natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For Frankfurt Hahn, the anchor client, i.e. the client through whom a foothold in the market could be obtained, was Ryanair.
Vsekakor je podpora za trženje znašala največ eno tretjino dejanskih stroškov trženja, s čimer je bila izključena vsaka diskriminacija med letalskimi prevozniki, ki so že leteli z letališča Frankfurt Hahn, in drugimi letalskimi prevozniki.
Germany argued that when the first agreement with Ryanair was concluded, the concept of a low-cost carrier airport was still in its infancy.
Nemčija je poleg tega sklepala, da imajo večji letalski prevozniki običajno večji proračun za trženje, tako da je glede na celotni proračun dana podpora dejansko nižja kot pri manjšem letalskem prevozniku.
Therefore, through this agreement an incentive was given to Ryanair to start flying to the rarely frequented Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Nazadnje, Nemčija je trdila, da je bilo s preskusom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je opravila družba PwC, ugotovljeno, da je bila ta podpora za trženje dodeljena na način, ki je bil v skladu s trgom.
Germany stated that committing such a big airline to Frankfurt Hahn airport led to the acquisition of more airline agreements for the airport (‘follow-on principle’).
Glede selektivnosti ukrepa in izkrivljanja konkurence na notranjem trgu se je Nemčija sklicevala na svoje izjave v zvezi s seznamom letaliških pristojbin iz leta 2001 (glej uvodno izjavo 176 in naslednje).
Through the so-called ‘domino-effect’, this ultimately also led to an increase in the profits for the non-aviation sector.
Nemčija je torej trdila, da seznam letaliških pristojbin iz leta 2006 ni vključeval državne pomoči.
Germany argued that, given these dynamics, airlines such as Ryanair had a great bargaining power, since many other small regional airports tried to conclude agreements with Ryanair at that time.
Podredno je trdila, da je bila, če bi Komisija ugotovila, da so letališke pristojbine pomenile državno pomoč, ta pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Furthermore, Germany stated that no State resources were granted through the 1999 Ryanair agreement.
ZDRUŽLJIVOST UKREPOV Z NOTRANJIM TRGOM
Moreover, Germany argued that the contractual relationship between the operator of the airport and the airline was conferring no advantage unto the airline.
ZDRUŽLJIVOST POMOČI ZA NALOŽBE ZA FINANCIRANJE LETALIŠKE INFRASTRUKTURE
In Germany's view, the responsibility for the conclusion of this agreement must be attributed exclusively to the management board since the conclusion of the 1999 Ryanair agreement represented day-to-day business and the supervisory board had taken no decision in this matter.
Nemčija je trdila, da če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da so ukrepi od 1 do 6 vključevali državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, ker so bili namenjeni financiranju letališke infrastrukture na letališču Frankfurt Hahn, bi bilo mogoče to pomoč šteti za združljivo na podlagi člena 107(3) Pogodbe in smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005.
In Germany's view, the Commission cannot consider the conclusion of the 1999 Ryanair agreement as imputable to Germany because the supervisory board did not do anything to prevent it.
Prispevek k natančno opredeljenemu cilju skupnega interesa
Such actions do not lie within the responsibilities and tasks of the supervisory board, according to Germany.
Nemčija je v zvezi z natančno opredeljenim ciljem skupnega interesa trdila, da je bil cilj financiranja letališke infrastrukture na letališču Frankfurt Hahn vedno izboljšati regionalno gospodarsko strukturo gospodarsko nerazvite in redko poseljene regije Hunsrück.
Also, the criteria mentioned by the Court of Justice in Stardust Marine would be led ad absurdum if the fact that a supervisory body of a publicly held company did not act would be enough to conclude on the imputability of the measure to the State.
Nemčija je v zvezi s tem navedla, prvič, da je bil cilj podpore družbi FFHG pomagati pri reševanju šibkega strukturnega gospodarstva regije Hunsrück.
Therefore, according to Germany the agreement was not imputable in any way to the State.
Trdila je, da je letališče Frankfurt Hahn obkroženo s številnimi območji, ki se štejejo za regije, ki potrebujejo podporo, v okviru Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ [37], naloge, ki je skupna zveznim in lokalnim vladam.
Moreover, Germany argued that the 1999 Ryanair agreement did not confer any advantage on Ryanair since any market economy investor would have also concluded such agreement.
V zvezi s tem je navedla, da so štiri regije okoli letališča, tj. Landkreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, Birkenfeld, Cochem-Zell in Rhein-Hunsrück-Kreis, povprečno samo pol tako gosto poseljene kot preostali del zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška.
