Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1061 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Cyprus pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2926)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1061 28.5.2025
(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 Cyprus (‘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 Cyprus for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Cyprus in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:CyprusTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029DCACSafety policy and objectivesBBBCCSafety risk managementCCCDDSafety assuranceBBCCCSafety promotionBBCCCSafety cultureBBCCC Cyprus Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 DCAC Safety policy and objectives B B B C C Safety risk management C C C D D Safety assurance B B C C C Safety promotion B B C C C Safety culture B B C C C
Cyprus Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
DCAC Safety policy and objectives B B B C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance B B C C C
Safety promotion B B C C C
Safety culture B B C C C
Cyprus Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
DCAC Safety policy and objectives B B B C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance B B C C C
Safety promotion B B C C C
Safety culture B B C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Cyprus for the air navigation service provider ‘DCAC’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets for each calendar year from 2027 onwards in the areas of ‘safety assurance’, ‘safety promotion’ and ‘safety culture’. Furthermore, the Union-wide target level is planned to reached from 2028 onwards in the areas of ‘safety policy and objectives’ and ‘safety risk management’.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for DCAC for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the effective implementation and further development of the safety management system, the further training of newly recruited Air Navigation Safety Officers and the management of human factors risks.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Cyprus have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Cyprus for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Cyprus20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory4,48  %4,45  %4,40  %4,30  %4,25  %Reference values4,48  %4,45  %4,40  %4,30  %4,25  % Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  % Reference values 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  %
Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  %
Reference values 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  %
Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  %
Reference values 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Cyprus are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14) and (15), 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.
(17) However, having regard to the PRB’s findings, the Commission has doubts whether the measures presented by Cyprus in the draft performance plan for the achievement of the environment performance targets are adequate to enable those targets to be effectively reached. In particular, it is noted that Cyprus has not expressly committed, in the draft performance plan, to the implementation of the operational measures set out in the ERNIP.
(18) 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, Cyprus should strengthen the measures for the achievement of its environment targets for RP4 presented in the draft performance plan, including by committing to all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP and expediting the implementation of cross-border free route airspace.
(19) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 capacity targets of Cyprus have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Cyprus for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Cyprus20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,170,130,120,090,09Reference values0,170,130,120,090,09 Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09 Reference values 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09
Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09
Reference values 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09
Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09
Reference values 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09
(21) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Cyprus are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(22) The Commission notes that Cyprus has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of itsen routecapacity targets. Those measures include the recruitment of additional air traffic controllers, more efficient rostering arrangements, investments in the air traffic management infrastructure, improved air traffic flow and capacity management, and the operation of an additional sector by the area control centre during time periods of peak traffic demand.
(23) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (20) to (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) 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’) foren routeair 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.
(25) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Cyprus for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Cyprus2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 23,74EUR 31,16EUR 30,41EUR 29,66EUR 29,58EUR 28,91EUR 29,31 En routecharging zone of Cyprus 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 23,74 EUR 31,16 EUR 30,41 EUR 29,66 EUR 29,58 EUR 28,91 EUR 29,31
En routecharging zone of Cyprus 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 23,74 EUR 31,16 EUR 30,41 EUR 29,66 EUR 29,58 EUR 28,91 EUR 29,31
En routecharging zone of Cyprus 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 23,74 EUR 31,16 EUR 30,41 EUR 29,66 EUR 29,58 EUR 28,91 EUR 29,31
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Cyprus’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Cyprus’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of +2,4 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(28) The Commission notes, however, that Cyprus has lost, as a consequence of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, 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 Cyprus.
(29) It is therefore necessary to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criterion referred to in recital (27), whether Cyprus would meet the Union-wide long-term DUC trend in the absence of the circumstances referred to in recital (28).
(30) To this end, the Commission has recalculated the long-term DUC trend in light of the estimated structural loss of traffic for Cyprus as a consequence of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, measured inen routeservice units. That recalculation results in an adjusted long-term DUC trend for Cyprus of -1,6 %, which outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend of -1,0 %. Therefore, it is concluded that Cyprus fulfils the assessment criterion referred to in recital (27) after taking into account the effect of the significant traffic reduction resulting from geopolitical factors.
(31) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Cyprus’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 31,16 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 14,8 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 27,14 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(32) When excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, it is clear that Cyprus meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and 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 (31) does not preclude Cyprus’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(33) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (25) to (32), 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.
(34) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Cyprus should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4. However, as set out in recital (18), Cyprus should strengthen, in its final performance plan, the measures for the achievement of its environment targets for RP4, including by committing to all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP and expediting the implementation of cross-border free route airspace,
Cyprus Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
DCAC Safety policy and objectives B B B C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance B B C C C
Safety promotion B B C C C
Safety culture B B C C C
Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 4,48  % 4,45  % 4,40  % 4,30  % 4,25  %
Cyprus 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,13 0,12 0,09 0,09
En routecharging zone of Cyprus 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 23,74 EUR 31,16 EUR 30,41 EUR 29,66 EUR 29,58 EUR 28,91 EUR 29,31
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c), thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Cyprus (‘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 Cyprus 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Cyprus in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Cyprus
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
DCAC
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
D
D
Safety assurance
B
B
C
C
C
Safety promotion
B
B
C
C
C
Safety culture
B
B
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Cyprus for the air navigation service provider ‘DCAC’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets for each calendar year from 2027 onwards in the areas of ‘safety assurance’, ‘safety promotion’ and ‘safety culture’. Furthermore, the Union-wide target level is planned to reached from 2028 onwards in the areas of ‘safety policy and objectives’ and ‘safety risk management’.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for DCAC for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the effective implementation and further development of the safety management system, the further training of newly recruited Air Navigation Safety Officers and the management of human factors risks.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment targets
(13) 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 Cyprus 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Cyprus 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:
Cyprus
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
4,48 %
4,45 %
4,40 %
4,30 %
4,25 %
Reference values
4,48 %
4,45 %
4,40 %
4,30 %
4,25 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Cyprus are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14) and (15), 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.
(17) However, having regard to the PRB’s findings, the Commission has doubts whether the measures presented by Cyprus in the draft performance plan for the achievement of the environment performance targets are adequate to enable those targets to be effectively reached. In particular, it is noted that Cyprus has not expressly committed, in the draft performance plan, to the implementation of the operational measures set out in the ERNIP.
(18) 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, Cyprus should strengthen the measures for the achievement of its environment targets for RP4 presented in the draft performance plan, including by committing to all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP and expediting the implementation of cross-border free route airspace.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(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 capacity targets of Cyprus have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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 Cyprus for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Cyprus
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,17
0,13
0,12
0,09
0,09
Reference values
0,17
0,13
0,12
0,09
0,09
(21) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Cyprus are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(22) The Commission notes that Cyprus has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of its en route capacity targets. Those measures include the recruitment of additional air traffic controllers, more efficient rostering arrangements, investments in the air traffic management infrastructure, improved air traffic flow and capacity management, and the operation of an additional sector by the area control centre during time periods of peak traffic demand.
(23) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (20) to (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.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(24) 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.
(25) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Cyprus for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Cyprus
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 23,74
EUR 31,16
EUR 30,41
EUR 29,66
EUR 29,58
EUR 28,91
EUR 29,31
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Cyprus’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Cyprus’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of +2,4 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(28) The Commission notes, however, that Cyprus has lost, as a consequence of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, 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 Cyprus.
(29) It is therefore necessary to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criterion referred to in recital (27), whether Cyprus would meet the Union-wide long-term DUC trend in the absence of the circumstances referred to in recital (28).
(30) To this end, the Commission has recalculated the long-term DUC trend in light of the estimated structural loss of traffic for Cyprus as a consequence of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, measured in en route service units. That recalculation results in an adjusted long-term DUC trend for Cyprus of -1,6 %, which outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend of -1,0 %. Therefore, it is concluded that Cyprus fulfils the assessment criterion referred to in recital (27) after taking into account the effect of the significant traffic reduction resulting from geopolitical factors.
(31) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Cyprus’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 31,16 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 14,8 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 27,14 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(32) When excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, it is clear that Cyprus meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and 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 (31) does not preclude Cyprus’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(33) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (25) to (32), 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(34) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Cyprus should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4. However, as set out in recital (18), Cyprus should strengthen, in its final performance plan, the measures for the achievement of its environment targets for RP4, including by committing to all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP and expediting the implementation of cross-border free route airspace,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Cyprus for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cyprus.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Cyprus
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
DCAC
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
D
D
Safety assurance
B
B
C
C
C
Safety promotion
B
B
C
C
C
Safety culture
B
B
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Cyprus
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
4,48 %
4,45 %
4,40 %
4,30 %
4,25 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Cyprus
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,17
0,13
0,12
0,09
0,09

