natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Competition between airports and airport operators was also limited and developed gradually.
Tudi napovedi, ki so podlaga za oceno donosnosti družbe PwC, kažejo, da bi nadomestna scenarija samo na podlagi zelo optimističnih napovedi prometa, tj. ob predpostavljeni nesorazmerno veliki rasti, privedla do izgub, ki bi bile manjše (za […] milijonov EUR) kot pri scenariju ohranitve obstoječega stanja (brez upoštevanja, da bi bila potrebna dodatna naložba v višini […] milijonov EUR).
Taking into account those conditions, the financing of airports and airport infrastructure by the State was for some time considered by the Commission as a general measure of economic policy which could not be controlled under the State aid rules of the Treaty.
Po najslabšem mogočem scenariju bi bila NSV nadomestnega scenarija celo višja (za […] milijonov EUR) kot po scenariju ohranitve obstoječega stanja.
However, the market environment has changed.
Preglednica 20
In the Aéroports de Paris judgment, the General Court stated that the operation of an airport, including the provision of airport services to airlines and to the various service providers within airports, is an economic activity [48].
Ocena donosnosti povečanja kapitala iz leta 2001 [88][…]
Consequently, since the adoption of that judgment (12 December 2000) it is no longer possible to consider the operation and construction of airports as a task carried out by the administration within the public policy remit, outside the ambit of State aid control.
Vir:
In its Leipzig/Halle Airport judgment, the General Court confirmed that it is a priori not possible to exclude the application of State aid rules to airports as the operation of an airport and the construction of airport infrastructure is an economic activity [49].
Poročilo družbe PwC, 24. oktober 2008, str. 39, in ocena Komisije [89].
Once an airport operator engages in economic activities, regardless of its legal status or the way in which it is financed, it constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and the Treaty rules on State aid therefore apply [50].
Nemčija je nadalje trdila, da je bil izstop družbe Fraport obravnavan, vendar ni bil mogoč vsaj do leta 2005, zato se ni upošteval kot možnost.
FFHG has been engaged in constructing, maintaining and operating Frankfurt Hahn airport.
Poleg tega je treba spomniti, da se je napoved donosnosti naložbe družbe Fraport v družbo FFHG po sprejetju odločitve o sklenitvi pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 (tj. po avgustu 1999) bistveno poslabšala.
In this context, it has offered airport services and charged users — commercial aviation operators as well as non-commercial general aviation users — for the use of the airport infrastructure, thereby commercially exploiting the infrastructure.
Preglednica 21
Therefore, it must be concluded that FFHG has been engaged in an economic activity as from the date of the Aéroports de Paris judgment (that is to say 12 December 2000) onward.
Primerjalna ocena letnih rezultatov družbe FFHG na podlagi poslovnega načrta za pogodbo o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2001 ter poslovnega načrta za povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001 [90][…]
However, in the light of the developments (as set out in recitals 294 to 296) the Commission considers that, prior to the judgment of the General Court in Aéroports de Paris, public authorities could legitimately consider that financing measures with regard to airports did not constitute State aid and accordingly did not need to be notified to the Commission.
Poročilo družbe PwC, 24. oktober 2008, str. 32 in 39, ter ocena Komisije [91].
Hence, the Commission cannot put into question individual financing measures (not awarded on the basis of an aid scheme [51]) which were definitively adopted before judgment in Aéroports de Paris under State aid rules.
Navedeno je bilo tudi, da bo družba Fraport vseeno zagotovila „tvegani kapital, da bi zagotovila priložnosti za prihodnost“.
Accordingly, the Commission has to assess first, whether the 2001 PLTA was put into place before the judgment in Aéroports de Paris (12 December 2000) and second whether that measure was later amended.
Poleg tega je predstavnik zvezne dežele Porenje – Pfalška (Landrat okrožja Rhein-Hunsrück) opozoril, da glede na zapisnik seje nadzornega odbora družbe FFHG v maju 2001 „odločitev družbe Fraport za naložbo v družbo FFHG ne bo odvisna od obetov donosnosti, ampak od soglasja komisije za prevzeme pri nadzornem odboru družbe Fraport, ki je dala soglasje“.
