natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, the security charge currently takes the form of a single amount per departing passenger without any distinction as to the type of passenger.
Vsi letalski prevozniki, ki letijo z letališča Bruxelles-National, so namreč v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, saj se zanje med drugim uporablja isti sistem letaliških pristojbin in zlasti pristojbina za varovanje, ki je izražena kot enotni znesek, zaračunan na odhajajočega potnika, brez razlikovanja glede na vrsto ali število potnikov.
A subsidy reducing BAC's safety costs should therefore logically lead to a reduction in that single amount, thereby benefiting all airlines in proportion to the number of departing passengers they carry from Brussels airport.
Medtem ko so nekateri uporabniki upravičeni do delnega povračila pristojbine za varovanje, in sicer v obravnavanem primeru tisti, ki izpolnjujejo merilo, opredeljeno v členu 2(1) kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, drugi niso upravičeni do nobenega povračila.
However, the mechanism provided for in Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 leads to a very different outcome.
Treba je še ugotoviti, ali je ta različna obravnava utemeljena z naravo in splošno shemo sistema, v katerega spada zadevni ukrep.
In particular, in application of this mechanism, many users of Brussels airport do not benefit from any partial reimbursement of their security charge, while only three airlines share the available budget of EUR 19000000 a year.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti na cilj kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, s katero je bil zadevni ukrep uveden.
As a result, the redistribution mechanism alters the financial charges borne by the airlines using Brussels airport in favour of the three airlines benefiting from this mechanism, in relation to a hypothetical situation in which BAC had received a subsidy under the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 without being obliged to redistribute this subsidy to the airlines.
Glede na samo besedilo navedene uredbe gre za ukrep podpore za infrastrukturo, povezani z varovanjem na letališču Bruxelles-National.
Moreover, the measure cannot be regarded as a financial compensation that the State would grant to the airlines concerned for the provision of any service of general economic interest, since Belgium has not claimed that any such service of general economic interest has been entrusted to the airlines concerned.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je v skladu z veljavno ureditvijo družba BAC pristojna za določitev višine letaliških pristojbin v okviru omejitev regulativnega okvira, opisanega v oddelku 2.1.3.
The measure cannot therefore be considered as devoid of economic advantage under the Altmark judgment.
V skladu z določbami, navedenimi v uvodni izjavi 25, družba BAC namreč po posvetovanju z uporabniki letališča določi sistem oblikovanja cen in formulo za nadzorovanje cen, ki se štejeta za dogovorjena med stranmi, če ni obvestila o utemeljenem nestrinjanju uporabnika.
It follows from all the above that the measure in question does confer an economic advantage on airlines.
Organ za ekonomsko regulacijo lahko zahteva nekatere prilagoditve ali spremembe formule za nadzorovanje cen ali sistema oblikovanja cen v primeru nestrinjanja med stranmi v skladu s členom 55(4) kraljeve uredbe z dne 21. junija 2004.
The Commission notes that, on 26 August 2014, the website of Mr Melchior Wathelet, then Deputy Prime Minister and former State Secretary for the Environment, Energy, Mobility and Institutional Reform, stated that ‘the Ministerial Select Committee decided in December 2012 to grant an envelope of EUR 20000000 a year to support Belgian airlines (…)’.
Formula za nadzorovanje cen in kakršna koli sprememba te formule, ki jo zahteva organ za ekonomsko regulacijo, ter sistem oblikovanja cen so nato predloženi v odobritev ministru, pristojnemu za zračni promet.
On 27 August 2014, Mrs Catherine Fonck, then State Secretary for Mobility, said: ‘There is a government decision and it is very clear.
Nazadnje, Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba BAC uvedla pristojbino za varovanje za financiranje – vsaj do uvedbe subvencije s členom 1 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014 – dejavnosti varovanja, ki jih izvaja družba BAC.
The subsidies to airlines via Brussels airport must be paid’.
Elementi, omenjeni v tej uvodni izjavi, so del narave in splošne sheme sistema, v katerega spada zadevni ukrep.
These ministerial statements support the conclusion that the redistribution mechanism introduced by Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 provides an economic advantage to the airlines concerned, and even suggests that the granting of such an advantage to these airlines could have been the main aim of the Royal Decree.
Pristojbina za varovanje je izražena kot enotni znesek, zaračunan na odhajajočega potnika, ne glede na vrsto prepeljanega potnika.
It remains to be determined whether the economic advantage identified in recitals 141 to 154 is selective.