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Cyprus
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 23,74
EUR 31,16
EUR 30,41
EUR 29,66
EUR 29,58
EUR 28,91
EUR 29,31

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1062 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Croatia pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2944)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1062 28.5.2025
(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 Croatia (‘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 Croatia for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Croatia in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:CroatiaTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029Croatia ControlSafety policy and objectivesBBBBCSafety risk managementBBBCDSafety assuranceBBBBCSafety promotionBBBBCSafety cultureBBBBC Croatia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Croatia Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C Safety risk management B B B C D Safety assurance B B B B C Safety promotion B B B B C Safety culture B B B B C
Croatia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Croatia Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B C D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
Croatia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Croatia Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B C D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
(10) The Commission observes that the safety performance targets proposed by Croatia for the air navigation service provider (Croatia Control) are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of calendar year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for Croatia Control for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as implementing an efficient safety management system to mitigate risks at an early stage, as well as monitoring and reporting on safety indicators to track and improve performance and address deviations and deficiencies.
(12) As observed in recitals (9) and (10), the local safety performance targets for 2029 included in the draft performance plan are in line with the corresponding Union-wide targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688. Therefore, those local safety performance targets should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) However, the intermediate targets for years 2025 to 2028 for all safety management objectives are observed to be abnormally low and insufficient for ensuring the subsequent achievement of the targets for 2029. Furthermore, such low intermediate targets are not justified in light of the actual performance of Croatia Control in the third reference period (‘RP3’) and the measures for achievement of the safety targets in RP4 referred to in recital (11).
(14) Therefore, Croatia should address, in its final performance plan to be adopted pursuant to Article 16, point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the findings set out in recital (13) by improving the targeted safety management levels for years 2025 to 2028.
(15) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Croatia have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(16) The environment performance targets proposed by Croatia for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Croatia20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory1,46  %1,45  %1,44  %1,43  %1,42  %Reference values1,46  %1,45  %1,44  %1,43  %1,42  % Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  % Reference values 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  %
Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  %
Reference values 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  %
Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  %
Reference values 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  %
(17) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Croatia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(18) The Commission notes that Croatia has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of its environment targets which include the re-sectorisation of airspace at the interfaces with Serbia and Hungary, and an expanded cross-border free route airspace implementation.
(19) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (16), (17) and (18), 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.
(20) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 capacity targets of Croatia have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(21) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Croatia for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Croatia20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,290,230,210,180,18Reference values0,290,230,210,180,18 Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18 Reference values 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18
Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18
Reference values 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18
Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18
Reference values 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18
(22) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Croatia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(23) The Commission notes that Croatia has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of itsen routecapacity targets. Those measures include the reorganisation of airspace, the recruitment of additional air traffic controllers, the introduction of a new air traffic management system, and the continuous optimisation of sector opening schemes to meet traffic demand.
(24) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (21), (22) and (23), 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.
(25) 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’) foren routeair 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.
(26) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Croatia for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Croatia2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 44,80EUR 37,41EUR 36,96EUR 36,52EUR 36,08EUR 35,64EUR 35,21 En routecharging zone of Croatia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 44,80 EUR 37,41 EUR 36,96 EUR 36,52 EUR 36,08 EUR 35,64 EUR 35,21
En routecharging zone of Croatia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 44,80 EUR 37,41 EUR 36,96 EUR 36,52 EUR 36,08 EUR 35,64 EUR 35,21
En routecharging zone of Croatia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 44,80 EUR 37,41 EUR 36,96 EUR 36,52 EUR 36,08 EUR 35,64 EUR 35,21
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Croatia’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(28) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Croatia’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -2,6 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(29) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Croatia’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 37,41 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 4,4 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 39,13 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(30) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (26) to (29), 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.
(31) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Croatia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Croatia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider concerned Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Croatia Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B C D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,46  % 1,45  % 1,44  % 1,43  % 1,42  %
Croatia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,29 0,23 0,21 0,18 0,18
En routecharging zone of Croatia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 44,80 EUR 37,41 EUR 36,96 EUR 36,52 EUR 36,08 EUR 35,64 EUR 35,21
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c), thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Croatia (‘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 Croatia 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Croatia in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Croatia
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Croatia Control
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
B
C
Safety risk management
B
B
B
C
D
Safety assurance
B
B
B
B
C
Safety promotion
B
B
B
B
C
Safety culture
B
B
B
B
C
(10) The Commission observes that the safety performance targets proposed by Croatia for the air navigation service provider (Croatia Control) are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of calendar year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for Croatia Control for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as implementing an efficient safety management system to mitigate risks at an early stage, as well as monitoring and reporting on safety indicators to track and improve performance and address deviations and deficiencies.
(12) As observed in recitals (9) and (10), the local safety performance targets for 2029 included in the draft performance plan are in line with the corresponding Union-wide targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688. Therefore, those local safety performance targets should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) However, the intermediate targets for years 2025 to 2028 for all safety management objectives are observed to be abnormally low and insufficient for ensuring the subsequent achievement of the targets for 2029. Furthermore, such low intermediate targets are not justified in light of the actual performance of Croatia Control in the third reference period (‘RP3’) and the measures for achievement of the safety targets in RP4 referred to in recital (11).
(14) Therefore, Croatia should address, in its final performance plan to be adopted pursuant to Article 16, point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the findings set out in recital (13) by improving the targeted safety management levels for years 2025 to 2028.
Assessment of the environment targets
(15) 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 Croatia 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.
(16) The environment performance targets proposed by Croatia 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:
Croatia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,46 %
1,45 %
1,44 %
1,43 %
1,42 %
Reference values
1,46 %
1,45 %
1,44 %
1,43 %
1,42 %
(17) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Croatia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(18) The Commission notes that Croatia has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of its environment targets which include the re-sectorisation of airspace at the interfaces with Serbia and Hungary, and an expanded cross-border free route airspace implementation.
(19) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (16), (17) and (18), 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.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(20) 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 capacity targets of Croatia have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(21) The en route capacity targets proposed by Croatia for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Croatia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,29
0,23
0,21
0,18
0,18
Reference values
0,29
0,23
0,21
0,18
0,18
(22) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Croatia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(23) The Commission notes that Croatia has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of its en route capacity targets. Those measures include the reorganisation of airspace, the recruitment of additional air traffic controllers, the introduction of a new air traffic management system, and the continuous optimisation of sector opening schemes to meet traffic demand.
(24) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (21), (22) and (23), 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.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(25) 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.
(26) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Croatia for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Croatia
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 44,80
EUR 37,41
EUR 36,96
EUR 36,52
EUR 36,08
EUR 35,64
EUR 35,21
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Croatia’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(28) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Croatia’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -2,6 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(29) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Croatia’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 37,41 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 4,4 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 39,13 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(30) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (26) to (29), 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(31) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Croatia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Croatia for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Croatia.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Croatia
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider concerned
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Croatia Control
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
B
C
Safety risk management
B
B
B
C
D
Safety assurance
B
B
B
B
C
Safety promotion
B
B
B
B
C
Safety culture
B
B
B
B
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Croatia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,46 %
1,45 %
1,44 %
1,43 %
1,42 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Croatia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,29
0,23
0,21
0,18
0,18

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Croatia
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 44,80
EUR 37,41
EUR 36,96
EUR 36,52
EUR 36,08
EUR 35,64
EUR 35,21