The 2001 PLTA was irrevocably agreed on 31 August 1999 and confirmed in a notarial deed of 24 November 2000.
Komisija glede na navedeno ugotavlja, da povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001, ki ga je izvedla družba Fraport, ni bilo odobreno v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu in da je bila z njim družbi FFHG dodeljena prednost.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the 2001 PLTA was irrevocably put in place before the Aéroports de Paris judgment.
V zvezi s povečanjem kapitala, ki ga je izvedla zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, Komisija ugotavlja, da utemeljitev njegove tržne skladnosti, ki jo navaja Nemčija, temelji na enakih razlogih kot pri družbi Fraport, kar je že bilo obravnavano v uvodni izjavi 344 in naslednjih.
Moreover, the 2001 PLTA was not amended until it was replaced by the 2004 PLTA.
Argumenti, navedeni v zvezi s tem, veljajo tudi tukaj.
Hence, at that time the public authorities could legitimately consider that a PLTA to cover annual losses of FFHG did not constitute State aid.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, prvič, da je zvezna dežela od leta 1994 že večkrat neuspešno vlagala v družbo FFHG.
In the light of the considerations in recitals 292 and following, the Commission concludes that, at the time the 2001 PLTA, was put into place public authorities could legitimately consider that a PLTA to cover annual losses of FFHG did not constitute State aid.
Tretjič, glede na poročilo o naložbah za zvezno deželo Porenje – Pfalška iz leta 2003 so bili razlog za vlaganje zvezne dežele v letališče Frankfurt Hahn pomembni cilji socialne in strukturne politike, kot sta ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest in izpolnjevanje ciljev prometne politike, in ne razmisleki o donosnosti.
In 2001, Fraport and Land Rhineland-Palatinate increased FFHG's capital by EUR 27 million.
Zato Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001, ki ga je izvedla zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, ni bilo odobreno v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu in da je bila z njim družbi FFHG dodeljena prednost.
Fraport contributed EUR 19,7 million; Land Rhineland-Palatinate contributed EUR 7,3 million.
Selektivnost
The capital increase was approved first by the supervisory board of Fraport (as regards its contribution) on 14 December 2001 and subsequently by a resolution of the shareholders of FFHG dated 9 January 2002 [52].
Da bi ukrep državne pomoči spadal na področje uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe, mora dajati prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
The capital increase by Fraport and the Land became effective on 9 January 2002.
Zato se lahko za državno pomoč štejejo le ukrepi v korist podjetjem, s katerimi je prednost dodeljena selektivno.
Notion of undertaking and economic activity
V obravnavani zadevi sta povečanji kapitala iz leta 2001, ki sta ju izvedli družba Fraport in zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, koristili le družbi FFHG.
As was analysed in recitals 293 and following, since 12 December 2000 FFHG has to be considered as an undertaking exercising an economic activity for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Obe povečanji kapitala sta bili torej po definiciji selektivni v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
State resources and imputability
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino
The concept of State aid applies to any advantage granted through State resources by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it [53].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [92] je za to, da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco, dovolj, da prejemnik pomoči konkurira drugim podjetjem na trgih, odprtih za konkurenco.
Resources of local authorities are, for the application of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, State resources [54].
Kot izhaja iz ocene v uvodni izjavi 304, je upravljanje letališča gospodarska dejavnost.
In that respect, it is constant Commission practice to consider that irrespective of whether a public undertaking is loss-making or profit-making, all its resources are to be considered as State resources [55].
Po eni strani si konkurirajo letališča, da bi pritegnila letalske prevoznike in ustrezen zračni promet (potniški in tovorni), po drugi strani pa upravljavci letališč, da bi jim bilo dodeljeno upravljanje določenega letališča.
Land Rhineland-Palatinate's share in the 2001 capital increase
Poleg tega si lahko zlasti v zvezi z nizkocenovnimi prevozniki in ponudniki čarterskih poletov konkurirajo tudi letališča z različnimi gravitacijskimi območji in celo v različnih državah članicah, da bi privabila navedene letalske prevoznike.
Land Rhineland-Palatinate has financed its share of the 2001 capital increase directly from its general budget.
