natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The security charge is one of the airport charges through which airlines pay BAC for access to airport infrastructure and the provision of airport services.
Družba BAC mora na podlagi člena 2 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014 subvencijo, prejeto od države, razdeliti uporabnikom letališča Bruxelles-National, ki so med 1. januarjem in 31. decembrom 2012 prepeljali več kot 400000 odhajajočih potnikov, pri čemer tranzitni in transferni potniki niso vključeni, po podrobnih pravilih, ki so opredeljena v navedenem členu.
It is therefore one of the components of the price of commercial services, determined by a private operator providing these services.
Ta plačila so povračilo dela pristojbine za varovanje, ki jo družbi BAC plača vsak zadevni letalski prevoznik, kot prikazuje izračun, predstavljen v uvodnih izjavah od 39 do 41.
Moreover, the security charge is an amount charged per departing passenger carried by the airline.
Pristojbina za varovanje je del letaliških pristojbin, ki jih določi družba BAC in se zaračunajo letalskim prevoznikom za komercialne storitve, med drugim dostop do letališke infrastrukture, ki jo letalski prevozniki potrebujejo za izvajanje svojih storitev zračnega prevoza.
It is therefore clear that the subsidies in question are funding commercial passenger transport activities which, as the Commission explained in point 27 of its aviation guidelines, constitute economic activities.
Poleg tega je ta pristojbina izražena kot znesek, zaračunan na prepeljanega odhajajočega potnika, in torej izhaja neposredno iz dejavnosti komercialnega prevoza potnikov, ki jih opravljajo letalski prevozniki.
It is not in any case a compensation for costs that should be borne by the airlines when carrying out activities under the responsibility of the State in the exercise of its official remit as a public authority.
Torej je del stroškov, ki jih morajo letalski prevozniki, ki delujejo na letališču Bruxelles-National, nositi v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
In the Charleroi decision, the Commission examined the funding of activities under the responsibility of the State in the exercise of its official remit as a public authority, carried out by the manager of Charleroi airport.
Zato se z zadevnim ukrepom zadevni letalski prevozniki izognejo stroškom, ki bi običajno bremenili njihova lastna finančna sredstva, in pridobijo prednost, ki je v običajnih tržnih razmerah ne bi imeli.
It did not examine a redistribution mechanism for airlines such as that introduced by Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014.
Belgija meni, da je treba pri presoji obstoja gospodarske prednosti v obravnavanem primeru primerjati ukrep, ki je predmet tega postopka, in primerljiv položaj v Belgiji.
Nor did it conclude that any funding received by airlines could not be classed as State aid because it funded non-economic activities.
V zvezi s tem poudarja, da je do sprejetja zadevnega ukrepa samo letališče Bruxelles-National svojim uporabnikom zaračunavalo pristojbino, ki je pokrivala stroške varovanja, nastale zaradi njihove uporabe letališča, brez javne intervencije.
The Charleroi Decision is therefore not relevant for the purposes of analysing the measure covered by this Decision.
Zaradi tega je položaj letališča Bruxelles-National po mnenju Belgije drugačen od položaja drugih letališč v valonski regiji in flamski regiji, kjer celotne stroške v zvezi s storitvami varovanja in varnosti na letališčih prevzame zadevna regija.
It follows from the above that the measure examined, namely the subsidy for airlines granted by the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014, funds an economic activity, namely the commercial carriage of passengers.
Belgija se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na sklep o letališču Charleroi ter zlasti na njegovi uvodni izjavi 269 in 270.
Its beneficiaries, which are airlines, are clearly undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Belgija se opira na točke od 54 do 60 letaliških smernic v zvezi z uporabo načela udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu za ukrepe, sprejete v korist letalskih prevoznikov, in uporabo metod za primerjavo med letališči za ta namen ter na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da zadevni ukrep zadevnim letalskim prevoznikom ne daje nobene gospodarske prednosti.
State resources and imputability to the State
Družba Brussels Airlines predstavlja podobne trditve, pri čemer poudarja, da se na letališču Charleroi letalskim prevoznikom ne zaračunavajo pristojbine za varovanje.
The subsidy is granted pursuant to a Royal Decree adopted by the Council of Ministers.
Komisija se ne strinja s stališčem Belgije glede metode, ki jo je treba uporabiti za presojo obstoja gospodarske prednosti v tej zadevi.