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1059 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Portugal pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2929)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1059 28.5.2025
(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 Portugal (‘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 Portugal for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Portugal in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:PortugalTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029NAV PortugalSafety policy and objectivesCCCCCSafety risk managementCCCDDSafety assuranceCCCCCSafety promotionCCCCCSafety cultureCCCCC Portugal Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 NAV Portugal Safety policy and objectives C C C C C Safety risk management C C C D D Safety assurance C C C C C Safety promotion C C C C C Safety culture C C C C C
Portugal Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
NAV Portugal Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Portugal Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
NAV Portugal Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Portugal for the air navigation service provider ‘NAV Portugal’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets for each calendar year from 2025 to 2029, except for the ‘safety risk management’ objective for which the level of the Union-wide target is planned to be reached in year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for NAV Portugal for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as strengthening the role and staffing of internal units relevant to safety, and introducing predictive tools and methodologies in safety management activities.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 must be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Portugal have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Portugal for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Portugal20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory1,48 %1,46 %1,44 %1,42 %1,40 %Reference values1,48 %1,46 %1,44 %1,42 %1,40 % Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 % Reference values 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 %
Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 %
Reference values 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 %
Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 %
Reference values 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Portugal are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Portugal has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, which include cross-border free route airspace initiatives and a restructuring of the airspace in collaboration with the Network Manager.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
(18) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 proposeden routecapacity targets of Portugal 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.
(19) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Portugal for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Portugal20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,300,230,190,160,16Reference values0,300,230,190,160,16 Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16 Reference values 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Reference values 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Reference values 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
(20) The Commission observes that theen routecapacity targets proposed by Portugal are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Portugal has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of itsen routecapacity targets. Those measures include a significant increase in the number of air traffic controllers in operations at the area control centre, and a restructuring of airspace in order to enhance the available capacity and mitigate the current capacity bottlenecks. Having regard to the findings of the PRB, the Commission considers that Portugal should commit to the implementation of all the operational measures set out in the Network Operations Plan, in order to support the achievement of its capacity performance targets for RP4.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
(23) 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 do not give rise to concerns.
(24) 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’) foren routeair 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 the third reference period (‘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.
(25) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Portugal for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Portugal2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 38,15EUR 37,42EUR 36,94EUR 36,92EUR 36,48EUR 35,27EUR 33,71 En routecharging zone of Portugal 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 38,15 EUR 37,42 EUR 36,94 EUR 36,92 EUR 36,48 EUR 35,27 EUR 33,71
En routecharging zone of Portugal 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 38,15 EUR 37,42 EUR 36,94 EUR 36,92 EUR 36,48 EUR 35,27 EUR 33,71
En routecharging zone of Portugal 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 38,15 EUR 37,42 EUR 36,94 EUR 36,92 EUR 36,48 EUR 35,27 EUR 33,71
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Portugal’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -2,1 % over RP4 outperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Portugal’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,4 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(28) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Portugal’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 37,42 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is +49,3 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 25,06 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(29) As specified in recitals (26) and (27), it is clear that Portugal outperforms the Union-wide DUC for RP4 by a significant margin and also outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend. Portugal thus demonstrates that effective cost-efficiency gains are achieved both over the medium and long term. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation between Portugal’s baseline value and the relevant comparator group referred to in recital (28) does not preclude Portugal’s consistency with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(30) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (25) to (29), 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.
(31) 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.
(32) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Portugal should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Portugal Targets on the effectiveness of safety management,expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
NAV Portugal Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,48 % 1,46 % 1,44 % 1,42 % 1,40 %
Portugal 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,30 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
En routecharging zone of Portugal 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 38,15 EUR 37,42 EUR 36,94 EUR 36,92 EUR 36,48 EUR 35,27 EUR 33,71
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Portugal (‘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 Portugal 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Portugal in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Portugal
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
NAV Portugal
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Portugal for the air navigation service provider ‘NAV Portugal’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets for each calendar year from 2025 to 2029, except for the ‘safety risk management’ objective for which the level of the Union-wide target is planned to be reached in year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for NAV Portugal for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as strengthening the role and staffing of internal units relevant to safety, and introducing predictive tools and methodologies in safety management activities.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 must be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment targets
(13) 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 Portugal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Portugal 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:
Portugal
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,48 %
1,46 %
1,44 %
1,42 %
1,40 %
Reference values
1,48 %
1,46 %
1,44 %
1,42 %
1,40 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Portugal are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Portugal has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, which include cross-border free route airspace initiatives and a restructuring of the airspace in collaboration with the Network Manager.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(18) 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 Portugal 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.
(19) The en route capacity targets proposed by Portugal for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Portugal
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,30
0,23
0,19
0,16
0,16
Reference values
0,30
0,23
0,19
0,16
0,16
(20) The Commission observes that the en route capacity targets proposed by Portugal are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Portugal has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of its en route capacity targets. Those measures include a significant increase in the number of air traffic controllers in operations at the area control centre, and a restructuring of airspace in order to enhance the available capacity and mitigate the current capacity bottlenecks. Having regard to the findings of the PRB, the Commission considers that Portugal should commit to the implementation of all the operational measures set out in the Network Operations Plan, in order to support the achievement of its capacity performance targets for RP4.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
Review of the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services
(23) 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 do not give rise to concerns.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(24) 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 the third reference period (‘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.
(25) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Portugal for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Portugal
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 38,15
EUR 37,42
EUR 36,94
EUR 36,92
EUR 36,48
EUR 35,27
EUR 33,71
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Portugal’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -2,1 % over RP4 outperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Portugal’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,4 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(28) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Portugal’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 37,42 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is +49,3 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 25,06 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(29) As specified in recitals (26) and (27), it is clear that Portugal outperforms the Union-wide DUC for RP4 by a significant margin and also outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend. Portugal thus demonstrates that effective cost-efficiency gains are achieved both over the medium and long term. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation between Portugal’s baseline value and the relevant comparator group referred to in recital (28) does not preclude Portugal’s consistency with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(30) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (25) to (29), 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.
Review of the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services
(31) 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(32) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Portugal should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Portugal for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Portugal, found to be consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Portugal
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
NAV Portugal
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Portugal
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,48 %
1,46 %
1,44 %
1,42 %
1,40 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Portugal
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,30
0,23
0,19
0,16
0,16

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Portugal
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 38,15
EUR 37,42
EUR 36,94
EUR 36,92
EUR 36,48
EUR 35,27
EUR 33,71

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1060 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Malta pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2922)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1060 28.5.2025