Germany especially emphasised that this agreement did not induce any losses, contrary to what the Commission argued in its 2008 opening decision, but produced an enormous amount of revenues which by far surpassed the costs incurred.
Poudarila je, da je za navedene regije, katerih gospodarstvo oblikujejo mala in srednja podjetja, zaposlovanje glavni branik, ki varuje pred nadaljnjim upadanjem regionalnega gospodarstva, ter da ima letališče Frankfurt Hahn pomembno vlogo kot delodajalec in stranka.
In this regard, Germany emphasised that Frankfurt Hahn airport used the ‘single-till-approach’, according to which the revenues of aviation and non-aviation flow into a single pool (‘single till’).
Drugič, Nemčija je trdila, da ima letališče Frankfurt Hahn pomembno vlogo pri strateškem razvoju receptivnega (približno 33 % potnikov, kar leta 2005 ustreza približno 1 milijonu potnikov) in emitivnega turizma (približno 67 % potnikov) za zvezno deželo Porenje – Pfalška.
Therefore, according to Germany aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues generated by the airlines and its passengers at the airport have to be taken into account.
Navedla je, da 88 % potnikov, ki prispejo v regijo, tam ostane več dni.
As Germany stated before, PwC concluded that a market economy investor with a long-term strategy would have signed the 1999 Ryanair agreement, in particular if one considered Frankfurt Hahn airport's situation in 1999.
Nemčija je poudarila, da se je zlasti povečalo število gostov iz vzhodno- in južnoevropskih držav ter da je iz teh držav veliko letov na letališče Frankfurt Hahn.
According to Germany, at that time Frankfurt Hahn airport was facing high fixed costs for maintenance of the air and ground infrastructure, whereas the capacity utilisation of the airport was low.
Tako je bilo po navedbah Nemčije s turizmom v zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška ustvarjenih približno 198000 delovnih mest.
Thus, Germany argued, the possibility to generate additional passenger volume was an opportunity to limit losses and acquire clients with growth potential.
Posledični prihodki in učinki na zaposlovanje izvirajo predvsem iz receptivnega turizma, v katerem ima letališče Frankfurt Hahn osrednjo vlogo, saj za turiste pomeni vrata v regijo Hunsrück, pa tudi v zvezno deželo Porenje – Pfalška na splošno, kot je pojasnila Nemčija.
Germany is of the opinion that costs which were decided on before the conclusion of the agreement, such as the costs for the general airport infrastructure and general airport administration (in other words costs that arose irrespective of the 1999 Ryanair agreement), should not be included in the profitability analysis of the 1999 Ryanair agreement, and PwC supports Germany in this opinion.
Nemčija je navedla, da se je med letoma 1990 in 2001 število turistov v regiji Hunsrück povečalo za 70 %, v zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška pa za 35 %.
Germany argued especially that it would only be possible for an airport with an existing network of clients to have his clients partially bear the costs of infrastructure measures and that Frankfurt Hahn airport was not in such a position.
Po njenih navedbah se je v istem obdobju število tujih turistov v regiji Hunsrück povečalo za 163 %.
Germany took the view that a depreciation period of 25 years would then be appropriate, which would mean a depreciation of EUR […] per year.
Poleg tega je Nemčija trdila, da tudi emitivni turizem (67 %) na podlagi prihodkov iz neletalskih dejavnosti ustvarja dohodke za letališče Frankfurt Hahn.
Therefore, taking into account the time for initiation of Frankfurt Hahn airport, Germany took the view that this would have sufficed for a market economy investor to conclude the agreement.
Po navedbah Nemčije 90 % navedenih zaposlenih tudi živi v tej regiji.
The 2001 schedule of airport charges could not be seen as State aid according to Germany.
Nadalje je trdila, da letališče Frankfurt Hahn pomaga preprečevati preseljevanje mladih usposobljenih delavcev v druge regije ter gospodarsko in družbeno nazadovanje regionalnih skupnosti in njihove infrastrukture.
Germany stated that the 2001 schedule of airport charges had generated revenues for FFHG and it was not necessary or possible that the schedule of airport charges would lead to coverage of all costs incurred by FFHG.
V zvezi s tem se je sklicevala na pozitivne sekundarne učinke za regijo, namreč manjšo brezposelnost in večje število davkoplačevalcev, ki pomagajo zagotavljati, da imajo občine v regiji finančna sredstva za podporo lokalnemu gospodarstvu.
For such a result, according to Germany, the revenues from the non-aviation sector needed be taken into account as well under the single-till-approach (see recital 169).
