(1)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, the Member States are to adopt national or functional airspace block (‘FAB’) plans, including binding national targets or targets at the level of FABs, ensuring consistency with the Union-wide performance targets. That Regulation also provides that the Commission is to assess the consistency of those targets on the basis of the assessment criteria referred to in point (d) of its Article 11(6). Detailed rules in this regard have been set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

(2)

Union-wide performance targets in the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency for the second reference period (2015-2019) were adopted by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (3).

(3)

On 2 March 2015, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 (4) concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in the initial performance plans with the Union-wide performance targets as well as setting out recommendations to revise those targets. This Decision was addressed to Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and required revisions of targets in the key performance areas of capacity and/or cost-efficiency.

(4)

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic all submitted by 2 July 2015 revised national or functional airspace block plans including revised performance targets. Spain and Portugal submitted an amendment to the functional airspace block plan with further revised performance targets on 4 February 2016.

(5)

The Performance Review Body, which is charged with assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, submitted its assessment report to the Commission on 15 October 2015.

(6)

The assessment of the revised performance targets regarding their consistency with the Union-wide performance targets has been done by using the same assessment criteria and methodologies that were used in the assessment of the initially submitted performance targets and by considering the appropriate measures, if any, taken by Member States concerned to ensure consistency of performance targets with the Union-wide performance targets.

(7)

Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the revised targets submitted by the Member States for en route air traffic flow management (ATFM) delay has been assessed, in accordance with the principle laid down in point 4 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by using the respective FAB reference values for capacity that, when applied, ensure at Union level that the Union-wide performance target is met, calculated by the Network Manager and set out in the Network Operations Plan (2014-2018/2019) in its most recent version (‘Network Operations Plan’). That assessment has demonstrated that the targets submitted by Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany and the Netherlands as regards FABEC and by Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta as regards Blue Med FAB have not been revised and are not in conformity with the respective reference values and therefore not consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target. In addition, the appropriate measures taken by Member States listed in this recital are insufficient since they lack concrete timelines with specific milestones and, thus, not adequate in respect to the revision of the targets to be achieved.

(8)

Concerning the key performance area of cost-efficiency, the targets expressed in en route determined unit costs submitted by the Member States have been assessed, in accordance with the principles laid down in point 5, in conjunction with point 1, of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by taking account of the trend of en route determined unit costs over the second reference period and the combined period of the first and the second reference period (2012-2019), the number of service units (traffic forecast) and the level of en route determined unit costs in comparison to Member States having a similar operational and economic environment. That assessment has demonstrated that the revised targets submitted by France, Germany and the Netherlands as regards FABEC are still not consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target, for the below reasons. In addition, the appropriate measures taken by Member States listed in this recital are insufficient since they lack concrete timelines with specific milestones and, thus, not adequate in respect to the revision of the targets to be achieved.

(9)

As regard France, its revised targets are based on a planned reduction of its en route determined unit costs over the second reference period by 1,1 % per year on average. This is significantly below the targeted reduction of the average Union-wide en route determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and the second reference period the planned en route determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,4 %, compared to – 1,7 %). The revised target for 2019 is based on planned en route determined unit costs that are equal to the average en route determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of France but around 22 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019. Furthermore, the planned en route determined unit costs in 2015 are 7,9 % above the actual costs in 2014. In addition, in revising its targets, France did not revise downwards its en route determined costs and only revised upwards the forecasted traffic expressed in service units.

(10)

As regard Germany, its revised targets are based on a planned reduction of its en route determined unit costs over the second reference period by 3,5 % per year on average. This is slightly above the targeted reduction of the average Union-wide en route determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). However, over the combined period of the first and the second reference period the en route determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,8 %, compared to – 1,7 %). The target for 2019 is based on planned en route determined unit costs in 2019 that are substantially above (+ 12,6 %) the average en route determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Germany and around 34 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019. Furthermore, the planned en route determined unit costs in 2015 are 3,9 % above the actual costs in 2014.

(11)

As regard the Netherlands, its revised targets are based on a planned reduction of its en route determined unit costs over the second reference period by only 0,4 % per year on average. This is significantly below the targeted reduction of the average Union-wide en route determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and the second reference period the planned en route determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,2 %, compared to – 1,7 %). The revised target for 2019 is based on planned en route determined unit costs that are slightly above (+ 1,3 %) the average en route determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of the Netherlands and around 19 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019. Furthermore, the planned en route determined unit costs in 2015 are 3,4 % above the actual costs in 2014. In addition, in revising its targets, the Netherlands did not revise downwards its en route determined costs, nor did it revise the forecasted traffic expressed in service units.

(12)

It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to issue a Decision concerning the need for corrective measures to be adopted by the Member States concerned to ensure that their national supervisory authorities propose revised performance targets, which address the remaining inconsistencies identified in this Decision. Suggestions for such corrective measures should be specified, in accordance with Article 15(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, in light of the reasons for the shortcomings identified and the relevant Union-wide performance targets. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, the Member States concerned should, in addition to adopting corrective measures, communicate to the Commission the elements demonstrating their consistency with this Decision. Both should be communicated to the Commission within two months of the notification of this Decision.

(13)

In order to address the inconsistencies in relation to the key performance area of capacity, it should be ensured that the corrective measures lead to revised performance targets that are in line with the FAB reference values for capacity set out in the Network Operations Plan. In particular, this concerns the following area control centres (ACC): Maastricht UAC (Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands), Bordeaux, Brest, Marseille and Reims (France) as regards FABEC; Nicosia (Cyprus), Athens and Makedonia (Greece) as regards Blue Med FAB.

(14)

In order to address the inconsistencies in relation to the key performance area of cost-efficiency, it should be ensured that the corrective measures lead to revised performance targets.

(15)

The Single Sky Committee did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,