natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Referring to paragraph 44 of the Opening Decision and quoting from that text passage, Ryanair questions how the Commission, based on the previous conclusion on the reference system of taxation, argues in paragraph 44 that ‘the objective of the ATT is to tax air journeys starting at an airport in Ireland’ but then jumps, without further explanation or analysis, to the illogical conclusion that in light of this objective ‘it may be appropriate to distinguish the legal and factual situation of airlines providing only point-to-point services from that of airlines that also provide services that involve a transfer or transit at such airports’.
Družba Ryanair je navedla, da je področje uporabe pojma „primerljivi dejanski in pravni položaji“ v primerih državne pomoči skoraj vedno veliko širše od področja uporabe „upoštevnih proizvodnih trgov“ v primerih združitev, saj cilji, v katere je usmerjena domača shema v tem ali v drugih primerih državne pomoči, nimajo ničesar skupnega z opredelitvijo upoštevnega proizvodnega trga v primerih nadzora združitev.
The previous conclusion Ryanair refers to is given in paragraph 42 of the Opening Decision, where the Commission takes the preliminary view that the reference system of taxation is a tax which is charged in respect of every departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport in Ireland.
V zvezi s tem se spet sklicuje na sodno prakso Sodišča, v skladu s katero Sodišče ni razmejilo „primerljivih dejanskih in pravnih položajev“ glede na vidik stranke ali poslovne modele upravičencev, kot Komisija predlaga v tem sklepu.
Ryanair views the quotes in paragraph 44 of the Opening Decision as an attempt to justify a distinction between the legal and factual situation of airlines providing point-to-point services from that of airlines that also provide services that involve a transfer or transit.
Družba Ryanair se v svojih pripombah sklicuje na prakso odločanja Komisije, na primer na področju spletnih in klasičnih iger na srečo, v zvezi s katerimi bi se Komisija strinjala, da so podjetja z različnimi poslovnimi modeli v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju v smislu uvodne izjave 72.
Ryanair regards such a distinction as flawed and regrettable, as it would evidently lay the ground for a final decision that the measure under investigation did not constitute State aid.
Družba Ryanair pojasnjuje, da je na podlagi navedbe, da je referenčni sistem takse na letalska potovanja taksa, ki se zaračuna za vsak odhod potnika na letalu z irskega letališča, mogoče smiselno sklepati samo to, da je morala biti shema agnostična do mnenja potnikov o njihovem potovanju ali do poslovnega modela zadevnih letalskih prevoznikov.
In its comments, Ryanair refers to paragraph 45 of the Opening Decision, where the Commission, having regard to decisional practice in Union merger control, explains that services that involve a transfer or transit constitute, from the perspective of the customer, a journey from the airport of origin to the airport of destination, and not two separate journeys.
Drugačna razlaga bi izražala selektivni pristop, ki je ožji od cilja takse na letalska potovanja, in bi s tem izpolnjevala enega ključnih pogojev državne pomoči.
In Ryanair's view, in doing so, the Commission confuses the very narrow technical exercise of defining relevant product markets in merger cases with the notion of ‘comparable factual and legal situations’ in State aid cases.
Zlasti velja, da bi selektivnost v okviru tega sklepa izhajala iz dejstva, da bi kljub temu, da so tradicionalni letalski prevozniki, ki izvajajo transferne in tranzitne lete, in letalski prevozniki, ki izvajajo le lete od točke do točke (na primer družba Ryanair), v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju za namene državne pomoči, samo prvi imeli koristi od izvzetja transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov iz plačila takse na letalska potovanja.
Referring to jurisprudence of the Court and the Opening Decision, Ryanair submits that the notion of ‘comparable factual and legal situations’ are not determined through substitutability of demand and supply (which, according to Ryanair, are criteria typically used in merger reviews and other competition cases, and relied upon here by the Commission), but are a function of the objectives pursued by the scheme under consideration.
Družba Ryanair trdi, da je upravičence do te izjeme preprosto opredeliti a priori.
The ‘comparable factual and legal situations’ in State aid cases are according to Ryanair almost always much more broader in scope than the ‘relevant product markets’ in merger cases, as the objectives pursued by the domestic scheme in this or other State aid cases had nothing to do with the relevant product market definition in merger control cases.
Poleg tega ni mogoče trditi, da se je izvzetje brez diskriminacije uporabljalo za vse letalske prevoznike.
In that respect, Ryanair again refers to Court jurisprudence pursuant to which the Court did not delimit the ‘comparable factual and legal situations’ based on the perspective of the customers or the beneficiaries' business models, as the Commission would propose to do in this Decision.