Skupaj je bilo na podlagi receptivnega turizma ustvarjenih približno 11000 delovnih mest za celotno zvezno deželo Porenje – Pfalška.
Germany furthermore disputed that the measure was imputable to the State because of the approval of the airport charges by the Rhineland-Palatinate Transport department.
Nemčija je trdila, da je financiranje infrastrukture letališča Frankfurt Hahn prispevalo tudi k uresničitvi natančno opredeljenega cilja skupnega interesa, tj. boja proti preobremenjenosti letalskega prevoza na velikih vozliščih EU.
This approval did not mean any economic or political dependence, but was simply a regulatory formality requested under German law which every airport, whether publicly owned or not, has to fulfil according to the law.
V zvezi s tem je opozorila na dejstvo, da so bile v preteklosti zgornje meje zmogljivosti letališča Frankfurt na Majni nenehno presežene.
The reason for this law is to protect the airlines from any possible abuse of the monopolistic power of the airport to set prices for its use.
Trdila je, da je torej letališče Frankfurt Hahn – zlasti glede na svoje dovoljenje za 24-urno obratovanje – služilo cilju zagotovitve dodatnih zmogljivosti za razbremenitev preobremenjenega letališča Frankfurt na Majni.
Moreover, Germany argued that no advantage was granted to Frankfurt Hahn airport through the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
Nemčija je poleg tega trdila, da se s podporo letališču Frankfurt Hahn izpolnjuje tudi cilj skupnega interesa, ki je povečati mobilnost državljanov Unije.
It agreed with the Commission that the results of the private market investor test for the 2002 Ryanair agreement, which is based on the 2001 schedule of airport charges and introduces an additional marketing support, can serve as a benchmark.
V zvezi s tem je poudarila, da je letališče Frankfurt Hahn edino nemško letališče, ki ponuja direktne lete v Kaunas (Latvija), Kerry (Irska), na Kos (Grčija), v Montpellier (Francija), Nador (Maroko), Plovdiv (Bolgarija), Pulj (Hrvaška), na Rodos (Grčija), v Santiago de Compostela (Španija) in Volos (Grčija).
On this basis, since the MEOT is positive for the 2002 Ryanair agreement, Germany argued that no other result can apply to the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
Po mnenju Nemčije letališče Frankfurt Hahn prispeva tudi k poklicni mobilnosti mladih, ki sta jim regija Hunsrück in zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška dostopni po nizkih cenah.
Concerning the doubts raised by the Commission in relation to the MEOT, Germany referred to its argumentation in relation to MEOT for the 2002 Ryanair agreement (see recital 178 and following).
Podobno je poudarila, da so visokokakovostne univerze in visokošolske ustanove v Koblenzu, Mainzu, Kaiserslauternu, Trieru, Wiesbadnu, Mannheimu, Bonnu itd., na katerih večinoma ni šolnin, zdaj lahko dostopne študentom iz vse Evrope.
Furthermore, Germany expressly disagreed with the Commission as to the assessment concerning the selectivity of the 2001 schedule of airport charges.
Nemčija je poleg tega trdila, da je v skupnem interesu tudi to, da so regija Hunsrück in okoliške regije zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška povezane z drugimi obrobnimi regijami, na primer regijo Limerick, kar se je že izkazalo na podlagi partnerstev med mesti.
Germany argued that the 2001 schedule of airport charges was of a general nature and applied to all airlines using the airport, and that hence it could not be selective or specific.
Navedla je, da se kot četrto največje nacionalno gospodarstvo na svetu osredotoča ne samo na povezavo z glavnimi evropskimi vozlišči, ampak tudi na medsebojno povezavo regij.
According to Germany, the 2001 schedule of airport charges included no differentiations which would give an advantage to one airline over the other and they did not contain any kind of rebate system either.
Po mnenju Nemčije je večja neodvisnost od glavnih vozlišč, kot so Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol ali Frankfurt na Majni, pomembna za Evropo, saj bo to pomenilo ne samo več neposrednih povezav, ampak tudi večjo varnost, zlasti za tovorni promet, saj je na regionalnih letališčih manj odpovedi zaradi vremena, stavk, terorizma ali drugih tveganj.
Therefore, Germany took the view that no airline was granted a selective advantage.
Nazadnje je Nemčija na splošno poudarila, da bližina letališča Zweibrücken ne pomeni podvajanja letališč za isto gravitacijsko območje, saj je od njega do letališča Frankfurt Hahn 127 km.
Finally, Germany argued in relation to the 2001 schedule of airport charges that this schedule was in accordance with market conform behaviour and as such would not be able to distort competition between airports or the competition on the internal market.