Ukrep javnega financiranja dejavnosti varovanja bi moral torej po vsej logiki družbo BAC voditi do tega, da bi enotno znižala pristojbino za varovanje, če že ne bi celotne subvencije uporabila za financiranje dodatnih stroškov varovanja.
Selectivity
Tako bi vsi uporabniki letališča Bruxelles-National imeli korist od učinkov tega financiranja glede na število odhajajočih potnikov, ki jih prepeljejo.
Under Article 107(1) TFEU, in order to be regarded as State aid, aid granted by a State must favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Vendar zadevni ukrep vodi do precej drugačnega rezultata, že zato ker številni uporabniki ne morejo prejeti nobenega povračila v skladu s členom 2 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014.
Consequently, only measures that confer a selective advantage on certain undertakings, categories of undertakings or certain economic sectors may constitute State aid.
Ukrep torej brez objektivnega razloga odstopa od splošne sheme sistema letaliških pristojbin, in to v več pogledih.
The Commission notes first of all that under the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014, the measure can benefit only the three airlines that carried more than 400000 passengers from Brussels airport in 2012, namely Brussels Airlines, TUI Airlines Belgium and Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium, i.e. a subset of the airlines currently or potentially carrying passengers departing from Brussels airport.
Najprej, izhaja iz enostranske odločitve zvezne vlade, ki nima pristojnosti za določanje letaliških pristojbin.
Thus, at the time the Royal Decree was adopted, the only possible beneficiaries of the measure were clearly identifiable and constituted a closed subset of the airlines carrying passengers departing from Brussels airport, determined solely on the basis of data for the year 2012, which were available when the Royal Decree was adopted.
Vloga zvezne vlade je namreč omejena na odobritev ali neodobritev formule za nadzorovanje cen in sistema oblikovanja cen po koncu postopka, opisanega v oddelku 2.1.3, ki pri sprejetju zadevnega ukrepa ni nikakor bil uporabljen.
An economic advantage granted to a closed group composed of undertakings that are clearly identifiable at the time it is granted is necessarily selective, both de jure and de facto.
Poleg tega ukrep ni skladen s strukturo pristojbine za varovanje, ki je v obliki zneska na odhajajočega potnika in ne razlikuje med vrsto ali številom prepeljanih potnikov.
The measure under review therefore does confer a selective advantage on the airlines benefiting from it.
Tako razlik v obravnavi zaradi ukrepa ni mogoče utemeljiti z naravo in splošno shemo sistema, v katerega spada zadevni ukrep.
This conclusion cannot contradict the reasoning followed by the Court in its judgment of 21 December 2016 in case Hansestadt Lübeck, on the grounds set out in recitals 161 and 162.
V nadaljevanju tega sklepa bo Komisija kljub temu še dodatno preučila utemeljitve, ki so jih navedle Belgija in nekatere tretje strani v zvezi s parametri, ki določajo upravičence do ukrepa.
In that judgment, the Court considered the conditions under which a schedule setting the amount of airport charges at Lübeck airport could entail a selective advantage.
Omejitev števila upravičencev glede na prag 400000 potnikov letno v letu 2012, brez vključitve tranzitnih in transfernih potnikov
It found that the relevant reference framework for analysing the selectivity criterion of the schedule at issue was the airport charge scheme applicable at Lübeck airport.
Po navedbah Belgije je osnovni namen ukrepa upoštevati postopno padanje mejnih stroškov na potnika v stroških za varovanje in se s tem izogniti oškodovanju uporabnikov, ki prispevajo največ k razvoju potniškega prometa na letališču.
Thus, it is within the group consisting of current and potential users of Lübeck airport that it is necessary to examine whether the schedule in question confers an advantage to certain undertakings over others and, if appropriate, to determine whether the granting of that advantage is justified by the nature and the economy of the system of which the measure concerned is a part.
Belgija v zvezi z izbiro praga 400000 potnikov letno, brez vključitve tranzitnih in transfernih potnikov, za določitev upravičencev pojasnjuje, da je bil ta prag določen na podlagi naslednjih analiz:
The measure under review here differs from the measure at issue in the case Hansestadt Lübeck in that it does not consist of regulating airport charges applicable to all users of Brussels airport, as an open group, but provides a subsidy to a closed subgroup of this group.