(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 Malta (‘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 Malta for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Malta in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:MaltaTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029MATSSafety policy and objectivesCCDDDSafety risk managementCCCCDSafety assuranceCCCCDSafety promotionCCCDDSafety cultureCCCCC Malta Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 MATS Safety policy and objectives C C D D D Safety risk management C C C C D Safety assurance C C C C D Safety promotion C C C D D Safety culture C C C C C
Malta Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
MATS Safety policy and objectives C C D D D
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance C C C C D
Safety promotion C C C D D
Safety culture C C C C C
Malta Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
MATS Safety policy and objectives C C D D D
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance C C C C D
Safety promotion C C C D D
Safety culture C C C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Malta for the air navigation service provider ‘MATS’ are equal to or higher than the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year of RP4, including year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for MATS for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the continuous update of the integrated management system and of the safety plan, the implementation of a new risk management software, and enhanced cybersecurity trainings.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11), the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Malta have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Malta for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Malta20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory1,56  %1,54  %1,52  %1,50  %1,48  %Reference values1,56  %1,54  %1,52  %1,50  %1,48  % Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  % Reference values 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  %
Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  %
Reference values 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  %
Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  %
Reference values 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Malta are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Malta has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which include the implementation of cross-border free route airspace and a planned reduction of route availability restrictions to the largest possible extent.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
(18) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 proposeden routecapacity targets of Malta have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(19) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Malta for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Malta20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,030,020,010,010,01Reference values0,030,020,010,010,01 Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 Reference values 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01
Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01
Reference values 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01
Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01
Reference values 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01
(20) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Malta are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Malta has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of itsen routecapacity targets. Those measures include the opening by the area control centre of an additional sector during daytime and the extension of the sector opening hours, in order to accommodate the forecasted traffic demand.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
(23) 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 do not give rise to concerns.
(24) 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’) foren routeair 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 the third reference period (‘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.
(25) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Malta for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Malta2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 24,87EUR 16,72EUR 17,61EUR 17,01EUR 18,71EUR 19,48EUR 21,60 En routecharging zone of Malta 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 24,87 EUR 16,72 EUR 17,61 EUR 17,01 EUR 18,71 EUR 19,48 EUR 21,60
En routecharging zone of Malta 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 24,87 EUR 16,72 EUR 17,61 EUR 17,01 EUR 18,71 EUR 19,48 EUR 21,60
En routecharging zone of Malta 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 24,87 EUR 16,72 EUR 17,61 EUR 17,01 EUR 18,71 EUR 19,48 EUR 21,60
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Malta’s DUC trend at charging zone level of +5,2 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Malta’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,6 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(28) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Malta’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 16,72 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 47,7 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 31,96 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(29) It is clear that Malta’s long-term DUC trend outperforms the corresponding Union-wide trend and that Malta’s baseline value for 2024 is significantly below the comparator group average. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 referred to in recital (26) does not preclude Malta’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(30) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (25) to (29), 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.
(31) 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 give rise to concerns.
(32) The Commission observes that the terminal DUC trend of Malta of +6,6 % over RP4 is higher than theen routeRP4 DUC trend of +5,2 % and represents a significant deterioration compared to the actual terminal DUC trend of -8,1 % observed over RP3. The Commission notes that the observed deteriorating DUC trend is mainly driven by a significant increase in costs. Indeed, the determined costs of terminal air navigation service provision for Malta for 2029 are planned to be approximately 77 % higher than the level of costs in 2024, whilst the traffic growth in service units over the same period for the terminal charging zone is forecasted to amount to approximately 21 %.
(33) 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, Malta should further justify the terminal cost-efficiency performance targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recital (32), or should revise downwards those targets.
(34) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Malta should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Malta Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
MATS Safety policy and objectives C C D D D
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance C C C C D
Safety promotion C C C D D
Safety culture C C C C C
Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,56  % 1,54  % 1,52  % 1,50  % 1,48  %
Malta 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01
En routecharging zone of Malta 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 24,87 EUR 16,72 EUR 17,61 EUR 17,01 EUR 18,71 EUR 19,48 EUR 21,60
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Malta (‘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 Malta 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Malta in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Malta
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
MATS
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
D
D
D
Safety risk management
C
C
C
C
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
D
Safety promotion
C
C
C
D
D
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Malta for the air navigation service provider ‘MATS’ are equal to or higher than the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year of RP4, including year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for MATS for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the continuous update of the integrated management system and of the safety plan, the implementation of a new risk management software, and enhanced cybersecurity trainings.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11), the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment targets
(13) 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 Malta 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Malta 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:
Malta
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,56 %
1,54 %
1,52 %
1,50 %
1,48 %
Reference values
1,56 %
1,54 %
1,52 %
1,50 %
1,48 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Malta are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Malta has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which include the implementation of cross-border free route airspace and a planned reduction of route availability restrictions to the largest possible extent.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(18) 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 Malta have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(19) The en route capacity targets proposed by Malta for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Malta
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,01
Reference values
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,01
(20) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Malta are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Malta has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of its en route capacity targets. Those measures include the opening by the area control centre of an additional sector during daytime and the extension of the sector opening hours, in order to accommodate the forecasted traffic demand.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
Review of the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services
(23) 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 do not give rise to concerns.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(24) 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 the third reference period (‘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.
(25) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Malta for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Malta
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 24,87
EUR 16,72
EUR 17,61
EUR 17,01
EUR 18,71
EUR 19,48
EUR 21,60
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Malta’s DUC trend at charging zone level of +5,2 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Malta’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,6 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(28) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Malta’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 16,72 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 47,7 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 31,96 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(29) It is clear that Malta’s long-term DUC trend outperforms the corresponding Union-wide trend and that Malta’s baseline value for 2024 is significantly below the comparator group average. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 referred to in recital (26) does not preclude Malta’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(30) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (25) to (29), 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.
Review of the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services
(31) 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 give rise to concerns.
(32) The Commission observes that the terminal DUC trend of Malta of +6,6 % over RP4 is higher than the en route RP4 DUC trend of +5,2 % and represents a significant deterioration compared to the actual terminal DUC trend of -8,1 % observed over RP3. The Commission notes that the observed deteriorating DUC trend is mainly driven by a significant increase in costs. Indeed, the determined costs of terminal air navigation service provision for Malta for 2029 are planned to be approximately 77 % higher than the level of costs in 2024, whilst the traffic growth in service units over the same period for the terminal charging zone is forecasted to amount to approximately 21 %.
(33) 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, Malta should further justify the terminal cost-efficiency performance targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recital (32), or should revise downwards those targets.
CONCLUSIONS
(34) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Malta should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Malta for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Malta.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Malta
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
MATS
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
D
D
D
Safety risk management
C
C
C
C
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
D
Safety promotion
C
C
C
D
D
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Malta
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,56 %
1,54 %
1,52 %
1,50 %
1,48 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Malta
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,01