Po navedbah Nemčije traja vožnja na taki razdalji 1 uro in 27 minut z avtomobilom ali približno 4 ure z vlakom.
Germany considered, in contrast to the 2008 opening decision, that the 2002 Ryanair agreement did not generate any losses, but instead provided a source of income for FFHG.
Nemčija je torej trdila, da se ne bi noben razumen delavec, tovorni prevoznik ali turist, katerega kraj odhoda je v regiji Hunsrück, odpravil na letališče Zweibrücken namesto na letališče Frankfurt Hahn, da bi prišel na končno destinacijo.
Concerning the question of imputability of the 2002 Ryanair agreement and the use of State resources, Germany referred to its explanations concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 167 and following).
Poleg tega je trdila, da glede na potniški in tovorni zračni promet med letoma 2005 in 2012 ni mogoče sklepati o nikakršnem razmerju zamenljivosti med letališčema.
Furthermore, Germany added that in 2002, at the time of conclusion of the agreement, FFHG's shares were already being held mainly by Fraport, whose resources are not State resources and whose actions are not imputable to the State, as Germany already pointed out in relation to the 2001 PLTA (see recital 134 and following).
Po navedbah Nemčije največji delež potnikov letališča Frankfurt Hahn prihaja iz regije Hunsrück-Mosel-Nahe (glej sliko 5).
According to Germany, the supervisory board of FFHG, who approved the conclusion of the 2002 Ryanair agreement, was not dominated by the State.
Slika 2
In this regard, Germany contended that the presentation of FFHG's supervisory board members in recital 18 of the 2008 opening decision was erroneous.
Tržni deleži letališča Frankfurt Hahn v potniškem zračnem prometu leta 2013 [39]
Germany stated that according to FFHG's articles of association, Fraport had six representatives and Land Rhineland-Palatinate had eight, out of which three were representatives of local authorities.
> 2 % do 5 %
According to Germany, the members had however different numbers of votes and the majority of votes was always with the private company Fraport.
> 5 % do 10 %
This was due to the fact that Fraport's representatives had 12 votes each, while the representatives of the Land only had 5 votes each and those of the local authorities even had only one vote.
> 10 % do 20 %
Therefore, according to Germany, Fraport had 72 votes while the representatives of the Land and local authorities only had 28 votes.
Letališče
Since the supervisory board decides by simple majority, Germany took the view that it would not have been possible to conclude the 2002 Ryanair agreement without the votes of Fraport and therefore the conclusion of the agreement is not imputable to the State.
Letališče Frankfurt Hahn
Furthermore, Germany rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the conferral of an advantage and the MEOT submitted by PwC on this matter.
Tržni deleži leta 2013
Germany argued that the figure of […] passengers per flight was not overestimated since already in 2002 […] % of Ryanair flights were carried out by a Boeing 737-800 and the average load factor of those flights was […] %, meaning that the number of passengers per plane was in fact on average […] per Ryanair flight.
Infrastruktura je potrebna in sorazmerna z zadanim ciljem
Therefore, Germany took the view that the estimation of the number of passengers of […] was reasonable and not too high, especially since FFHG had taken into account that the change by Ryanair from Boeing 737-200 to Boeing 737-800 would come very quickly.
Nemčija je poudarila, da so bile financirane naložbe potrebne in sorazmerne s ciljem skupnega interesa (glej uvodno izjavo 197 in naslednje).
As regards the Commission's doubts relating to the cost for general airport infrastructure and general airport administration, Germany referred to its argumentation in relation to the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 171 and following).
Po navedbah Nemčije so bile naložbe izvedene v skladu s potrebami, zgrajena infrastruktura pa je bila potrebna, da je letališče lahko zagotavljalo povezljivost in razvoj regije ter razbremenilo letališče Frankfurt na Majni.
It also referred to its statements for the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 176) as regards the selectivity of the measure.
Nemčija je poudarila, da infrastruktura ni bila nesorazmerna ali prevelika glede na potrebe uporabnikov letališča.
In relation to the question of State resources and imputability, Germany referred to its statements for the 1999 and 2002 Ryanair agreements (see recitals 167 and following, and recitals 178 and following).
Zato je menila, da je bil ta pogoj za združljivost izpolnjen.
Furthermore, Germany stated that, at the moment of conclusion of the 2005 Ryanair agreement, the supervisory board of FFHG was constituted in a way that the public authorities were not able to exercise a determining influence on the decision.
Infrastruktura ponuja zadovoljive možnosti srednjeročne uporabe
At that moment Fraport held 156 votes while Land Rhineland-Palatinate and Land Hesse held 42 votes each.
