(f) LuftVG provides that the costs related to §27(c) LuftVG are covered by the State for a number of specific airports.
Gradnja vzletno-pristajalnih stez, voznih stez in letaliških ploščadi upravljavcu letališča tako omogoča izvajanje svoje glavne gospodarske dejavnosti in se ne more ločiti od te gospodarske dejavnosti.
Airports are eligible for cost coverage as ‘recognised airports’ pursuant to §27(d) and §27(f) LuftVG if the Federal Ministry for Transport has recognised a necessity due to safety reasons and transport policy related interests [49].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je upravljavec letališča ukrepe M3, M4, M5, M6, M12, M13, M14, M15 in M16 sprejel na komercialni podlagi.
German airports which have not been recognised are not eligible for cost coverage pursuant to §27(d) and §27(f) LuftVG and have therefore, in principle, to bear the costs related to the measures foreseen in §27(c) LuftVG themselves.
Zato gre za infrastrukturo, ki se lahko izkorišča v komercialne namene in se ne more šteti, da spada v pristojnost javne politike.
These costs are inherent to the operation of the airports.
Ukrep M11 (razvoj javnega dela letališča na jugovzhodnem območju – faza I)
Since some airports have to bear these costs themselves while other airports do not, the latter might be granted an advantage, even if control and air safety measures as well as meteorological services can be considered to be non-economic.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep M11 zajema opremo obstoječih stavb z električno energijo in vodo, naprave za obdelavo odpadnih voda in drenažo za deževnico ter ukrepe za dodatno zmanjšanje hrupa.
Leipzig/Halle airport has been recognised to be such an airport and is hence eligible for cost coverage pursuant to §27(d) and §27(f) LuftVG.
Z vidika ocene iz uvodnih izjav 215 in 220 ti ukrepi ne zadevajo dejavnosti, za katere je običajno odgovorna država pri izvajanju svojih uradnih pooblastil kot javni organ.
The other airports have to bear these costs themselves.
Nasprotno, prispevajo k nadgradnji infrastrukture, ki se uporablja za komercialne namene, in zajemajo gospodarsko dejavnost, zato se ne more šteti, da spadajo v pristojnosti javne politike.
Therefore, covering the costs of Leipzig/Halle airport related to air control and safety measures as well as to meteorological services pursuant to §27(d) and §27(f) LuftVG gives an advantage to Leipzig/Halle airport.
Ukrepa M5 (nova gasilska postaja) in M9 (protipožarna oprema)
With respect to measures pursuant to §8 LuftSiG, it appears that Germany considers that all costs related to the measures prescribed therein may be borne by the relevant public authorities.
Kar zadeva gasilsko postajo in protipožarno opremo, se v skladu z uvodno izjavo 218 za to dejavnost lahko na splošno šteje, da spada v pristojnost javne politike.
The Commission notes, however, that pursuant to §8(3) LuftSiG only the costs related to the provision and maintenance of spaces and premises necessary for the performance of the activities pursuant to §5 LuftSiG may be reimbursed.
V zvezi s pravnim okvirom je Nemčija dejala, da za gasilsko postajo in protipožarno opremo ni pravnih pravil, ki bi strogo določala, da mora te stroške kriti upravljavec letališča.
All other costs must be borne by the airport operator.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da povračilo stroškov za novo gasilsko postajo in protipožarno opremo spada v pravno pristojnost dežele in da po navedbah Nemčije te stroške običajno povrnejo ustrezni regionalni organi.
Hence, to the extent that public financing granted to FHL thus relieved this undertaking of costs it had to bear pursuant to §8(3) LuftSiG, that public financing is not exempted from scrutiny under Union State aid rules.
Zato se lahko šteje, da stroški za gradnjo nove gasilske postaje in stroški za nakup protipožarne opreme spadajo v pristojnosti javne politike.
In any case, regardless of the legal classification of those costs as falling within the public remit or not, it has been demonstrated that they must be borne by the airport operator, under the applicable legal framework.
Ukrepa M5 (večnamenski hangar) in M9.3 (zimska delovna oprema)
Accordingly, where the State is to pay those costs, the airport operator would be relieved from a cost that it should normally have incurred.
Kar zadeva večnamenski hangar, je Nemčija trdila, da spada v pristojnosti javne politike, ker bi se v nujnih primerih uporabil kot zavetišče za ljudi.
In the light of the considerations in recitals 215 and 220, the Commission finds it appropriate to draw more specific conclusions regarding investment costs allegedly falling with the public policy remit.
Po njenem mnenju tudi stroški gradnje tega hangarja spadajo v pristojnost javne politike, ker se hangar zdaj uporablja za skladiščenje zimske delovne opreme, potrebne za varno upravljanje letališča pozimi.
M1 Acquisition of land, relocation, noise abatement and accompanying landscape conservation planning, M2 Engine testing structure and M10 additional noise abatement
Komisija v zvezi z gradnjo večnamenskega hangarja na letališču Leipzig/Halle meni, da se ta objekt lahko uporablja za različne namene.
Germany submitted that the measures M1, M2 and M10 fall within the public policy remit, because they are aimed to protect third parties against operational risks of air transport, such as protecting house owners and environment from the effects of noise pollution.
Kot izhaja iz uvodne izjave 215, so stroški zimske delovne opreme (ukrep M9.3), ki je potrebna za varno upravljanje letališča, običajni stroški poslovanja in se ne more šteti, da spadajo v pristojnost javne politike.
The Commission considers that the costs relating to measures M1, M2 and M10 constitute normal costs an undertaking would have to bear in order to construct installations that are in line with certain regulatory standards.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da tudi stroški gradnje večnamenskega hangarja ne spadajo v pristojnosti javne politike.
Moreover, these measures cannot be dissociated from the economic activity of the airport.
Vendar ta ugotovitev Nemčiji ne preprečuje, da bi letališču v nujnih primerih zaupala posebne naloge, ki spadajo med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.