Prvič, praktično nemogoče je, da bi letalski prevoznik svoj temeljni poslovni model, ki temelji na storitvah od točke do točke, prilagodil modelu vozlišč in manjših letališč (angl. hub and spoke); družba Ryanair ni seznanjena z niti enim precedensom takšne spremembe na trgu.
In its comments, Ryanair refers to the Commission's decisional practice, for example in the area of online and land-based gambling activities, where the Commission would accept that undertakings with different business models are in a comparable legal and factual situation in the sense referred to in recital 72.
Drugič, takšno prilagoditev bi dodatno ovirale omejitve zmogljivosti na večini letališč.
Ryanair explains that if the reference system of the ATT is a tax which is charged in respect of every departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport in Ireland, the only logical consequence can be that the scheme had to be agnostic as to the passengers' views about their journey or the business model of the airlines concerned.
Družba Ryanair meni, da je neuporaba takse na letalska potovanja za transferne in tranzitne potnike očitno odstopala od referenčnega sistema in ciljev te takse, pri čemer se zadevni izrazi razlagajo v skladu s sodno prakso Unije.
A different interpretation would reflect a selective approach, narrower than the ATT objective, and thus meet one of the key conditions of State aid.
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na svoje predhodne navedbe, v skladu s katerimi je bil neizrečen, vendar resnični cilj Irske selektivno podpreti nekatere domače letalske prevoznike in promovirati letališče v Dublinu kot mednarodno vozlišče.
Specifically, selectivity in this Decision would stem from the fact that although traditional airlines, which offer transfer and transit flights, and those following only point-to-point flights (such as Ryanair) are in a comparable factual and legal situation for State aid purposes, only the former would benefit from the exemption of transfer and transit passengers for the ATT.
Vprašanje, ali neuporaba takse na letalska potovanja za transferne in tranzitne potnike izhaja neposredno iz njenih osnovnih in vodilnih načel
Ryanair asserts that the beneficiaries of this exemption are easy to define a priori.
Družba Ryanair zavrača možnost, da izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov iz plačila takse na letalska potovanja izhaja neposredno iz „njenih osnovnih in vodilnih načel“.
Moreover, it could not be claimed that the exemption was open to all airlines, without discrimination.
Po njenem mnenju je sklep o začetku postopka poskus utemeljitve takšne sklepne ugotovitve z izkrivljenimi trditvami, ki sta jih naknadno predložili Irska in Komisija, da bi izničili jasne posledice „referenčnega sistema“ in „cilja“ takse na letalska potovanja, kot sta bila prej opredeljena v sklepu o začetku postopka, na podlagi nejasnega pojma „osnovna in vodilna načela“.
Firstly, it is virtually impossible for an airline to adapt its fundamental business model from a point-to-point to a hub-and-spoke model; to Ryanair's knowledge, there is no single precedent of such a change on the market.
Družba Ryanair je ob upoštevanju razdelka 6.1.5 sklepa o začetku postopka predložila pripombe o številnih načelih, ki jih po njenem mnenju Komisija ali Irska ali obe določata kot izhodišče:
Secondly, such an adjustment would be further hindered through capacity constraints in most airports.
O „jasnosti uporabe“: družba Ryanair opozarja na vprašanje, ali [naj bi bilo sprejemljivo, da] bi se ta „jasnost“ dosegla s selektivnim izogibanjem referenčnemu sistemu in cilju takse na letalska potovanja.
To conclude with, the non-application of the ATT in relation to transfer and transit passengers was in Ryanair's opinion a clear derogation from the system of reference and the objectives pursued by the ATT in the sense that those terms are interpreted by Union case law.
O preprečevanju „prekomerne uporabe takse na letalska potovanja“Ob sklicevanju na odstavek 48 sklepa o začetku postopka.
In this context, Ryanair refers to its previous submissions, according to which Ireland's undeclared but real objectives were to selectively support certain domestic airlines and promote Dublin airport as an international hub.
: družba Ryanair meni, da je ta izraz nejasen.
On the question of whether the non-application of the ATT to transfer and transit passengers results directly from its basic and guiding principles
Sklicuje se na sklep Komisije o državni pomoči za zmanjšanje stroškov električne energije energetsko intenzivnih podjetij, ki je posledica financiranja podpore proizvodnji energije iz obnovljivih virov, in natančneje na uvodno izjavo 32 navedenega sklepa, v kateri je določeno: „Ukrep je selektiven tudi zato, ker lahko zagotovi koristi le [energetsko intenzivnim uporabnikom] v nekaterih posebnih sektorjih“.