41 % stroškov varovanja je fiksnih, 59 % pa je variabilnih,
In particular, any airline that carried less than 400000 passengers departing from Brussels airport in 2012 is ineligible for the measure, regardless of the number and type of passengers it carries during the period of application of the measure.
transfer potnikov ni izvzet iz stroškov varovanja, kar je znatna razlika v primerjavi s številnimi evropskimi letališči,
The selectivity analysis model used by the Court in the Hansestadt Lübeck case cannot therefore be applied to the measure under consideration.
način oblikovanja cen za stroške varovanja na letališču Bruxelles-National ne odraža postopnega padanja stroškov varovanja in dejanski stroški upravljanja potnikov naj zato ne bi bili izraženi s to prakso oblikovanja cen,
However, even assuming that the redistribution mechanism introduced by Article 2(1) of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 can be assimilated to a measure relating to the setting airport charges for Brussels airport and that the possible selectivity of the measure should be examined taking as a reference the group formed by the current and potential users of the Brussels airport, it would still be just as selective, as was to be demonstrated in recitals 163 to 192.
letalski prevozniki potnikov prispevajo več k stroškom varovanja kot prevozniki tovora, ker pristojbine temeljijo na številu potnikov, čeprav pomemben del stroškov varovanja izhaja iz upravljanja varovanja za te prevoznike tovora.
In the case referred to in recital 162, the relevant reference framework for assessing the possible selectivity of the measure in question should be the system of airport charges in force at Brussels airport and the scheme for funding security activities at that airport.
Po mnenju Belgije ta analiza vodi k ugotovitvi, da so bili prevoznikom potnikov zaračunani previsoki zneski in da je bilo treba uvesti korektivne ukrepe, saj je za razvoj letališča treba predvsem povečati število potnikov, odhajajočih z letališča Bruxelles-National.
Moreover, the existence of differences in treatment under the measure under examination and their possible justifications should be examined within the group composed of the current and potential users of Brussels airport.
Ob predstavitvi teh utemeljitev Belgija dodaja, da gre za stabiliziranje poslovanja glavnih prevoznikov z jasno in objektivizirano spodbudo.
This is, at least implicitly, the approach that Belgium has taken during the procedure.
Po mnenju Belgije spodbuda lahko učinkuje po tem, ko je dosežen prag 400000 odhajajočih potnikov.
Indeed, it has put forward a number of justifications for certain aspects of the measure that entail a difference of treatment among the current and potential users of Brussels airport, in particular the threshold of 400000 passengers and the use of data for 2012 to identify the beneficiary undertakings.
Belgija meni, da bi pri nižji vrednosti ukrep zvodenel, saj subvencionira le tretjino stroškov letališkega varovanja, pri višji vrednosti pa bi bil cilj nedosegljiv za letalske prevoznike, ki se želijo razviti na letališču Bruxelles-National.
For the reasons given in recital 161, the Commission considers that this method is not applicable in the present case.
Nazadnje, Belgija je v svojih pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka dodala: „cilj je bil spodbuditi letalske prevoznike k razvoju v Bruslju z nadomestilom za znižanje stroškov za varovanje zaradi povečanja števila potnikov“.
Moreover, as demonstrated in recitals 164 to 192, the application of this method would lead to the conclusion that the measure is selective.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da s pripombami Belgije glede prevoznikov tovora ni mogoče utemeljiti razlik, ki jih uvaja ukrep med prevozniki potnikov in ki so predmet te analize.
If the method described in recital 162 were used, with a reference framework determined as set out in recital 163, it should be noted that the measure confers an advantage to some firms in relation to others in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Prvič, prag naj bi bil utemeljen z željo, da se spodbudi ali razvije promet na letališču, zlasti s stabiliziranjem prometa gospodarskih subjektov, ki prepeljejo največ potnikov.
Indeed, all the airlines operating flights departing from Brussels airport are in a similar factual and legal situation, as they are subject to the same system of airport charges and in particular to a security charge expressed as a single amount charged per departing passenger without distinction as to the type or number of passengers.
Drugič, utemeljen naj bi bil z namenom, da se popravijo učinki sedanje pristojbine za varovanje, ki naj ne bi pravilno izražala dejanskih stroškov varovanja, ki nastanejo s potniškim prometom posameznega letalskega prevoznika.
However, while some users receive a partial refund of their security charge, in this case those who satisfy the criterion laid down in Article 2(1) of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014, others do not receive any refund.
