Die Flughafengesellschaft FBB betreibt den Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt (BER) mit seinen drei Terminals. Berlin ist der drittgrößte Flughafenstandort in Deutschland; gemessen an den ankommenden und abfliegenden Passagieren (ohne Umsteiger) sogar der größte. Die Flughäfen Schönefeld und Tegel fertigten im Jahr 2019, vor der Coronavirus-Pandemie, rund 35,65 Millionen Passagiere ab. Für das Jahr 2020 rechnet die Flughafengesellschaft mit insgesamt rund neun Millionen Passagieren.

The airport company Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH (FBB) operates Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) with its three terminals. Berlin is the third biggest airport location in Germany and ranks first in terms of origin and destination traffic (not counting connecting passengers). In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, the airports in Schönefeld and Tegel handled around 35.65 million passengers. For 2020, the airport company expects a total of around nine million passengers.

berlin.airport

Aufrufe

vor 6 Jahren

Flag

Annual Report 2013

118 | Flughafen Berlin

118 | Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH the daytime protection area. The costs for the technical upgrading in the noise protection of properties will rise sharply because of the stricter protection target with the consequence that the rule in the planning stipulation decision providing for the cost cap of 30 % of the fair market value of the specific property will apply in a large number of cases. In view of this situation, FBB has completely revised the noise protection programme of BER and its engineering principles and initiated a tender for extensive assessor services for the preparation of several thousand fair value appraisals. The awarding of the contract is scheduled for January 2014. Several engagements of fair value appraisers on a smaller scale are intended to explore and find solutions to especially urgent cases. According to the MIL implementation notes of 13 December 2012, the recalculation of the claims must be based on the flight patterns determined by the BAF (curving routes). This leads to a situation in which the exterior noise levels in partial areas of the claim areas will presumably be lower and require less expensive protection measures than would have been the case if the preliminary flight patterns based on the official approval of a plan (straight routes) had been the basis. One suit brought by neighbouring residents for most-favoured treatments is already pending, and the possibility that additional suits will be filed cannot be excluded. Additional risks also arise from the fact that the realisation of significantly more extensive construction measures to provide protection from aircraft noise for the properties in the airport environs will lend more weight to the issue of ventilation. For this reason, FBB has included more powerful noise insulation fans in the technical requirements for possible construction measures for noise insulation. Since there are currently no instructions from government authorities concerning the consideration of existing technical standards for ventilation, the reprocessing of the applications for noise protection will take existing technical solutions into account. If the authorities decide retroactively that more extensive technical solutions are required, the necessity for yet another revision of parts of the applications which processed at that time must be assumed.

Our Figures | 119 Moreover, it is assumed that the recalculation of the protection and compensation areas according to the process declaration before the Federal Administrative Court in October 2011 will have effects on the number of properties entitled to claims. B.4 Disputed regulations in the current fee schedule The disputes between BFG and airlines regarding the fees continued in 2013. The disputes with various airlines regarding the fees for the utilisation of key infrastructure facilities in effect since 01 April 2002 and the levying of passenger fees as per 01 August 2003 were settled with almost all of the involved airlines by means of a settlement back in 2005. But since it was not possible to come to an agreement with dba Luftfahrtgesellschaft mbH (dba), Germania and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH, BFG initially brought suit against dba and Germania, later against Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft as well. In the litigation BFG vs. Germania and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH (now: TuiFly), the Berlin Superior Court of Justice dismissed the defendants’ appeal in the pending proceedings on 20 December 2012, declared the fee calculation for the central infrastructure facilities and the levying of the passenger fees per 1 August 2003 to be legal, and confirmed the fee schedule of 2005 as well. The right to appeal was denied. The Berlin Superior Court of Justice handed down a decision on 21 January 2013 ending the litigation between BFG and dba (now Air Berlin Finance II GmbH). The appeal sought by the opponent to overturn the final decision of the Berlin Regional Court was dismissed. The defendants in all of the proceedings filed a complaint against the denial of leave to appeal at the BGH [German Federal Court of Justice]. The court’s decision is still pending. Disputes have arisen pursuant to the sale of GlobeGround Berlin GmbH (GGB). BFG has undertaken the obligation to initiate court proceedings to recover utilisation fees for ground services owed by Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (Air Berlin) to GGB pursuant to assigned rights. Besides the review of the permissibility and reasonableness of the utilisation fees claimed by BFG, the interpretation of the contract concluded between GGB and Air Berlin is the object of the proceedings. In the first-instance decision on 18 December 2008, the BFG suit against Air Berlin was dismissed because the court was of the opinion that the payment of utilisation fees had not been effectively agreed. The Berlin Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of this decision on 26 July 2010 on