Article 6 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 stipulates that the Minister with responsibility for air navigation is tasked with implementing the decree.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da se poglavje letaliških smernic, na katero se sklicuje Belgija, nanaša na analizo ravnanja upravljavca letališča v razmerju do enega ali več letalskih prevoznikov za določitev, ali so pristojbine, ki jih zaračunava ta upravljavec, skladne z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Furthermore, the subsidy is financed by resources in the Belgian State budget.
Ukrep, ki je predmet te preiskave, na spada v ta okvir, ker gre za ukrep delnega državnega povračila pristojbin, ki jih je zasebni upravljavec letališča zaračunal trem določenim letalskim prevoznikom, s strani države.
Indeed, Article 3 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 states that: ‘The subsidy referred to in Article 1 shall be charged to the basic allocation 52.60.31.32.01, ‘Aid to the aviation sector’, (…) of the budget of the Federal Public Service for Mobility and Transport for budget year 2014.’.
Poleg tega za letalske prevoznike, ki poslujejo v Belgiji, običajne tržne razmere ustrezajo položaju, v katerem nosijo celotno finančno breme zaradi letaliških pristojbin, ki so jim zaračunane, ne glede na to, kakšne so lahko razlike med temi pristojbinami, katerih višino določajo različni upravljavci letališč glede na več dejavnikov, kot so njihove poslovne politike, njihova višina stroškov, regionalni ali nacionalni regulativni okvir, v katerem morajo te določiti pristojbine, ali obseg, v katerem morajo nositi finančno breme dejavnosti, ki spadajo na področje pristojnosti javnega organa.
Furthermore, Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 requires BAC to redistribute the entire subsidy received from the State to certain airlines, on the basis of amounts determined for each airline in accordance with a method laid down in detail by the Royal Decree.
Običajne tržne razmere ne predpostavljajo enotnih letaliških pristojbin na različnih belgijskih letališčih, tudi če bi bila ta dovolj primerljiva, da bi se lahko uporabila metoda iz točk od 54 do 60 letaliških smernic, česar Belgija ni poskušala dokazati.
This provision leaves BAC no latitude with respect to the choice of recipient airlines or the amounts allocated to each one.
Zato se subvencija, katere namen je, da se pristojbine, zaračunane na belgijskem letališču, približajo pristojbinam, zaračunanim na drugih belgijskih letališčih, ne more samo zaradi tega izogniti temu, da je označena kot gospodarska prednost.
The payments made by BAC to the airlines under the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 must be regarded as imputable to the State and financed by State resources, and this conclusion is unaffected by the fact that BAC is a corporation in which 75 % of the shares are held by private investors.
Poleg tega se sklicevanje Belgije na uvodni izjavi 269 in 270 sklepa o letališču Charleroi ne zdi upoštevno.
It should also be noted that the only payments made pursuant to the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 were made without fully abiding by the terms and conditions originally laid down by the Decree.
Komisija v navedenih uvodnih izjavah ne zavzema stališča, temveč povzema stališča Belgije glede pripomb, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane tretje strani v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi z letališčem Charleroi.
The sums due to each airline, calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of that Royal Decree, were paid directly by the State to airlines satisfying the criteria laid down in Article 2(1) of the Royal Decree, without passing via BAC.
Poleg tega se zadevni uvodni izjavi nanašata na izbiro belgijskih javnih organov, da prevzamejo ali ne izvajanje ali financiranje dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo upravljavci letališča, za katere ti organi menijo, da spadajo na področje pristojnosti javnih organov.
Specifically, on 22 September 2014, the Belgian State paid the following amounts directly to the airlines: EUR 16779819 (Brussels Airlines), EUR 2143621 (TUI Airlines Belgium) and EUR 76560 (Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium).
To vprašanje ni upoštevno pri analizi ukrepa, ki je predmet te preiskave.
These direct payments are clearly imputable to the State and financed with State resources.
Kot je navedeno že v uvodni izjavi 131 tega sklepa, Komisija ne izpodbija možnosti, da zvezna država plača nadomestilo za stroške, ki jih ima družba BAC v zvezi s svojimi dejavnostmi varovanja, temveč želi ugotoviti, ali mehanizem razdelitve subvencije na podlagi kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014 v korist letalskih prevoznikov tem daje gospodarsko prednost.
