(1)

Pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, Member States are to draw up plans, either at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks (‘FABs’), including performance targets, for each reference period of the performance and charging scheme for air navigation services and network functions. Those plans are to include local performance targets which are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for the reference period concerned.

(2)

The Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’, 2025-2029) were set out in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 (4).

(3)

All Member States have drawn up and adopted draft performance plans for RP4, which were submitted to the Commission for assessment by 1 October 2024. Following the verification of completeness of those draft performance plans, the Commission requested Member States to submit updated draft performance plans by 15 November 2024.

(4)

The Commission’s assessment presented in this Decision is based on the updated draft performance plan for RP4 submitted by Sweden (‘the draft performance plan’).

(5)

The Performance Review Body (‘PRB’), assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme, has submitted to the Commission a report containing its advice on the assessment of the draft performance plans.

(6)

In accordance with Article 14(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the local performance targets included in the draft performance plan on the basis of the criteria laid down in point 1 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation, and taking account of local circumstances where relevant.

(7)

The Commission has complemented its assessment of the draft performance plan with a review of the elements set out in point 2 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation. In respect of point 2.1(d)(vii) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission notes that it has not conducted, as part of that review, a detailed analysis of the methodology used by Sweden for the allocation of costs between en route and terminal services in RP4. Therefore, the Commission has not drawn any conclusions, at this stage, in respect of the compliance of that cost allocation methodology with points (e) and (f) of Article 15(2) Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and Article 22(5) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

(8)

As regards the key performance area of safety, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan has been assessed in accordance with point 1.1 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

(9)

The performance targets in the key performance area of safety proposed by Sweden in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:

(10)

The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Sweden for the air navigation service provider ‘LFV’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year from 2025 to 2029.

(11)

The Commission notes that the draft performance plan has presented the measures to be put in place by LFV for the achievement of the local safety targets, which relate to the implementation of its safety management system.

(12)

The safety targets proposed by Sweden for the providers of terminal air navigation services in the scope of the draft performance plan, namely ‘ACR’, ‘SDATS’ and ‘AFAB’, are also in line with the Union-wide performance targets. The Commission further notes that Sweden has presented measures for the achievement of their safety performance targets.

(13)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9) to (12), the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.

(14)

As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory has been assessed based on the criterion laid down in point 1.2 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the proposed environment targets of Sweden have been compared to the relevant en route horizontal flight efficiency reference values set out in the European Route Network Improvement Plan (‘ERNIP’), drawn up in accordance with Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/123 (6) and available at the time of adopting the Union-wide performance targets for RP4, that is on 2 July 2024.

(15)

The environment performance targets proposed by Sweden for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:

(16)

The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Sweden are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.

(17)

The Commission notes that Sweden has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, which include the implementation of enhanced cross-border free route airspace, and planned airspace changes to shorten the routes flown by airspace users to the Stockholm Arlanda and also Gothenburg Landvetter airports (‘the SWEA project’).

(18)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (15), (16) and (17), the targets in the key performance area of environment included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.

(19)

As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average en route air traffic flow management (‘ATFM’) delay per flight has been assessed based on the criterion laid down in point 1.3 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the proposed en route capacity targets of Sweden have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/123 and available at the time of adopting the Union-wide performance targets for RP4, that is on 2 July 2024.

(20)

The en route capacity targets proposed by Sweden for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:

(21)

The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Sweden are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.

(22)

The Commission notes that Sweden has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets which include sector optimization, improvements to airspace management and of air traffic flow and capacity management, dynamic sector configurations, the implementation of the SWEA project, and a moderate increase in the number of air traffic controllers in operations at the area control centres.

(23)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (20), (21) and (22), the targets in the key performance area of capacity included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.

(24)

In accordance with point 2.1(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has complemented its assessment of the draft performance plan by reviewing the capacity performance targets for terminal air navigation services set in respect of the airports referred to in Articles 1(3) and (4) of that Implementing Regulation. It was found that those targets give rise to concerns.

(25)

The Commission notes that the proposed terminal capacity targets for RP4 lead to a significant deterioration of the average arrival ATFM delay per year compared to the third reference period (‘RP3’). Indeed, the proposed RP4 targets are set at 0,35 minute per flight, whereas an actual performance of 0,07 minute of ATFM delay per flight was recorded for year 2024.

(26)

Therefore, the Commission considers that, in connection with the adoption of its final performance plan in accordance with Article 16, point (a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, Sweden should further justify the terminal capacity targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recital (25), or should revise downwards those targets.

(27)

As regards the key performance area of cost-efficiency, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the determined unit cost (‘DUC’) for en route air navigation services has been assessed based on the criteria laid down in points 1.4(a), (b) and (c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Those criteria consist of the DUC trend over RP4, the long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 (2020-2029), and the baseline value for the DUC at charging zone level compared with the average value of the charging zones where air navigation service providers have a similar operational and economic environment.

(28)

The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Sweden for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:

(29)

Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Sweden’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -3,4 % over RP4 outperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.

(30)

Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Sweden’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of +1,1 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.

(31)

The Commission notes, however, that Sweden has lost, as a consequence of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, a significant share of the overflights which it historically used to serve. That traffic reduction continues over RP4 to considerably impact the cost-efficiency performance of the air navigation service provider and has, in particular, a negative effect on the long-term DUC trend of Sweden.

(32)

It is therefore necessary and appropriate to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criterion referred to in recital (30), whether Sweden would meet the Union-wide long-term DUC trend in absence of the circumstances referred to in recital (31).

(33)

To this end, the Commission has recalculated the long-term DUC trend in light of the estimated structural loss of traffic for Sweden as a consequence of the war in Ukraine, measured in en route service units. That recalculation results in an adjusted long-term DUC trend for Sweden of -2,0 %, which outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend of -1,0 %. Therefore, it is concluded that Sweden fulfils the assessment criterion referred to in (30) after considering the effect of the significant traffic reduction resulting from the war in Ukraine.

(34)

Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Sweden’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 72,17 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 17,9 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 61,19 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.

(35)

As outlined in recital (29), it is clear that the DUC of Sweden over RP4 outperforms the corresponding Union-wide trend by a significant margin. Furthermore, as shown in recitals (30) to (33), when excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Sweden meets the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the average DUC baseline for 2024 referred to in recital (34) does not preclude Sweden’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.

(36)

On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (28) to (35), the targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.

(37)

In accordance with point 2.1(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has complemented its assessment of the draft performance plan by reviewing the cost-efficiency performance targets for terminal air navigation services set in respect of the airports referred to in Articles 1(3) and (4) of that Implementing Regulation. It was found that those targets do not give rise to concerns.

(38)

In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Sweden should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,