Na podlagi velikosti letališča Frankfurt Hahn (glej preglednico 1) in njegove bližine drugim letališčem Unije, zlasti letališčem Frankfurt na Majni, Luxembourg, Zweibrücken, Saarbrücken in Köln-Bonn [93], Komisija meni, da so lahko zadevni ukrepi vplivali na trgovino med državami članicami.
Thus, it can be concluded that that measure is financed through State resources and also imputable to the State.
Z letališča Frankfurt Hahn se opravljajo mednarodni leti na vrsto mednarodnih destinacij, kot so navedene v uvodni izjavi 202.
Fraport's share in the 2001 capital increase
Vzletno-pristajalna steza letališča Frankfurt Hahn je dovolj dolga in letalskim prevoznikom omogoča, da opravljajo lete na mednarodne destinacije.
State resources
Poleg tega se letališče Frankfurt Hahn uporablja kot letališče za zračni tovorni promet (glej preglednico 2).
In Germany's opinion, Fraport's share in the 2001 capital increase does not qualify as funding from State resources as at the time Fraport was an independent incorporated company under private law noted at the stock exchange and the public authorities were exercising no continuing control over its funds.
V zvezi s konkurenco v zračnem tovornem prometu Komisija navaja, da je tovorni promet običajno bolj mobilen kot potniški promet [94].
According to the case law, resources of an undertaking are to be considered State resources if the State is capable, by exercising control over such undertakings, to direct the use of their resources [56].
Na splošno se za gravitacijsko območje letališč za tovorni zračni promet šteje, da njegov radij znaša najmanj približno 200 kilometrov in 2 uri vožnje.
The Commission considers that in the present case, the State at all material times exercised direct or indirect control over the resources under consideration.
V zvezi s konkurenco v zračnem tovornem prometu Komisija navaja, da je tovorni promet običajno bolj mobilen kot potniški promet [95].
The Commission notes that, at the moment the 2001 capital increase was irrevocably decided, Fraport was a company that was in majority publicly owned.
Na splošno se za gravitacijsko območje letališč za tovorni zračni promet šteje, da njegov radij znaša najmanj približno 200 kilometrov in 2 uri vožnje.
Before 11 June 2001, public shareholders held 100 % of Fraport's shares [57].
Glede na informacije Komisije akterji v industriji na splošno menijo, da je lahko gravitacijsko območje letališča za tovorni promet še večje, saj naj bi bila za špediterje tovora za uporabo letališča za prevoz tovora na splošno sprejemljiva do poldnevna vožnja s tovornjakom (tj. do 12 ur vožnje s tovornjaki) [96].
On 11 June 2001, Fraport was listed on the stock exchange and 29,71 % of its shares were sold to private shareholders.
Glede na to Komisija meni, da je zaradi večje nadomestljivosti tovornih letališč v primerjavi s potniškimi letališči, saj zadostuje, da je zračni tovor dostavljen na neko območje, nato pa ga na njegovo končno destinacijo prepeljejo cestni in železniški špediterji, na področju prevoza tovora med drugim večja verjetnost izkrivljanja konkurence in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Afterwards, Land Hesse held 32,04 % of the shares, Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main GmbH (100 % owned by the municipality Frankfurt am Main) held 20,47 % of the shares and the Federal Republic of Germany held 18,32 % of the shares.
Na podlagi argumentov, predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah 360 do 364, je gospodarska prednost, ki je je bila deležna družba FFHG, na trgu Unije okrepila njen položaj v primerjavi z njenimi konkurenti za opravljanje letaliških storitev.
Also, the majority of Fraport shares held by public bodies meant that these were in a position to exercise a dominant influence over Fraport.
Sklepna ugotovitev
Thus, the Commission considers that any capital injection granted from Fraport's resources would signify a loss of State resources, thus constituting a transfer of State resources.
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2001 v višini 27 milijonov EUR, ki sta ga izvedli družba Fraport in zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Imputability to the State
UKREP 3: POVEČANJE KAPITALA IZ LETA 2004 IN UKREP 4: POGODBA O PRENOSU DOBIČKA IN IZGUBE IZ LETA 2004
A public undertaking may act with more or less independence, according to the degree of autonomy left to it by the State.
Zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen sta v to povečanje kapitala privolili leta 2002 pod pogojem, da bo med družbama FFHG in Fraport sklenjena nova pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube (tj. pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004), ki bo zajemala obdobje do 31. decembra 2014.
Therefore, the mere fact that a public undertaking is under State control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the funding provided to FFHG through the 2001 capital increase, to be considered as imputable to the State.
Kot je bilo analizirano v uvodni izjavi 293 in naslednjih, je treba družbo FFHG od 12. decembra 2000 šteti za podjetje, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in one way or another, in the adoption of this measure.
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 ter pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 – družba Fraport
On that point, the Court indicated that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking might be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken [58].
Komisija meni, da je treba zato, ker je bila pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 pogoj za povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 in ker so oba ukrepa odobrili delničarji družbe Fraport na isti skupščini delničarjev, pripisljivost obeh ukrepov oceniti skupaj (kar zadeva prispevek družbe Fraport).
Such indicators can be the integration of the undertaking into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of it being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains [59].
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 ter pogodba o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 sta bila potrjena na skupščini delničarjev 2. junija 2004 z 99,992 % glasov delničarjev, navzočih na skupščini.
As stated in recital 135 and the following, Germany submitted that the measures taken by Fraport in relation to Frankfurt Hahn airport were not imputable to the State.
Nemčija je poleg tega trdila, da je bilo za odobritev odločitve o pogodbi o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 potrebnih 74,994 % glasov na skupščini delničarjev, medtem ko so imeli javni delničarji samo približno 70 % delnic v družbi Fraport in torej dejansko niso mogli nadzorovati odločitev družbe Fraport.
In this regard, Germany referred especially to §76 of the AktG and to judgments under German law according to which the management board of an Aktiengesellschaft has a large discretion to act with regard to the day-to-day business of the company and insofar acts independently of its shareholders.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 ne bi bilo izvedeno, če delničarji družbe Fraport ne bi potrdili pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004.
Germany also referred to a judgment of the German Federal Court, the Bundesgerichtshof, in which that court noted that the public shareholders were not able to have an influence on individual decisions taken in day-to-day business, but could only provide the general framework and guiding supervision of Fraport.
Javni organi torej ne bi mogli brez precejšnega sodelovanja zasebnih delničarjev nadzorovati odločitve o izvajanju pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 ter izvedbi povečanja kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla družba Fraport.
According to Germany, this special nature of the Aktiengesellschaft was also recognised in relation to EU public procurement law in the Court's judgment in case Stadtwerke Brixen AG [60].
Komisija torej ob upoštevanju premislekov iz uvodne izjave 369 in naslednjih meni, da povečanja kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla družba Fraport, ter pogodbe o prenosu dobička in izgube iz leta 2004 ni mogoče pripisati državi.
Therefore, as regards the involvement of the public shareholders in the decision-making at the general meeting of shareholders, Germany argued that a vote by the meeting of shareholders did not constitute anything more than a mere exercise of their lawful rights and obligations as shareholders.
Tudi če bi bilo potrjeno, da je treba ta ukrepa pripisati državi, in bi se štela za pomoč, bi bila taka pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Germany also rejected the notion that any of the other indications from the Stardust Marine judgment, mentioned in recital 315, were present.
V zvezi s tem se uporabljajo tudi spodnji premisleki iz oddelkov 10.3 in 10.4.
As a preliminary remark, the Commission points out that the fact that a State owned company is a company incorporated under private law alone cannot — having regard to the autonomy which that legal form is capable of conferring upon it — be regarded as sufficient to exclude imputability of its actions to the State [61].
Povečanje kapitala iz leta 2004 – zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen
No distinction should be drawn between cases where aid is granted directly by the State and cases where it is granted by public or private bodies established or appointed by the State to administer the aid [62].
Zvezni deželi Porenje – Pfalška in Hessen sta svoja deleža v povečanju kapitala iz leta 2004 financirali iz svojega splošnega proračuna.
In addition, the Commission notes that the judgment rendered by the German Bundesgerichtshof in 1999 [63] concerns criminal proceedings.