On the basis of these elements, it must be concluded that the subsidy scheme for airlines set up by Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 is imputable to the State and granted by Belgium by means of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da trditve, ki sta jih predstavili Belgija in družba Brussels Airlines, ne postavljajo pod vprašaj ugotovitve, da se s preiskovanim ukrepom zadevni letalski prevozniki izognejo stroškom, ki bi običajno bremenili njihova lastna finančna sredstva v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
Economic advantage
Poleg tega je v primeru, da bi družba BAC prejela subvencijo pod pogoji iz člena 1 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, ne da bi bila ta subvencija povezana s kakršno koli obveznostjo razdelitve letalskim prevoznikom, malo verjetno, da bi družba BAC učinek te subvencije na pristojbino za varovanje, zaračunano letalskim prevoznikom, prenesla na enak način, kot je določeno v členu 2 navedene kraljeve uredbe.
In order to assess whether a State measure constitutes aid to an undertaking, it is necessary to determine whether the undertaking in question enjoys an economic advantage which avoids it to bear costs which would normally have had to burden its own financial resources or if it enjoys an advantage which it would not have enjoyed under normal market conditions.
Najprej, nikjer ni jasno pokazano, da bi v okviru učinka take subvencije družba BAC znižala pristojbino za varovanje ali jo delno povrnila.
Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, not the cause or the objective of the State intervention.
Družba BAC bi lahko subvencijo namenila financiranju dodatnih naložb na področju varovanja, ki niso bila predvidena v njenem predhodno obstoječem programu naložb.
Whenever the financial situation of an undertaking is improved as a result of State intervention on terms differing from normal market conditions, an advantage is present.
V takem primeru družba BAC ne bi imela razloga za znižanje pristojbine za varovanje ali njeno delno povračilo.
To assess this, the financial situation of the undertaking following the measure should be compared with its financial situation if the measure had not been introduced.
Po drugi strani, kot je navedeno v oddelku 2.1.3, družba BAC določi sistem nadzorovanja cen in formulo za nadzorovanje cen za petletno regulativno obdobje.
Since only the effect of the measure on the undertaking matters, it is irrelevant whether the advantage is compulsory for the undertaking in that it could not avoid or refuse it.
Poleg tega tudi če bi družba BAC v okviru učinka take subvencije lahko menila in bi menila, da je želeno, da se letalskim prevoznikom omogoči, da so deležni učinka te subvencije z znižanjem pristojbine za varovanje ali z njenim delnim povračilom, je razumno sklepati, da bi to storila enotno za vse uporabnike letališča Bruxelles-National.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014, BAC is required to redistribute the subsidy received from the State to users of the Brussels airport which have carried more than 400000 departing passengers between 1 January and 31 December 2012, not including transit or transfer passengers, in accordance with the procedures laid down in that Article.
Pristojbina za varovanje je trenutno namreč v obliki enotnega zneska na odhajajočega potnika, brez razlikovanja glede na vrsto potnikov.
These payments are intended to refund part of the security charge due to BAC by each of the airlines concerned, as shown by the calculation in recitals 39 to 41.
Subvencija, ki znižuje stroške družbe BAC za varovanje, bi morala torej po vsej logiki voditi do znižanja tega enotnega zneska, od česar bi imeli korist vsi letalski prevozniki sorazmerno z njihovim številom prepeljanih potnikov, ki odhajajo z letališča Bruxelles-National.
The security charge is part of the airport charges set by BAC and billed to the airlines in exchange for commercial services, notably access to airport infrastructure, which the airlines need to provide air transport services.
Vendar mehanizem, določen v členu 2 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, vodi do zelo drugačnega rezultata.
Moreover, this charge is expressed as an amount charged per departing passenger carried and therefore arises directly out of the airlines' commercial passenger transport activities.
Predvsem na podlagi tega mehanizma številni uporabniki letališča Bruxelles-National ne prejmejo nobenega delnega povračila pristojbine za varovanje, medtem ko si samo trije letalski prevozniki razdelijo razpoložljivi proračun v višini 19000000 EUR letno.
It is therefore one of the costs that the airlines operating at Brussels airport must bear under normal market conditions.
Zato mehanizem razdelitve spremeni finančna bremena letalskih prevoznikov, ki uporabljajo letališče Bruxelles-National, v korist treh letalskih prevoznikov, ki so upravičeni do tega mehanizma, v primerjavi s hipotetičnim položajem, v katerem bi družba BAC prejela subvencijo pod pogoji iz člena 1 kraljeve uredbe z dne 7. januarja 2014, ne da bi bila ta subvencija povezana s kakršno koli obveznostjo razdelitve letalskim prevoznikom.