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Malta
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 24,87
EUR 16,72
EUR 17,61
EUR 17,01
EUR 18,71
EUR 19,48
EUR 21,60

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1058 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Italy pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2928)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1058 28.5.2025
(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 Italy (‘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 Italy for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Italy in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:ItalyTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029ENAVSafety policy and objectivesCCCCCSafety risk managementCCCDDSafety assuranceCCCCCSafety promotionCCCCCSafety cultureCCCCC Italy Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 ENAV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C Safety risk management C C C D D Safety assurance C C C C C Safety promotion C C C C C Safety culture C C C C C
Italy Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
ENAV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Italy Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
ENAV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Italy for the air navigation service provider ‘ENAV’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year of RP4, except for the ‘safety risk management’ objective for which the level of the Union-wide target is planned to be reached from year 2028 onwards.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for ENAV for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the development of a new Safety Plan aimed at enhancing safety resilience and improvements to the safety management system.
(12) Furthermore, the safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan for the provider of terminal air navigation services ‘ITAF’ are also in line with the Union-wide performance targets in respect of year 2029. It is noted that Italy has set out measures for the achievement of those safety performance targets.
(13) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9) to (12) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan 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 horizontalen routeflight 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 Italy have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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 Italy for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Italy20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory2,75  %2,70  %2,67  %2,64  %2,61  %Reference values2,75  %2,70  %2,67  %2,64  %2,61  % Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,75  % 2,70  % 2,67  % 2,64  % 2,61  % Reference values 2,75  % 2,70  % 2,67  % 2,64  % 2,61  %
Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,75  % 2,70  % 2,67  % 2,64  % 2,61  %
Reference values 2,75  % 2,70  % 2,67  % 2,64  % 2,61  %
Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,75  % 2,70  % 2,67  % 2,64  % 2,61  %
Reference values 2,75  % 2,70  % 2,67  % 2,64  % 2,61  %
(16) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Italy are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (15) and (16), 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.
(18) However, having regard to the PRB’s findings, the Commission has doubts whether the measures presented by Italy in the draft performance plan for the achievement of the environment performance targets are adequate to enable those targets to be effectively reached. In particular, it is noted that Italy has not expressly committed, in the draft performance plan, to the implementation of the operational measures set out in the ERNIP.
(19) 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, Italy should strengthen the measures for the achievement of its environment targets for RP4 presented in the draft performance plan, including by committing to all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP and expediting the implementation of cross-border free route airspace.
(20) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 proposeden routecapacity targets of Italy 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.
(21) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Italy for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Italy20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,280,200,130,130,13Reference values0,280,200,130,130,13 Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13 Reference values 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13
Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13
Reference values 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13
Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13
Reference values 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13
(22) The Commission observes that theen routecapacity targets proposed by Italy are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(23) The Commission notes that Italy has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the localen routecapacity targets, which include organisational measures for a more efficient organisation of service provision, more flexible rostering arrangements, the implementation of enhanced cross-border procedures and the deployment of a new air traffic management system for the Rome and Milan area control centres.
(24) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (21), (22) and (23), 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.
(25) 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.
(26) Firstly, the proposed RP4 targets on the average arrival ATFM delay, which are constant during RP4 at 0,35 minutes per flight, are significantly higher than the actual performance observed during the third reference period (‘RP3’), ranging from 0,03 to 0,28 minutes per flight.
(27) Secondly, when breaking down the terminal capacity targets at airport level, it is observed that the capacity performance of terminal air navigation services at the airports of Rome Fiumicino, Milan Malpensa and Milan Linate is targeted to be significantly worse than the performance of similar airports identified by the PRB.
(28) 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, Italy should further justify the terminal capacity targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recitals (26) to (27), or should revise downwards those targets.
(29) 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’) foren routeair 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.
(30) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Italy for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Italy2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 68,94EUR 56,66EUR 56,51EUR 55,67EUR 55,30EUR 54,45EUR 53,37 En routecharging zone of Italy 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 68,94 EUR 56,66 EUR 56,51 EUR 55,67 EUR 55,30 EUR 54,45 EUR 53,37
En routecharging zone of Italy 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 68,94 EUR 56,66 EUR 56,51 EUR 55,67 EUR 55,30 EUR 54,45 EUR 53,37
En routecharging zone of Italy 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 68,94 EUR 56,66 EUR 56,51 EUR 55,67 EUR 55,30 EUR 54,45 EUR 53,37
(31) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Italy’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(32) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Italy’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 at charging zone level of -2,8 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(33) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Italy’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 56,66 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 11,1 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 63,75 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(34) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (30) to (33), 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.
(35) 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.
(36) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Italy should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Italy Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service providers Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
ENAV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
ITAF Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B B D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,75 % 2,70 % 2,67 % 2,64 % 2,61 %
Italy 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,20 0,13 0,13 0,13
En routecharging zone of Italy 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 68,94 EUR 56,66 EUR 56,51 EUR 55,67 EUR 55,30 EUR 54,45 EUR 53,37
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Italy (‘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 Italy 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Italy in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Italy
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
ENAV
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Italy for the air navigation service provider ‘ENAV’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year of RP4, except for the ‘safety risk management’ objective for which the level of the Union-wide target is planned to be reached from year 2028 onwards.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for ENAV for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the development of a new Safety Plan aimed at enhancing safety resilience and improvements to the safety management system.
(12) Furthermore, the safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan for the provider of terminal air navigation services ‘ITAF’ are also in line with the Union-wide performance targets in respect of year 2029. It is noted that Italy has set out measures for the achievement of those safety performance targets.
(13) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9) to (12) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment 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 Italy 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 Italy 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:
Italy
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
2,75 %
2,70 %
2,67 %
2,64 %
2,61 %
Reference values
2,75 %
2,70 %
2,67 %
2,64 %
2,61 %
(16) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Italy are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (15) and (16), 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.
(18) However, having regard to the PRB’s findings, the Commission has doubts whether the measures presented by Italy in the draft performance plan for the achievement of the environment performance targets are adequate to enable those targets to be effectively reached. In particular, it is noted that Italy has not expressly committed, in the draft performance plan, to the implementation of the operational measures set out in the ERNIP.
(19) 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, Italy should strengthen the measures for the achievement of its environment targets for RP4 presented in the draft performance plan, including by committing to all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP and expediting the implementation of cross-border free route airspace.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(20) 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 Italy 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.
(21) The en route capacity targets proposed by Italy for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Italy
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,28
0,20
0,13
0,13
0,13
Reference values
0,28
0,20
0,13
0,13
0,13
(22) The Commission observes that the en route capacity targets proposed by Italy are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(23) The Commission notes that Italy has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets, which include organisational measures for a more efficient organisation of service provision, more flexible rostering arrangements, the implementation of enhanced cross-border procedures and the deployment of a new air traffic management system for the Rome and Milan area control centres.
(24) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (21), (22) and (23), 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.
Review of the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services
(25) 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.
(26) Firstly, the proposed RP4 targets on the average arrival ATFM delay, which are constant during RP4 at 0,35 minutes per flight, are significantly higher than the actual performance observed during the third reference period (‘RP3’), ranging from 0,03 to 0,28 minutes per flight.
(27) Secondly, when breaking down the terminal capacity targets at airport level, it is observed that the capacity performance of terminal air navigation services at the airports of Rome Fiumicino, Milan Malpensa and Milan Linate is targeted to be significantly worse than the performance of similar airports identified by the PRB.
(28) 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, Italy should further justify the terminal capacity targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recitals (26) to (27), or should revise downwards those targets.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(29) 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.
(30) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Italy for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Italy
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 68,94
EUR 56,66
EUR 56,51
EUR 55,67
EUR 55,30
EUR 54,45
EUR 53,37
(31) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Italy’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(32) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Italy’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 at charging zone level of -2,8 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(33) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Italy’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 56,66 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 11,1 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 63,75 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(34) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (30) to (33), 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.
Review of the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services
(35) 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(36) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Italy should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Italy for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Italy, found to be consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Italy
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service providers
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
ENAV
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
ITAF
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
B
C
Safety risk management
B
B
B
B
D
Safety assurance
B
B
B
B
C
Safety promotion
B
B
B
B
C
Safety culture
B
B
B
B
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Italy
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
2,75 %
2,70 %
2,67 %
2,64 %
2,61 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Italy
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,28
0,20
0,13
0,13
0,13