Komisija v zvezi s prvo točko ugotavlja, da cilj stabilizirati ali razviti promet na letališču Bruxelles-National ni nikakor povezan z razglašenim ciljem kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, da se financira infrastruktura za varovanje.
It remains to determine whether this difference in treatment is justified by the nature and the economy of the system of which the measure concerned is a part.
Poleg tega cilj stabilizirati ali razviti promet v resnici spada v okvir strategije in poslovne politike družbe BAC.
In this respect, we should recall the objective of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 introducing the measure in question.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da v sistemu letaliških pristojbin na letališču Bruxelles-National ni nikakor predvideno, da bi lahko zvezna vlada nadomestila družbo BAC pri izvajanju finančnih spodbud za spodbujanje prometa.
In its own words, it is a measure to support security-related infrastructure at Brussels airport.
Kot je že bilo navedeno, je v skladu z veljavno ureditvijo družba BAC pristojna za določitev višine letaliških pristojbin v okviru omejitev regulativnega okvira, opisanega v oddelku 2.1.3.
It should also be remembered that under the current schedule, it is the responsibility of BAC to determine the level of airport charges, within the regulatory framework described in section 2.1.3.
Poleg tega, če je cilj Belgije povečati promet na letališču Bruxelles-National, so razlogi, zakaj bi morale biti finančne spodbude omejene na prevoznike, ki so prepeljali več kot 400000 potnikov leta 2012, tj. je pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene kraljeve uredbe, nejasni.
Under the provisions cited in recital 25, after consultation airport users, BAC sets the tariff system and the tariff control formula, which are assumed to be agreed between the parties unless a user notifies a substantiated disagreement.
Zlasti so letalski prevozniki, ki leta 2012 niso dosegli tega praga prometa, izključeni iz področja uporabe ukrepa, čeprav bi lahko v naslednjih letih znatno povečali svoj promet, če bi le prejeli ustrezne spodbude.
The economic regulatory authority may require certain adjustments or changes to the tariff control formula or the tariff system in the event of a disagreement between the parties pursuant to Article 55(4) of the Royal Decree of 21 June 2004.
Edini kvantitativni elementi, ki jih Belgija navaja za utemeljitev praga 400000 potnikov letno, so podatki v zvezi s številom odhajajočih potnikov, ki so jih leta 2012 in leta 2013 prepeljali letalski prevozniki, ki so v enem od teh dveh let prepeljali več kot 100000 odhajajočih potnikov, pri čemer se razlikuje med transfernimi potniki, tranzitnimi potniki in drugimi odhajajočimi potniki.
The tariff control formula and any changes to this formula imposed by the economic regulatory authority, as well as the tariff system, are subject to the approval of the Minister with responsibility for air navigation.
Komisija torej meni, da prva glavna točka trditev Belgije, kot je povzeta v uvodni izjavi 174, ne omogoča utemeljitve praga 400000 odhajajočih potnikov letno, ki se upošteva v členu 2(1) kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014.
Finally, the Commission notes that BAC introduced a security charge designed to fund BAC's security activities, at least until the introduction of the subsidy established by Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014.
V zvezi z drugo glavno točko, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 174, Komisija ugotavlja, da skrb, da se popravi način, na katerega družba BAC prenaša svoje stroške varovanja na različne letalske prevoznike, kar se Belgiji zdi potrebno, da bi se upoštevali dejanski stroški, ki jih povzročijo različni letalski prevozniki, ni povezana s ciljem ukrepa, da se podpre infrastruktura, povezana z varovanjem.
The elements referred to in that recital are part of the nature and the economy of the system in which the measure in question exists.
Če je namreč namen odobritve subvencije družbi BAC za znižanje njene stroškovne strukture na področju varovanja, da se potencialno podpre infrastruktura za varovanje, se zdi, da način, na katerega družba BAC med različne letalske prevoznike razdeli del te subvencije, ki jo prejmejo, nima učinka na ta cilj.
The security charge is expressed as a single amount billed per departing passenger, regardless of the type of passengers carried.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je družba BAC tista, ki predlaga sistem oblikovanja cen in formulo za nadzorovanje cen, ki odražata dejanske stroške.
A public measure funding security activities should logically induce BAC, unless the entire subsidy is used to finance additional security expenditure, to reduce the security charge in a uniform way.
Organ za ekonomsko regulacijo lahko samo v nekaterih okoliščinah in po postopku posvetovanja, ki vključuje uporabnike letališča Bruxelles-National, sprejme dokončno odločitev.