Ryanair rejects the idea that the exemption of transfer and transit passengers from the ATT results directly ‘from its basic and guiding principles’.
Na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da je pravična in poštena uporaba takse na letalska potovanja le dodatni argument proti izvzetju transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov.
Ryanair regards the Opening Decision as an attempt to justify such a conclusion by a set of contorted arguments put together ex post facto by Ireland and the Commission in order to cancel out the clear implications of the ATT's ‘reference system’ and ‘objective’, as previously defined in the Opening Decision, through the hazy term of ‘basic and guiding principles’.
Iz istega razloga bi morala Komisija ugotoviti, da izvzetje letalskih prevoznikov, ki so zaradi svojega modela vozlišč in manjših letališč intenzivni uporabniki letališke infrastrukture, pomeni državno pomoč.
Having regard to Section 6.1.5 of the Opening Decision, Ryanair comments on a number of principles that it considers to be postulated by the Commission or Ireland or both:
Družba Ryanair se sklicuje na domnevni namen Irske, da bi potnike zavarovala pred posledicami leta s postankom, kot ga Komisija navaja v sklepu o začetku postopkaOb sklicevanju na odstavek 48 sklepa o začetku postopka.
On ‘clarity of application’: Ryanair raises the question of whether [one is supposed to accept that] such ‘clarity’ would be achieved through the selective circumvention of the ATT's reference system and objective.
, in trdi, da v tem primeru zadevni ukrep pomeni pomoč socialnega značaja in je treba njegovo združljivost oceniti v skladu s členom 107(2) PDEU.
On avoidance of ‘over-application of the ATT’With reference to paragraph 48 of the Opening Decision.
O predpostavki, da so „izvzetja transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov običajna pri taksah na letalska potovanja, ki jih zaračunavajo druge države, na primer Združeno kraljestvo“: družba Ryanair ob sklicevanju na odstavke od 41 do 44 svoje predhodne tožbe, ki jo je vložila pri Splošnem sodišču v zadevi T-512/11, zavrača argument „enotne mednarodne prakse“.
: Ryanair finds this term unclear.
Trdi, da navedba Združenega kraljestva kot domnevno podobnega primera ni v skladu s pozneje popravljeno razlago Komisije v zvezi z mehanizmom takse na letalska potovanja, obravnavanim v razdelku 6.1.2 sklepa o začetku postopka.
Ryanair refers to a Commission decision on State aid to reduce the costs of electricity-intensive companies resulting from the financing of support to energy from renewables, and more specifically to recital 32 of that Decision, which stipulates that ‘The measure is also selective because only [energy-intensive users] within certain specific sectors can benefit from it’.
O predpostavki, da je „na podlagi poimenovanja in dejanskega besedila opredelitve takse na letalska potovanja mogoče sklepati, da je vodilno načelo te takse obdavčiti letalska potovanja z irskega letališča in ne posameznih odhodov z irskega letališča“: po navedbah družbe Ryanair tega stališča ni mogoče zagovarjati, saj je v zadevni pravni določbi, v kateri je opredeljena taksa na letalska potovanja, beseda „vsak“ uporabljena le enkrat in le v povezavi z besedo „odhod“, ne pa besedo „potovanje“.
On that basis, Ryanair concludes that fair and just application of the ATT only provides an additional argument against the exemption of transfer and transit passengers.
Poudarja, da „odhod“ ne pomeni isto kot „potovanje“.
By the same token, the Commission should find that an exemption for airlines that are intensive users of airport infrastructure due to their hub-and-spoke model constitutes State aid.
Zato je bila predpostavka Komisije, da se to besedilo Zakona o financah osredotoča na „vsako potovanje“ in ne na „vsak odhod“, preprosto v nasprotju z nedvoumnim besedilom in pomenom Zakona o financah, pri čemer je Komisija poskušala upravičiti neupravičeno.
Ryanair argues that if, as the Commission mentions in the Opening Decision, Ireland's alleged wish to shield passengers from the consequences of taking a flight with a stopoverWith reference to paragraph 48 of the Opening Decision.
Na splošno poimenovanje, ki ga država članica določi v zvezi z ukrepom, ni dejavnik, na katerem temelji odločitev v okviru prava Unije v zvezi s tem, ali ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
, then the measure in question constitutes aid of a social character, and its compatibility has to be reviewed under Article 107(2) TFEU.
Družba Ryanair v zvezi s trajanjem postopka predhodne preiskave, sodnega postopka in formalnih postopkov preiskave navaja, da bi morala biti zadevna dejstva do zdaj že dovolj jasna.