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Italy
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 68,94
EUR 56,66
EUR 56,51
EUR 55,67
EUR 55,30
EUR 54,45
EUR 53,37

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1056 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Lithuania pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2933)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1056 28.5.2025
(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 Lithuania (‘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 Lithuania for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Lithuania in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:LithuaniaTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029Oro NavigacijaSafety policy and objectivesCCCCCSafety risk managementCCCCDSafety assuranceCCCCCSafety promotionCCCCCSafety cultureCCCCC Lithuania Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Oro Navigacija Safety policy and objectives C C C C C Safety risk management C C C C D Safety assurance C C C C C Safety promotion C C C C C Safety culture C C C C C
Lithuania Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Oro Navigacija Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Lithuania Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Oro Navigacija Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Lithuania for the air navigation service provider ‘Oro Navigacija’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year of RP4, except for the ‘safety risk management’ objective for which the level of the Union-wide target is planned to be reached in year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for Oro Navigacija for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as training activities for safety experts, the enhanced management of human factor risks, the promotion of safety culture, and the improved sharing of safety information within the organisation.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Lithuania have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Lithuania for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Lithuania20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory13,13 %13,12 %13,11 %13,10 %13,09 %Reference values13,13 %13,12 %13,11 %13,10 %13,09 % Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 % Reference values 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 %
Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 %
Reference values 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 %
Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 %
Reference values 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Lithuania are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Lithuania has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, including the implementation of enhanced cross-border free route airspace, an upgrade of the air traffic management system, the implementation of tools to support the flexible use of airspace, and a review of its airspace design aimed at optimising flight trajectories.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
(18) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 capacity targets of Lithuania have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(19) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Lithuania for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Lithuania20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,030,030,030,020,02Reference values0,070,050,030,020,02 Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02 Reference values 0,07 0,05 0,03 0,02 0,02
Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02
Reference values 0,07 0,05 0,03 0,02 0,02
Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02
Reference values 0,07 0,05 0,03 0,02 0,02
(20) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Lithuania are either equal to or lower than the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Lithuania has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the localen routecapacity targets, including an upgrade of the air traffic management system, enhanced coordination between air traffic service units, contingency arrangements at regional level within the Baltic Functional Airspace Block and a moderate increase in the number of air traffic controllers in operations.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
(23) 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’) foren routeair 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.
(24) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Lithuania for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Lithuania2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 46,48EUR 54,97EUR 55,57EUR 54,16EUR 53,04EUR 53,18EUR 51,69 En routecharging zone of Lithuania 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 46,48 EUR 54,97 EUR 55,57 EUR 54,16 EUR 53,04 EUR 53,18 EUR 51,69
En routecharging zone of Lithuania 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 46,48 EUR 54,97 EUR 55,57 EUR 54,16 EUR 53,04 EUR 53,18 EUR 51,69
En routecharging zone of Lithuania 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 46,48 EUR 54,97 EUR 55,57 EUR 54,16 EUR 53,04 EUR 53,18 EUR 51,69
(25) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Lithuania’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Lithuania’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 at charging zone level of +1.2 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(27) The Commission notes, however, that Lithuania 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 the air navigation service provider and has, in particular, a negative effect on the long-term DUC trend of Lithuania.
(28) It is therefore necessary to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criterion referred to in recital (26), whether Lithuania would meet the Union-wide long-term DUC trend in the absence of the circumstances referred to in recital (27).
(29) To this end, the Commission has recalculated the long-term DUC trend in light of the estimated structural loss of traffic for Lithuania as a consequence of the war in Ukraine, measured inen routeservice units. That recalculation results in an adjusted long-term DUC trend for Lithuania of -4,8 %, which outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend of -1,0 %. Therefore, it is concluded that Lithuania fulfils the assessment criterion referred to in recital (26) after taking into account the effect of the significant traffic reduction resulting from the war in Ukraine.
(30) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Lithuania’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 54,97 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 5,9 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 51,93 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(31) When excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is clear that Lithuania meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. Therefore, the Commission considers that the limited deviation from the average 2024 baseline DUC of its comparator group referred to in recital (30) does not preclude Lithuania’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(32) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (24) to (31), 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.
(33) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Lithuania should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Lithuania Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Oro Navigacija Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 13,13 % 13,12 % 13,11 % 13,10 % 13,09 %
Lithuania 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02
En routecharging zone of Lithuania 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 46,48 EUR 54,97 EUR 55,57 EUR 54,16 EUR 53,04 EUR 53,18 EUR 51,69
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Lithuania (‘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 Lithuania 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Lithuania in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Lithuania
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Oro Navigacija
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
C
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Lithuania for the air navigation service provider ‘Oro Navigacija’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of each calendar year of RP4, except for the ‘safety risk management’ objective for which the level of the Union-wide target is planned to be reached in year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for Oro Navigacija for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as training activities for safety experts, the enhanced management of human factor risks, the promotion of safety culture, and the improved sharing of safety information within the organisation.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11) and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment targets
(13) 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 Lithuania 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Lithuania 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:
Lithuania
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
13,13 %
13,12 %
13,11 %
13,10 %
13,09 %
Reference values
13,13 %
13,12 %
13,11 %
13,10 %
13,09 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Lithuania are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Lithuania has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, including the implementation of enhanced cross-border free route airspace, an upgrade of the air traffic management system, the implementation of tools to support the flexible use of airspace, and a review of its airspace design aimed at optimising flight trajectories.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(18) 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 capacity targets of Lithuania have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(19) The en route capacity targets proposed by Lithuania for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Lithuania
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,02
0,02
Reference values
0,07
0,05
0,03
0,02
0,02
(20) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Lithuania are either equal to or lower than the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Lithuania has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets, including an upgrade of the air traffic management system, enhanced coordination between air traffic service units, contingency arrangements at regional level within the Baltic Functional Airspace Block and a moderate increase in the number of air traffic controllers in operations.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(23) 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.
(24) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Lithuania for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Lithuania
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 46,48
EUR 54,97
EUR 55,57
EUR 54,16
EUR 53,04
EUR 53,18
EUR 51,69
(25) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Lithuania’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line with the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Lithuania’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 at charging zone level of +1.2 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(27) The Commission notes, however, that Lithuania 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 the air navigation service provider and has, in particular, a negative effect on the long-term DUC trend of Lithuania.
(28) It is therefore necessary to examine, for the purpose of the assessment criterion referred to in recital (26), whether Lithuania would meet the Union-wide long-term DUC trend in the absence of the circumstances referred to in recital (27).
(29) To this end, the Commission has recalculated the long-term DUC trend in light of the estimated structural loss of traffic for Lithuania 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 Lithuania of -4,8 %, which outperforms the long-term Union-wide DUC trend of -1,0 %. Therefore, it is concluded that Lithuania fulfils the assessment criterion referred to in recital (26) after taking into account the effect of the significant traffic reduction resulting from the war in Ukraine.
(30) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Lithuania’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 54,97 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 5,9 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 51,93 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(31) When excluding the negative impact of the traffic changes resulting from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is clear that Lithuania meets both the Union-wide DUC trend and the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. Therefore, the Commission considers that the limited deviation from the average 2024 baseline DUC of its comparator group referred to in recital (30) does not preclude Lithuania’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(32) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (24) to (31), 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(33) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Lithuania should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Lithuania for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Lithuania
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Oro Navigacija
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
C
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Lithuania
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
13,13 %
13,12 %
13,11 %
13,10 %
13,09 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Lithuania
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,02
0,02