Thus, all users of Brussels airport would benefit from the effects of this funding in proportion to the number of departing passengers they carry.
Zvezna vlada se je z enostranskim posegom z zadevnim ukrepom, da bi dejansko popravila strukturo pristojbine za varovanje, brez objektivnega razloga oddaljila od splošnega sistema določanja letaliških pristojbin.
However, the measure in question brings about a significantly different outcome, if only because many users are not eligible for any reimbursement under Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014.
Poleg tega tudi ob predpostavki, da bi lahko zvezna vlada legitimno izvedla tak popravek, da bi bili izraženi dejanski stroški varovanja, ki jih povzročijo različni letalski prevozniki, izključitev letalskih prevoznikov, ki so leta 2012 prepeljali manj kot 400000 odhajajočih potnikov, brez upoštevanja tranzitnih in transfernih potnikov, ne omogoča doseganja tega cilja.
The measure thus departs, for no objective reason, from the general economy of the airport charges system for several reasons.
Čeprav ni mogoče izključiti, da mejni stroški na potnika v stroških za varovanje postopno padajo, elementi, ki jih je predložila Belgija, v ničemer ne nakazujejo, da je treba ta učinek postopnega padanja upoštevati samo od 400000. potnika in da letalski prevozniki, ki prepeljejo manjše število potnikov, ne morejo imeti koristi od tega, da država prevzame del stroškov varovanja družbe BAC.
Indeed, the role of the federal government is limited to whether or not to approve the control formula and the tariff system after the process described in section 2.1.3, although that process was not followed in any respect when the measure at issue was adopted.
Treba je opozoriti, da je lahko v nekem letu uporabe ukrepa upravičenemu letalskemu prevozniku povrnjena celotna pristojbina za varovanje, ki se plača za vsakega odhajajočega potnika po 400000. potniku, če to omogoča proračun v višini 19 milijonov EUR.
Secondly, the measure is inconsistent with the structure of the security charge, which takes the form of an amount per departing passenger and makes no distinction as to the type or number of passengers carried.
Vendar je po mnenju Belgije pomemben del stroškov varovanja družbe BAC (59 %) variabilen.
Accordingly, the differences in treatment under the measure cannot be justified by the nature and economy of the system of which the measure concerned is a part.
Iz tega izhaja, da vsak dodatni potnik, vključno s tistimi po 400000. potniku, povzroči nezanemarljive dodatne stroške varovanja.
In the remainder of this Decision, and for the sake of completeness, the Commission will nevertheless examine the justifications put forward by Belgium and certain third parties regarding the parameters that determine the beneficiaries of the measure.
Zadevni ukrep torej ne more ustrezno izražati dejanskih stroškov varovanja, ki jih povzročijo različni uporabniki letališča Bruxelles-National.
Restriction of the number of beneficiaries on the basis of the threshold of 400000 passengers per year in 2012, not including transit and transfer passengers.
Družba Brussels Airlines je menila, da je prag, povezan s številom potnikov, upošteven v primeru subvencije za storitve v zvezi z varnostjo letališč, saj so tudi stroški za varnost na letališčih povezani s številom potnikov.
According to Belgium, the underlying concept of the measure is to reflect the decreasing marginal cost per passenger of the security costs and thus to avoid penalising the users who contribute most to the development of airport passenger traffic.
Vendar ni pojasnila, v čem način, kako se stroški varovanja spreminjajo natančno glede na število potnikov, utemeljuje izbiro praga, izraženega v številu potnikov, pri čemer je že na začetku izključena cela kategorija letalskih prevoznikov.
Regarding the choice of the threshold of 400000 passengers per year, not including transit and transfer passengers, to determine the beneficiaries, Belgium explains that this threshold was set on the basis of the following analyses:
Družba Brussels Airlines poleg tega ni predložila nobene utemeljitve glede uporabljene višine praga.
41 % of the cost of security is fixed, while 59 % is variable;
Poleg tega letalski prevoznik, ki bi leta 2013, 2014 ali 2015 prepeljal več kot 400000 odhajajočih potnikov letno, brez upoštevanja transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov, za zadevno leto ne bi prejel nobenega delnega povračila pristojbine za varovanje na podlagi člena 2 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, če ni dosegel praga 400000 potnikov leta 2012, in bi bil še naprej oškodovan zaradi strukture pristojbine za varovanje, ki po mnenju Belgije ne izraža dovolj postopnega padanja stroškov varovanja.