Ta dela povečanja kapitala iz leta 2004 sta se torej očitno financirala iz državnih sredstev in ju je treba pripisati državi.
In those proceedings, the question at last instance was whether a former employee of Fraport could be charged with the offence of ‘corruption of an employee’ or ‘corruption of a public official’, so the question arose whether Fraport was to be viewed as an ‘other administration’ according to the German criminal code [64].
Kot je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi 336 in naslednjih, Komisija uporabi načelo udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, da bi preverila, ali je podjetju dodeljena gospodarska prednost.
Also as concerns the other judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof presented by Germany [65], the Commission notes that that judgment, as the case of Parking Brixen [66], concerned the criterion of public control over an undertaking in the sense of Union public procurement rules.
Uporaba preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu – zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška
It does not concern the question of imputability under State aid law.
Nemčija je v zvezi s povečanjem kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, trdila, da je ravnala v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Furthermore, while it may be that the management board of an Aktiengesellschaft can act independently of its public shareholders when day-to-day business decisions are taken, because of its shareholder structure (with 70 % of its shareholders being public) and the consortium agreement between its public shareholders Fraport nevertheless considers itself as a ‘dependent, publicly held undertaking’ [67] (as reported in each annual financial report between 2001 and 2006).
V utemeljitev je po sklepu o začetku postopka iz leta 2008 predložila preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je leta 2008 opravila družba PwC.
Moreover, several factors indicate that the 2001 capital increase is in fact imputable to the State.
Komisija, prvič, ugotavlja, da zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška ni pripravila predhodnega izračuna donosnosti ali izračunala svoje donosnosti naložbe.
First of all, the Commission considers that the 2001 capital increase cannot be considered out of context, but must be viewed in the light of the political and legal situation of Fraport at that time.
Nasprotno, zanašala se je na poslovni načrt, ki sta ga pripravili družbi Fraport in FFHG.
Those circumstances and facts clearly indicate that the measure would not have been adopted but for the involvement of the State.
Vendar Komisija, drugič, meni, da položaj zvezne dežele ni bil enak položaju delničarjev družbe Fraport.
According to the minutes of Fraport's supervisory board meeting on 26 September 1997, the authorities of Land Rhineland-Palatinate offered Fraport to become involved in Frankfurt Hahn airport, since ‘Land Rhineland-Palatinate wished, through the involvement of [Fraport] in [FFHG] to strengthen the development of employment opportunities, and since it expected an increase in air traffic’.
NSV pričakovanih dividend za obdobje do leta 2025 je znašala […] milijonov EUR z […]-odstotno interno stopnjo donosnosti.
After Fraport had become a shareholder in FFHG with a share of 64 % on 1 January 1998, according to the minutes of the supervisory board meeting of 10 May 1999, ‘the government of Land Rhineland-Palatinate [has] turned to the prime minister of Land Hesse with the request for a stronger commitment of [Fraport] at Hahn [airport]’.
Tretjič, glede na to dolgoročno načrtovanje in dejstvo, da je zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška že večkrat neuspešno vlagala v družbo FFHG, Komisija meni, da se ne bi noben preudaren zasebni vlagatelj v takem položaju, v kakršnem je bila zvezna dežela, odločil vložiti dodaten kapital v družbo FFHG, ne da bi izvedel tudi predhodno oceno občutljivosti.
For this purpose, Fraport was to take over the shares which Holding Hahn and Weiss and Freytag still held in the airport (see recital 17).
Preglednica 22
The minutes state furthermore that Fraport should not be penalised ‘if it does not reach regional political goals, e.g. number of employment opportunities’ and that ‘the negotiations between Fraport and the Land about points of discussion have begun’.
Ocena donosnosti povečanja kapitala iz leta 2004, ki ga je izvedla zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška
Finally, the minutes express that ‘public funds should be used as much as possible’ for the development of the airport and that, in order to speed up the process of collecting these funds, ‘Land Rhineland-Palatinate has already established a working group in the Ministry of Economy, of which Fraport is also a member’.
Poročilo družbe PwC: zvezna dežela Porenje – Pfalška, 24. oktober 2008, str. 21.