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Lithuania
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 46,48
EUR 54,97
EUR 55,57
EUR 54,16
EUR 53,04
EUR 53,18
EUR 51,69

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1057 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Austria pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 3006)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1057 28.5.2025
(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 Austria (‘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 Austria for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Austria in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:AustriaTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029Austro ControlSafety policy and objectivesBBBBCSafety risk managementBBBCDSafety assuranceBBBBCSafety promotionBBBBCSafety cultureBBBBC Austria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Austro Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C Safety risk management B B B C D Safety assurance B B B B C Safety promotion B B B B C Safety culture B B B B C
Austria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Austro Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B C D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
Austria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Austro Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B C D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Austria for the air navigation service provider ‘Austro Control’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of calendar year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for Austro Control for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as applying an integrated approach to safety risk management, enhancing cross-border safety cooperation, managing fatigue risk, and promoting training and awareness to foster safety culture.
(12) As observed in recitals (9) and (10), the local safety performance targets for 2029 included in the draft performance plan are in line with the corresponding Union-wide targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688. Therefore, those local safety performance targets should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
(13) However, the intermediate targets for years 2025 to 2028 for all safety management objectives are observed to be abnormally low and insufficient for ensuring the subsequent achievement of the targets for 2029. Furthermore, such low intermediate targets are not justified in light of the actual performance of Austro Control in RP3 and the measures for achievement of the safety targets in RP4 referred to in recital (11).
(14) Therefore, Austria should address, in its final performance plan to be adopted pursuant to Article 16, point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the findings set out in recital (13) by improving the targeted safety management levels for years 2025 to 2028.
(15) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Austria have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(16) The environment performance targets proposed by Austria for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Austria20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory2,09 %2,07 %2,05 %2,03 %2,01 %Reference values2,09 %2,07 %2,05 %2,03 %2,01 % Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 % Reference values 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 %
Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 %
Reference values 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 %
Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 %
Reference values 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 %
(17) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Austria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(18) The Commission notes that Austria has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which include the implementation of cross-border Free Route Airspace with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, and an initiative to foster adherence by airspace users to their filed flight plans.
(19) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (16), (17) and (18), the targets in the key performance area of environment included in the draft performance plan of Austria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
(20) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 capacity targets of Austria have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(21) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Austria for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Austria20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,280,230,190,160,16Reference values0,280,230,190,160,16 Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16 Reference values 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Reference values 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
Reference values 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
(22) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Austria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(23) The Commission notes that Austria has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of itsen routecapacity targets. Firstly, those measures include the recruitment of new air traffic controllers (‘ATCOs’) enabling an increase of the number of ATCO full-time equivalents in service at the area control centre. Secondly, those measures comprise the implementation of a new ATM system, airspace restructuring, training and flexible rostering of staff, and the relocation of the area control centre of Wien.
(24) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (21), (22) and (23), the targets in the key performance area of capacity included in the draft performance plan of Austria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
(25) 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.
(26) When breaking down the terminal capacity targets at airport level, the Commission found that the proposed terminal capacity targets for RP4 result in a significantly worse level of ATFM delay per flight for Vienna airport than the level of performance of similar airports identified by the PRB.
(27) 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, Austria should further justify the terminal capacity targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recital (26), or should revise downwards those targets.
(28) 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’) foren routeair 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.
(29) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Austria for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Austria2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 72,18EUR 53,66EUR 54,40EUR 53,61EUR 53,32EUR 53,65EUR 52,63 En routecharging zone of Austria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 72,18 EUR 53,66 EUR 54,40 EUR 53,61 EUR 53,32 EUR 53,65 EUR 52,63
En routecharging zone of Austria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 72,18 EUR 53,66 EUR 54,40 EUR 53,61 EUR 53,32 EUR 53,65 EUR 52,63
En routecharging zone of Austria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 72,18 EUR 53,66 EUR 54,40 EUR 53,61 EUR 53,32 EUR 53,65 EUR 52,63
(30) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Austria’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -0,4 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(31) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Austria’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -3,4 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(32) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Austria’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 53,66 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 51,7 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 110,99 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(33) It is clear that Austria's long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 outperforms the corresponding Union-wide trend by a significant margin and that Austria’s baseline value for 2024 is significantly below the comparator group average. Furthermore, Austria demonstrates a reduction of the DUC over RP4. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 referred to in recital (30) does not preclude Austria’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(34) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (28) to (33), 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.
(35) 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.
(36) In accordance with point 2.1(f) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has complemented its assessment of the draft performance plan by reviewing the incentive schemes referred to in Article 11 of that Implementing Regulation. It was found that the incentive schemes established by Austria for the purpose of supporting the achievement ofen routeand terminal capacity targets in RP4 give rise to concerns.
(37) The Commission notes that both theen routecapacity incentive scheme and the terminal capacity incentive scheme included in the draft performance plan comprise a maximum financial disadvantage amounting to merely 0,50 % of determined costs. Having regard to the expert advice provided by the PRB, the Commission considers that that the maximum financial disadvantages for the incentive schemes set out by Austria do not comply with Article 11(3), point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, which requires such incentive schemes to have “a material impact on the revenue at risk”.
(38) Therefore, Austria should revise, in connection with the adoption of its final performance plan pursuant to Article 16, point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, its incentive schemes for achievingen routeand terminal capacity targets in order for the maximum financial disadvantage stemming from those incentive schemes to be set at a level having a material impact on the revenue at risk, as expressly required by Article 11(3), point (a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. In the Commission’s view, that revision should lead to a maximum financial disadvantage equal to or higher than 1 % of the annual determined costs.
(39) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Austria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Austria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management,expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Austro Control Safety policy and objectives B B B B C
Safety risk management B B B C D
Safety assurance B B B B C
Safety promotion B B B B C
Safety culture B B B B C
Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 2,09 % 2,07 % 2,05 % 2,03 % 2,01 %
Austria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,28 0,23 0,19 0,16 0,16
En routecharging zone of Austria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 72,18 EUR 53,66 EUR 54,40 EUR 53,61 EUR 53,32 EUR 53,65 EUR 52,63
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Austria (‘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 Austria 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Austria in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Austria
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Austro Control
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
B
C
Safety risk management
B
B
B
C
D
Safety assurance
B
B
B
B
C
Safety promotion
B
B
B
B
C
Safety culture
B
B
B
B
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Austria for the air navigation service provider ‘Austro Control’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets in respect of calendar year 2029.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for Austro Control for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as applying an integrated approach to safety risk management, enhancing cross-border safety cooperation, managing fatigue risk, and promoting training and awareness to foster safety culture.
(12) As observed in recitals (9) and (10), the local safety performance targets for 2029 included in the draft performance plan are in line with the corresponding Union-wide targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688. Therefore, those local safety performance targets should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
(13) However, the intermediate targets for years 2025 to 2028 for all safety management objectives are observed to be abnormally low and insufficient for ensuring the subsequent achievement of the targets for 2029. Furthermore, such low intermediate targets are not justified in light of the actual performance of Austro Control in RP3 and the measures for achievement of the safety targets in RP4 referred to in recital (11).
(14) Therefore, Austria should address, in its final performance plan to be adopted pursuant to Article 16, point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the findings set out in recital (13) by improving the targeted safety management levels for years 2025 to 2028.
Assessment of the environment targets
(15) 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 Austria 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.
(16) The environment performance targets proposed by Austria 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:
Austria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
2,09 %
2,07 %
2,05 %
2,03 %
2,01 %
Reference values
2,09 %
2,07 %
2,05 %
2,03 %
2,01 %
(17) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Austria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(18) The Commission notes that Austria has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which include the implementation of cross-border Free Route Airspace with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, and an initiative to foster adherence by airspace users to their filed flight plans.
(19) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (16), (17) and (18), the targets in the key performance area of environment included in the draft performance plan of Austria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(20) 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 capacity targets of Austria have been compared to the relevant reference values set out in the Network Operations Plan drawn up in accordance with Article 9 of 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.
(21) The en route capacity targets proposed by Austria for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Austria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,28
0,23
0,19
0,16
0,16
Reference values
0,28
0,23
0,19
0,16
0,16
(22) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Austria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(23) The Commission notes that Austria has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of its en route capacity targets. Firstly, those measures include the recruitment of new air traffic controllers (‘ATCOs’) enabling an increase of the number of ATCO full-time equivalents in service at the area control centre. Secondly, those measures comprise the implementation of a new ATM system, airspace restructuring, training and flexible rostering of staff, and the relocation of the area control centre of Wien.
(24) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (21), (22) and (23), the targets in the key performance area of capacity included in the draft performance plan of Austria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
Review of the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services
(25) 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.
(26) When breaking down the terminal capacity targets at airport level, the Commission found that the proposed terminal capacity targets for RP4 result in a significantly worse level of ATFM delay per flight for Vienna airport than the level of performance of similar airports identified by the PRB.
(27) 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, Austria should further justify the terminal capacity targets for RP4 in light of the observations set out in recital (26), or should revise downwards those targets.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(28) 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.
(29) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Austria for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Austria
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 72,18
EUR 53,66
EUR 54,40
EUR 53,61
EUR 53,32
EUR 53,65
EUR 52,63
(30) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Austria’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -0,4 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(31) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Austria’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -3,4 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(32) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Austria’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 53,66 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 51,7 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 110,99 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(33) It is clear that Austria’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 outperforms the corresponding Union-wide trend by a significant margin and that Austria’s baseline value for 2024 is significantly below the comparator group average. Furthermore, Austria demonstrates a reduction of the DUC over RP4. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 referred to in recital (30) does not preclude Austria’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(34) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (28) to (33), 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.
Review of the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services
(35) 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.
Review of the en route and terminal capacity incentive schemes
(36) In accordance with point 2.1(f) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has complemented its assessment of the draft performance plan by reviewing the incentive schemes referred to in Article 11 of that Implementing Regulation. It was found that the incentive schemes established by Austria for the purpose of supporting the achievement of en route and terminal capacity targets in RP4 give rise to concerns.
(37) The Commission notes that both the en route capacity incentive scheme and the terminal capacity incentive scheme included in the draft performance plan comprise a maximum financial disadvantage amounting to merely 0,50 % of determined costs. Having regard to the expert advice provided by the PRB, the Commission considers that that the maximum financial disadvantages for the incentive schemes set out by Austria do not comply with Article 11(3), point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, which requires such incentive schemes to have “a material impact on the revenue at risk”.
(38) Therefore, Austria should revise, in connection with the adoption of its final performance plan pursuant to Article 16, point (a), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, its incentive schemes for achieving en route and terminal capacity targets in order for the maximum financial disadvantage stemming from those incentive schemes to be set at a level having a material impact on the revenue at risk, as expressly required by Article 11(3), point (a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. In the Commission’s view, that revision should lead to a maximum financial disadvantage equal to or higher than 1 % of the annual determined costs.
CONCLUSIONS
(39) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Austria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Austria for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Austria
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Austro Control
Safety policy and objectives
B
B
B
B
C
Safety risk management
B
B
B
C
D
Safety assurance
B
B
B
B
C
Safety promotion
B
B
B
B
C
Safety culture
B
B
B
B
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Austria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
2,09 %
2,07 %
2,05 %
2,03 %
2,01 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Austria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,28
0,23
0,19
0,16
0,16