Nemčija je trdila, da je družba Fraport pred sprejetjem odločitve o razširitvi letališke infrastrukture naročila študije o napovedih prometa, da bi za letališče Frankfurt Hahn opredelila možnosti glede prometa.
Therefore, Germany argued that the State could not have a determining influence as it only possessed 84 out of 240 votes.
Nemčija je predložila te študije, ki so jih v imenu družbe Fraport opravili strokovnjaki za letalstvo.
Furthermore, Germany took the view that no advantage was conferred on Ryanair through this agreement.
Na sliki 3, sliki 4 in sliki 5 so povzeti rezultati ene od teh študij v zvezi s pričakovanim razvojem potniškega in tovornega prometa na letališču Frankfurt Hahn med letoma 2000 in 2011.
Germany stated that in contrast to the Commission's suggestion in the 2008 opening decision, PwC had been provided with all relevant figures since it could otherwise not have conducted this comprehensive, neutral and independent MEOT.
Slika 3
Germany stated that PwC had made a second evaluation in its supplementary assessment where it explained that a major part of the costs related to investments of a general nature which the airport made independently of the services provided to Ryanair.
Potniki (v milijonih)
As far as costs are induced by the handling of Ryanair passengers, these are according to Germany allocated to Ryanair.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Germany also rejected the doubts of the Commission concerning the effectiveness of the penalty system which was introduced in the 2005 Ryanair agreement.
Vir: SH&E.
Germany stated that this penalty system reflects market conform behaviour.
Vir: SH&E.
Germany argued that additional sanctions to the ones agreed upon would have been unnecessary and inappropriate since Ryanair had no exclusive rights to use the airport and was also assuming a risk.
Slika 4
Moreover, Germany stated that the agreement was not a selective measure since the agreed airport charges were based on the general 2006 schedule of airport charges.
Vir: SH&E.
Germany also argued that any losses incurred by FFHG were not generated by the 2005 Ryanair agreement but by the necessary investments for Frankfurt Hahn airport, whereas the investments induced by Ryanair had been covered by the revenue generated by the 2005 Ryanair agreement.
Parkirani zrakoplovi
In relation to the 2006 schedule of airport charges, Germany argued generally that these airport charges had been developed exclusively based on economic considerations taking into account the business model of Frankfurt Hahn airport as a low cost carrier airport, i.e. with the expectation that the costs of operation would be covered in the short term and in the long term a sustainable profit would be generated.
Potniki (v milijonih)
Concerning the questions of State resources and imputability, Germany referred to its argumentation made in relation to the 1999, 2002 and 2005 Ryanair agreements (see recitals 167 and following, 178 and following and 182 and following) and in relation to the 2001 schedule of airport charges (see recital 173 and following).
Slika 5
Germany argued that no advantage was conferred upon Ryanair through the 2006 schedule of airport charges.
Skupni potencialni tovorni promet na letališču Frankfurt Hahn v obdobju 2001–2010 Zračni tovorni promet Preusmeritve zaradi prepovedi Tovornjaki
Firstly, Germany justified the different passenger charges which were created in order to provide an incentive to low cost carriers while covering the operational costs of the airport.
(v tisočih)
A reduction of charges according to the volume of passengers, Germany argued, is a common approach at national and international airports, as was already accepted by the Court of Justice.
Enak in nediskriminacijski dostop do infrastrukture
When such volume based reductions are granted, these must be justified on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria and this was the case at Frankfurt Hahn airport, according to Germany.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je predložila Nemčija, imajo vsi morebitni uporabniki infrastrukture enak in nediskriminacijski dostop do letališča.
Since the threshold for acquiring rebates was very low, namely 100000 passengers per year, these rebates were also supporting smaller airlines.
Nemčija je trdila, da so letališke pristojbine, ki so se plačevale za uporabo infrastrukture, temeljile na poslovno upravičenem razlikovanju in da je seznam letaliških pristojbin pregledno in nediskriminacijsko na voljo vsem morebitnim uporabnikom.
Secondly, Germany argued that the economic justification of the airport charges relied on the single-till-approach, referring to its statements concerning the 1999 Ryanair agreement (see recital 169).
Vpliv na trgovino ni v nasprotju s skupnim interesom
Germany also justified the differentiation according to turn-around-times (hereinafter: TRT) of under or over 30 minutes by explaining that TRT of more than 30 minutes are in fact more cost-intensive.
Prvič, Nemčija je trdila, da med letališčem Frankfurt Hahn in drugimi letališči na gravitacijskem območju, kot sta letališči Zweibrücken in Frankfurt na Majni, ni učinkov zamenljivosti.