Consequently, the measure in question avoids the airlines concerned from bearing costs that would normally have come out of their own financial resources and gives them an advantage which they would not have enjoyed under normal market conditions.
Poleg tega ukrepa ni mogoče šteti za finančno nadomestilo, ki bi ga država odobrila zadevnim letalskim prevoznikom za zagotavljanje neke storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, saj se Belgija ne sklicuje na obstoj take storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ki bi bila zaupana zadevnim letalskim prevoznikom.
According to Belgium, in order to assess the existence of an economic advantage in this case, a comparison must be made between the measure covered by the proceedings and a comparable situation in Belgium.
Za ukrep torej ni mogoče šteti, da ne vključuje gospodarske prednosti na podlagi sodbe Altmark.
Belgium points out in this respect that until the adoption of the measure in question, only Brussels airport charged its users a fee covering the security costs entailed by their use of the airport, without any public intervention.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da zadevni ukrep daje gospodarsko prednost letalskim prevoznikom.
According to Belgium, Brussels airport differs in this respect from the other airports located in the Walloon Region and the Flemish Region, where all costs related to airport security and safety services are borne by the regions concerned.
Komisija poudarja, da je bilo 26. avgusta 2014 na spletišču Melchiorja Watheleta, tedanjega podpredsednika vlade in nekdanjega državnega sekretarja za okolje, energijo, mobilnost in institucionalne reforme, navedeno, da „se je ožji odbor ministrov decembra 2012 odločil odobriti sredstva v višini 20000000 EUR letno za podporo belgijskim letalskim prevoznikom […]“.
Belgium makes reference in this respect to the Charleroi decision, and in particular recitals 269 and 270 thereof.
Treba je še ugotoviti, ali je gospodarska prednost, ugotovljena v uvodnih izjavah od 141 do 154, selektivna.
On the basis of points 54 to 60 of the aviation guidelines, on the application of the market economy operator principle to measures taken in favour of airlines, and on the use of comparator airport methods to that end, Belgium concludes that the measure in question does not offer any economic advantage to the airlines concerned.
Selektivnost
Brussels Airlines makes similar arguments, pointing out that no security charge is billed to the airlines at Charleroi airport.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU se pomoč, ki jo odobri država, šteje za državno pomoč, kadar med drugim daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
The Commission does not share Belgium's view as to the method to be used to assess the existence of an economic advantage in the present case.
Zato lahko samo tisti ukrepi, ki dajejo selektivno prednost posameznim podjetjem ali kategorijam podjetij ali posameznim gospodarskim sektorjem, pomenijo državno pomoč.
The measure under review does not fall within this framework as it relates to a partial State refund of charges billed by a private airport operator to three specific airlines.
Tako so bili ob sprejetju kraljeve uredbe edini mogoči upravičenci do ukrepa povsem ugotovljivi in so predstavljali zaprto podskupino letalskih prevoznikov, ki so prevažali potnike z letališča Bruxelles-National, določeno izključno glede na podatke za leto 2012, ki so bili na voljo ob sprejetju kraljeve uredbe.
Moreover, for airlines operating in Belgium, normal market conditions are a situation in which they bear the entire financial burden of the airport charges billed to them, whatever the differences between those charges may be, the levels of which are set by the various airport managers on the basis of multiple factors such as their respective commercial policies, their respective cost levels, the regional or national regulatory framework in which they must determine these charges, or the extent to which which they must bear the financial burden of the activities falling under the remit of public authorities.
Gospodarska prednost, odobrena zaprti skupini podjetij, ki so ob odobritvi povsem ugotovljiva, je nujno selektivna tako de jure kot de facto.
Normal market conditions do not imply that airport charges at the various Belgian airports are uniform, even supposing that they are sufficiently comparable for the method recommended in points 54 to 60 of the aviation guidelines to be applied, which Belgium has not attempted to demonstrate.
Ukrep, ki je predmet te preiskave, daje torej letalskim prevoznikom, ki so do njega upravičeni, selektivno prednost.
Consequently, a subsidy for the purpose of bringing the charges billed at one Belgian airport into line with the charges billed at other Belgian airports cannot, on that ground alone, escape classification as an economic advantage.
Te ugotovitve ni mogoče izpodbijati z utemeljevanjem Sodišča v sodbi z dne 21. decembra 2016 v zadevi Hansestadt Lübeck zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 161 in 162.
Moreover, Belgium's reference to recitals 269 and 270 of the Charleroi decision does not appear to be relevant.