On the assumption that ‘Transfer and transit passengers exclusions are normal in air travel taxes operated by other countries, for example the United Kingdom’: With reference to paragraphs 41 to 44 of its previous Application to the General Court in Case T-512/11, Ryanair dismisses the argument of ‘common international practice’.
Zaskrbljena je, da v danih okoliščinah navedba Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka, da bo njeno obstoječo sklepno ugotovitev o skladnosti izpodbijanega izvzetja z „osnovnim in vodilnim načelom“ takse na letalska potovanja morda morala ponovno pregledati ob upoštevanju informacij, zbranih med formalno preiskavo, daje zelo omejeno upanje, da bo Komisija dejansko spremenila svoje stališče.
Ryanair argues that the reference to the United Kingdom as a supposedly similar example is inconsistent with the Commission's belatedly corrected understanding of the ATT mechanism discussed in Section 6.1.2 of the Opening Decision.
Družba Ryanair v zvezi s tem poudarja, da se v nobenem primeru ne sme dovoliti, da bi kakršne koli informacije ali naknadni argument izkrivili jasno besedilo in posledice izpodbijanega izvzetja transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov ali da bi se uporabili kot izgovor za oblikovanje ugotovitve v tem sklepu, da pomoči ni.
On the assumption ‘The name and indeed the wording of the ATT may suggest that its guiding principle is to tax air journeys from an airport in Ireland, rather than each departure from an airport in Ireland’: According to Ryanair, this position cannot be maintained as in the relevant legal provision defining the ATT, the word ‘every’ is used only once and only in connection with the word ‘departure’ rather than the word ‘journey’.
Obstoj državne pomoči
Ryanair stresses that a ‘departure’ is not the same as a ‘journey’.
Družba Ryanair poziva Komisijo, naj ponovno obravnava svoje predhodne ugotovitve ob upoštevanju njenih pripomb.
Therefore, the Commission's conjecture that the focus of this text of the Finance Act is on ‘every journey’ rather than ‘every departure’ was a simple negation of the text of the Finance Act clear letter and meaning, aiming to justify the unjustifiable.
V svojih pripombah se strinja s stališčem Komisije, da zadevni ukrep, če ta pomeni državno pomoč, ne izpolnjuje pogojev za nobeno izvzetje iz člena 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
More generally, the name that a Member State puts on a measure is not a factor upon which Union law relies to determine whether that measure constitutes State aid.
Pripombe družbe Aer Lingus
With regard to the length of the preliminary investigation procedure, litigation and the formal investigation procedures, Ryanair states that the relevant facts should be clear enough by now.
Družba Aer Lingus je navedla, da izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov iz plačila takse na letalska potovanja ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU iz naslednjih dveh razlogov:
Ryanair worries that, under the circumstances, the Commission's comment in the Opening Decision that its current conclusion on the compliance of the contested exemption with the ATT's ‘basic and guiding principle’ may need to be revised in light of the information gathered in the formal investigation offers very limited hope that the Commission will actually change its views.
referenčni sistem takse na letalska potovanja je obdavčitev odhodov na letalu z irskega letališča glede na celotno potovanje, pri čemer se potovanje, ki vključuje dva vmesna leta za zvezo, obravnava kot eno potovanje, za potovanja, ki se začnejo zunaj Irske, pa se taksa na letalska potovanja ne uporablja.
In that respect, Ryanair stresses that in any event, no information or ex post facto argument may be allowed to distort the clear letter and implications of the contested exemption of transfer and transit passengers or be used as an excuse for a no aid finding in this Decision.
Taksa na letalska potovanja se zaračuna samo enkrat ob upoštevanju celotnega načrta poti.
On the existence of State aid
Na podlagi tega „referenčnega sistema potovanja“ takse na letalska potovanja ni mogoče šteti za selektivno in torej ne pomeni državne pomoči,
Ryanair calls on the Commission to reconsider its preliminary findings in light of its submissions.
tudi če bi Komisija vztrajala pri svojem predhodnem stališču, da referenčni sistem takse na letalska potovanja temelji na vsakem odhodu letala z irskega letališča, izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov ni selektivno, ker ne razlikuje med gospodarskimi subjekti: prevozniki, ki opravljajo le storitve od točke do točke, se soočajo z objektivno drugačnimi okoliščinami kot letalski prevozniki, ki opravljajo storitve za transferne in tranzitne potnike.
In its comments, Ryanair agrees with the Commission's view that, insofar as the measure at issue constitutes State aid, it does not fall under any of the exemptions specified in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.