V navedeni sodbi je Sodišče preučilo pogoje, pod katerimi lahko uredba, ki določa znesek letaliških pristojbin na letališču Lübeck, pomeni selektivno prednost.
In those recitals, the Commission does not take a stance but summarises Belgium's comments on the comments received from interested third parties in the context of a formal investigation procedure concerning Charleroi airport.
Menilo je, da je upoštevni referenčni okvir za analizo merila selektivnosti zadevne uredbe okvir ureditve letališčih pristojbin, ki se uporabljajo za letališče Lübeck.
In addition, the recitals in question concern the choice of the Belgian public authorities whether or not to take responsibility for the execution or funding of activities carried out by the airport managers and which those authorities consider to fall within the remit of the public authorities.
Tako je treba v okviru skupine trenutnih in potencialnih uporabnikov letališča Lübeck preučiti, ali zadevna uredba daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem pred drugimi, in po potrebi ugotoviti, ali je odobritev te prednosti utemeljena z naravo in splošno shemo sistema, v katerega spada zadevni ukrep.
This issue is not relevant to the analysis of the measure under review.
Ukrep, ki je predmet te preiskave, se razlikuje od ukrepa, obravnavanega v zadevi Hansestadt Lübeck, v tem, da ne ureja letaliških pristojbin, ki se uporabljajo za vse uporabnike letališča Bruxelles-National, ki so odprta skupina, temveč podeljuje subvencijo zaprti podskupini te celotne skupine.
As stated above, in recital 131 of this Decision, the Commission does not contest the Federal State's entitlement to offset costs incurred by BAC in connection with its security activities, but rather seeks to determine whether the mechanism for redistributing the subsidy introduced by the Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 in favour of the airlines confers an economic advantage on them.
Konkretno, iz upravičenosti do ukrepa so izključeni vsi letalski prevozniki, ki so leta 2012 prepeljali manj kot 400000 potnikov, odhajajočih z letališča Bruxelles-National, in to ne glede na število in vrsto potnikov, ki jih prepeljejo v obdobju uporabe ukrepa.
It follows from the foregoing that the none of the arguments put forward by Belgium and Brussels Airlines are such as to challenge the conclusion that the measure under examination avoids the airlines concerned bearing the costs that would normally have been incurred out of their own financial resources under normal market conditions.
Model analize selektivnosti, ki ga je Sodišče uporabilo v zadevi Hansestadt Lübeck, torej ni uporaben za ukrep, ki je predmet te preiskave.
BAC could allocate the subsidy to funding additional security investments not provided for in its pre-existing investment programme.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba obstoj razlik v obravnavi zaradi preučevanega ukrepa in njihovo morebitno utemeljitev preučiti v okviru skupine, ki jo sestavljajo trenutni in potencialni uporabniki letališča Bruxelles-National.
In these circumstances, BAC would have no reason to reduce the security charge or to reimburse part of it.
To je pristop, ki ga v postopku – vsaj implicitno – uporablja Belgija.
On the other hand, as noted in section 2.1.3, the tariff control system and the tariff control formula are set by BAC for a five-year regulatory period.
Navedla je namreč različne utemeljitve za nekatere vidike ukrepa, ki vodijo do različne obravnave trenutnih in potencialnih uporabnikov letališča Bruxelles-National, zlasti prag 400000 potnikov in uporabo podatkov za leto 2012 za določitev upravičenih podjetij.
The Royal Decree of 7 January 2014 was adopted during the 2011-2015 regulatory period.
Iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 161, Komisija meni, da te metode v obravnavanem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti.
It is unlikely that the subsidy could have or would have incited BAC to find an incentive to propose a reduction in the safety charge or a partial refund of the charge before the end of this regulatory period, i.e. almost two years after the adoption of the Royal Decree.
Poleg tega bi, kot je prikazano v uvodnih izjavah od 164 do 192, uporaba te metode privedla do ugotovitve, da je ukrep selektiven.
Furthermore, even assuming that such a subsidy could have or would have led BAC consider passing on the benefit of the subsidy to the airlines by reducing or reimbursing part of the security charge, it is reasonable to assume that it would have done so in a uniform manner for all users of Brussels airport.
Če uporabimo metodo, opisano v uvodni izjavi 162, in je referenčni okvir določen, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 163, je treba ugotoviti, da ukrep daje prednost posameznim podjetjem pred drugimi, ki so v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.