Izvzetje bi bilo v vsakem primeru utemeljeno tudi zato, ker obravnava pomisleke glede dvojnega obdavčevanja in je usklajeno z vodilnim načelom takse na letalska potovanja, v skladu s katerim se obdavči potovanje.
Comments from Aer Lingus
Namen takse na letalska potovanja
Aer Lingus submits that the ATT's exemption for transfer and transit passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU for the following two reasons:
Družba Aer Lingus je od davčnih in carinskih uradov zahtevala pojasnilo glede razlage Zakona o financah.
the ATT's reference system is that it taxes departures on an aircraft from an Irish airport by reference to the entire journey, such that a journey comprising two connecting flights is treated as a single journey and that journeys commencing outside of Ireland are not subject to the ATT.
Ugotavlja, da je taksa ne glede na število delov potovanja zaračunana na podlagi končne destinacije potnika in je ocenjena enkrat ob upoštevanju celotnega potovanja, ne glede na to, ali potovanje vključuje enega ali več letov.
The ATT is levied only once, in relation to the overall itinerary.
V zadevnem odlomku elektronskega sporočila z dne 30. marca 2009 je navedeno:
Based on that ‘journey reference system’, the ATT cannot be considered selective and would thus not constitute State Aid.
„Let se konča v končni destinaciji potnika v skladu z opravljeno rezervacijo, ne glede na progo do njegove končne destinacije, katere načrt je pripravil letalski prevoznik.
even if the Commission were to maintain its preliminary view that the ATT's reference system is based on every departure of a flight from an Irish airport, the exemption for transfer and transit passengers is not selective because it does not discriminate between economic operators: pure point-to-point carriers face objectively different circumstances compared to airlines that operate services for transfer and transit passengers.
V opisanem scenariju čezatlantskih letov [Shannon–Dublin–Čikago] mora družba Aer Lingus, kadar stranka pri njej rezervira let iz Shannona v Čikago, uporabiti stopnjo takse 10 EUR, saj se zadevni let konča v Čikagu, tj. več kot 300 km od letališča v Dublinu.
The exemption would, in any event, also be justified because the exemption addresses both double taxation concerns and is aligned with the ATT's guiding principle of referencing the tax to the journey.
Dejstvo, da potovanje vključuje vmesni postanek, ne spremeni tega stališča“ (besedilo je podčrtala družba Aer Lingus).
On the purpose of the ATT
Družba Aer Lingus meni, da je ta razlaga v skladu z opredelitvama transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov, ki se nanašata na „potovanje“ in ne na let potnika.
Aer Lingus sought clarification from the Revenue Commissioners as to the interpretation of the Finance Act.
Po njenih navedbah iz tega sledi, da je „potovanje“ lahko neprekinjeno ali pa vključuje največ šesturni postanek.
Aer Lingus contends that on the basis of that email, it is clear from the interpretation of Section 55(2) of the Finance Act that the tax is to be determined on the basis of the final destination, disregarding any intermediate stop-over locations.
Po navedbah družbe Aer Lingus zadevno izvzetje uveljavlja osnovno načelo, da je treba takso določiti glede na končno destinacijo, ne glede na lokacijo kakršnih koli vmesnih postankov.
Aer Lingus concludes that regardless of the number of segments a journey includes, the tax is levied on the basis of the passenger's final destination and is assessed once, by reference to the overall journey, regardless of whether it comprises one or more flights.
Družba Aer Lingus trdi, da bi izvzetje poleg tega prispevalo k namenu preprečevanja dvojnega obdavčevanja ne le na Irskem, ampak tudi čez mejo.
The relevant passage from the email dated 30 March 2009 reads as follows:
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na odlomek iz elektronskega sporočila, ki je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 84 ter ga je prejela od davčnih in carinskih uradov:
‘The flight ends at the passenger's final destination as booked by them, regardless of the route planned for them to their destination by the airline operator.
„Namen opredelitve ‚transfernega potnika‘ je preprečiti ločeno zaračunavanje takse za vsako etapo potovanja […], kadar postanek med letoma traja največ šest ur.
In your outlined scenario of the transatlantic flights [Shannon-Dublin-Chicago], if a person books a flight from Shannon to Chicago with Aer Lingus, the rate of tax that Aer Lingus should apply is EUR 10, as the place where that flight ends is Chicago i.e. more than 300 km from Dublin Airport.
Če postanek med letoma traja več kot šest ur, se izvzetje ‚transfernega potnika‘ ne uporablja in taksa se zaračuna ločeno za vsako etapo potovanja (tj. dva odhoda, pri čemer se za vsakega zaračuna ustrezna stopnja takse na letalska potovanja)“ (besedilo je podčrtala družba Aer Lingus).