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Austria
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 72,18
EUR 53,66
EUR 54,40
EUR 53,61
EUR 53,32
EUR 53,65
EUR 52,63

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1054 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Bulgaria pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2920)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1054 28.5.2025
(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 Bulgaria (‘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 Bulgaria for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Bulgaria in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:BulgariaTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029BULATSASafety policy and objectivesBCCCCSafety risk managementCCCCDSafety assuranceBBCCCSafety promotionBCCCCSafety cultureBCCCC Bulgaria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 BULATSA Safety policy and objectives B C C C C Safety risk management C C C C D Safety assurance B B C C C Safety promotion B C C C C Safety culture B C C C C
Bulgaria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
BULATSA Safety policy and objectives B C C C C
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance B B C C C
Safety promotion B C C C C
Safety culture B C C C C
Bulgaria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
BULATSA Safety policy and objectives B C C C C
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance B B C C C
Safety promotion B C C C C
Safety culture B C C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Bulgaria for the air navigation service provider ‘BULATSA’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets for each calendar year from 2026 for three of the safety management objectives, whilst the for the ‘safety assurance’ and the ‘safety risk management’ objectives the Union-wide safety targets are met from 2027 and 2029 respectively.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for BULATSA for the achievement of the local safety targets, including the further development of the safety management system in terms of safety culture principles, technological solutions, fatigue and stress management, safety risk management, and safety assurance processes.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11), and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Bulgaria have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Bulgaria for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Bulgaria20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory3,33 %3,31 %3,29 %3,27 %3,25 %Reference values3,33 %3,31 %3,29 %3,27 %3,25 % Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 % Reference values 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 %
Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 %
Reference values 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 %
Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 %
Reference values 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Bulgaria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Bulgaria has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which include initiatives to minimise flight extensions at off-peak periods, the expansion of free route airspace, the prevention of flight re-routings by maintaining adequate airspace capacity, and the increased digitalisation of service provision. Having regard to the findings of the PRB, the Commission considers that Bulgaria should commit to the implementation of all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP, in order to support the achievement of its environment performance targets for RP4.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), the targets in the key performance area of environment included in the draft performance plan of Bulgaria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
(18) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 capacity targets of Bulgaria 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.
(19) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Bulgaria for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Bulgaria20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,240,170,150,120,12Reference values0,240,170,150,120,12 Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12 Reference values 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12
Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12
Reference values 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12
Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12
Reference values 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12
(20) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Bulgaria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Bulgaria has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the localen routecapacity targets. Those measures include the reorganisation of airspace structures, the availability of additional sectors, rising from 18 to 24, in the airspace under the responsibility of Sofia’s area control centre, and an increased number of full-time air traffic controllers in operations.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19) to (21), the targets in the key performance area of capacity included in the draft performance plan of Bulgaria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
(23) 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’) foren routeair 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.
(24) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Bulgaria for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Bulgaria2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)BGN 62,95BGN 50,68BGN 53,30BGN 54,06BGN 55,67BGN 57,64BGN 57,38EUR 32,20EUR 25,92EUR 27,26EUR 27,65EUR 28,47EUR 29,48EUR 29,34 En routecharging zone of Bulgaria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) BGN 62,95 BGN 50,68 BGN 53,30 BGN 54,06 BGN 55,67 BGN 57,64 BGN 57,38 EUR 32,20 EUR 25,92 EUR 27,26 EUR 27,65 EUR 28,47 EUR 29,48 EUR 29,34
En routecharging zone of Bulgaria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) BGN 62,95 BGN 50,68 BGN 53,30 BGN 54,06 BGN 55,67 BGN 57,64 BGN 57,38
EUR 32,20 EUR 25,92 EUR 27,26 EUR 27,65 EUR 28,47 EUR 29,48 EUR 29,34
En routecharging zone of Bulgaria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) BGN 62,95 BGN 50,68 BGN 53,30 BGN 54,06 BGN 55,67 BGN 57,64 BGN 57,38
EUR 32,20 EUR 25,92 EUR 27,26 EUR 27,65 EUR 28,47 EUR 29,48 EUR 29,34
(25) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Bulgaria’s DUC trend at charging zone level of +2,5 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Bulgaria’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,0 % is in line with the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Bulgaria’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 25,92 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 36,9 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 41,05 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(28) It is clear that Bulgaria’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 is in line with the corresponding Union-wide trend and that Bulgaria’s baseline value for 2024 is significantly below the comparator group average. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 referred to in recital (25) does not preclude Bulgaria’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(29) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (24) to (28), 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.
(30) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Bulgaria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Bulgaria Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
BULATSA Safety policy and objectives B C C C C
Safety risk management C C C C D
Safety assurance B B C C C
Safety promotion B C C C C
Safety culture B C C C C
Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 3,33 % 3,31 % 3,29 % 3,27 % 3,25 %
Bulgaria 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,24 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,12
En routecharging zone of Bulgaria 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) BGN 62,95 BGN 50,68 BGN 53,30 BGN 54,06 BGN 55,67 BGN 57,64 BGN 57,38
EUR 32,20 EUR 25,92 EUR 27,26 EUR 27,65 EUR 28,47 EUR 29,48 EUR 29,34
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c), thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Bulgaria (‘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 Bulgaria 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Bulgaria in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Bulgaria
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
BULATSA
Safety policy and objectives
B
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
C
D
Safety assurance
B
B
C
C
C
Safety promotion
B
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
B
C
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Bulgaria for the air navigation service provider ‘BULATSA’ are equal to the Union-wide safety targets for each calendar year from 2026 for three of the safety management objectives, whilst the for the ‘safety assurance’ and the ‘safety risk management’ objectives the Union-wide safety targets are met from 2027 and 2029 respectively.
(11) The Commission notes that the draft performance plan sets out measures for BULATSA for the achievement of the local safety targets, including the further development of the safety management system in terms of safety culture principles, technological solutions, fatigue and stress management, safety risk management, and safety assurance processes.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11), and considering that the Union-wide safety performance targets set in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688 are to be achieved by the final year of RP4, that is, 2029, the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment targets
(13) 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 Bulgaria 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Bulgaria 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:
Bulgaria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
3,33 %
3,31 %
3,29 %
3,27 %
3,25 %
Reference values
3,33 %
3,31 %
3,29 %
3,27 %
3,25 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Bulgaria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Bulgaria has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets which include initiatives to minimise flight extensions at off-peak periods, the expansion of free route airspace, the prevention of flight re-routings by maintaining adequate airspace capacity, and the increased digitalisation of service provision. Having regard to the findings of the PRB, the Commission considers that Bulgaria should commit to the implementation of all the operational measures set out in the ERNIP, in order to support the achievement of its environment performance targets for RP4.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), the targets in the key performance area of environment included in the draft performance plan of Bulgaria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(18) 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 capacity targets of Bulgaria 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.
(19) The en route capacity targets proposed by Bulgaria for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Bulgaria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,24
0,17
0,15
0,12
0,12
Reference values
0,24
0,17
0,15
0,12
0,12
(20) The Commission observes that the capacity targets proposed by Bulgaria are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Bulgaria has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets. Those measures include the reorganisation of airspace structures, the availability of additional sectors, rising from 18 to 24, in the airspace under the responsibility of Sofia’s area control centre, and an increased number of full-time air traffic controllers in operations.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19) to (21), the targets in the key performance area of capacity included in the draft performance plan of Bulgaria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(23) 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.
(24) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Bulgaria for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Bulgaria
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
BGN 62,95
BGN 50,68
BGN 53,30
BGN 54,06
BGN 55,67
BGN 57,64
BGN 57,38
EUR 32,20
EUR 25,92
EUR 27,26
EUR 27,65
EUR 28,47
EUR 29,48
EUR 29,34
(25) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Bulgaria’s DUC trend at charging zone level of +2,5 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Bulgaria’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,0 % is in line with the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Bulgaria’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 25,92 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 36,9 % lower than the average baseline value of EUR 41,05 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(28) It is clear that Bulgaria’s long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 is in line with the corresponding Union-wide trend and that Bulgaria’s baseline value for 2024 is significantly below the comparator group average. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 referred to in recital (25) does not preclude Bulgaria’s cost-efficiency performance targets from being consistent with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(29) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (24) to (28), 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(30) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Bulgaria should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Bulgaria for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Bulgaria
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
BULATSA
Safety policy and objectives
B
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
C
C
C
C
D
Safety assurance
B
B
C
C
C
Safety promotion
B
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
B
C
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Bulgaria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
3,33 %
3,31 %
3,29 %
3,27 %
3,25 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Bulgaria
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,24
0,17
0,15
0,12
0,12

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Bulgaria
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
BGN 62,95
BGN 50,68
BGN 53,30
BGN 54,06
BGN 55,67
BGN 57,64
BGN 57,38
EUR 32,20
EUR 25,92
EUR 27,26
EUR 27,65
EUR 28,47
EUR 29,48
EUR 29,34

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1055 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Sweden pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2927)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1055 28.5.2025
(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 betweenen routeand 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:SwedenTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029LFVSafety policy and objectivesCCCCCSafety risk managementDDDDDSafety assuranceCCCCCSafety promotionCCCCCSafety cultureCCCCC Sweden Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 LFV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C Safety risk management D D D D D Safety assurance C C C C C Safety promotion C C C C C Safety culture C C C C C
Sweden Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
LFV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management D D D D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Sweden Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
LFV Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management D D D D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
(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 horizontalen routeflight 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 relevanten routehorizontal 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 horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Sweden20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory1,73  %1,71  %1,69  %1,67  %1,65  %Reference values1,73  %1,71  %1,69  %1,67  %1,65  % Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,73  % 1,71  % 1,69  % 1,67  % 1,65  % Reference values 1,73  % 1,71  % 1,69  % 1,67  % 1,65  %
Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,73  % 1,71  % 1,69  % 1,67  % 1,65  %
Reference values 1,73  % 1,71  % 1,69  % 1,67  % 1,65  %
Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,73  % 1,71  % 1,69  % 1,67  % 1,65  %
Reference values 1,73  % 1,71  % 1,69  % 1,67  % 1,65  %
(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 averageen routeair 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 proposeden routecapacity 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) Theen routecapacity 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:Sweden20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,180,130,110,110,11Reference values0,180,130,110,110,11 Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11 Reference values 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11
Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11
Reference values 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11
Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11
Reference values 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11
(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 localen routecapacity 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’) foren routeair 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) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Sweden for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Sweden2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)SEK 585,33SEK 766,73SEK 724,19SEK 691,88SEK 672,80SEK 661,87SEK 645,00EUR 55,10EUR 72,17EUR 68,17EUR 65,13EUR 63,33EUR 62,30EUR 60,71 En routecharging zone of Sweden 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) SEK 585,33 SEK 766,73 SEK 724,19 SEK 691,88 SEK 672,80 SEK 661,87 SEK 645,00 EUR 55,10 EUR 72,17 EUR 68,17 EUR 65,13 EUR 63,33 EUR 62,30 EUR 60,71
En routecharging zone of Sweden 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) SEK 585,33 SEK 766,73 SEK 724,19 SEK 691,88 SEK 672,80 SEK 661,87 SEK 645,00
EUR 55,10 EUR 72,17 EUR 68,17 EUR 65,13 EUR 63,33 EUR 62,30 EUR 60,71
En routecharging zone of Sweden 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) SEK 585,33 SEK 766,73 SEK 724,19 SEK 691,88 SEK 672,80 SEK 661,87 SEK 645,00
EUR 55,10 EUR 72,17 EUR 68,17 EUR 65,13 EUR 63,33 EUR 62,30 EUR 60,71
(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 inen routeservice 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,
Sweden Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service providers Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
LFV, ACR, AFAB, SDATS Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management D D D D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,73 % 1,71 % 1,69 % 1,67 % 1,65 %
Sweden 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,18 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,11
En routecharging zone of Sweden 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) SEK 585,33 SEK 766,73 SEK 724,19 SEK 691,88 SEK 672,80 SEK 661,87 SEK 645,00
EUR 55,10 EUR 72,17 EUR 68,17 EUR 65,13 EUR 63,33 EUR 62,30 EUR 60,71
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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:
Sweden
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
LFV
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
D
D
D
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
(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.
Assessment of the environment 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:
Sweden
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,73 %
1,71 %
1,69 %
1,67 %
1,65 %
Reference values
1,73 %
1,71 %
1,69 %
1,67 %
1,65 %
(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.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(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:
Sweden
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,18
0,13
0,11
0,11
0,11
Reference values
0,18
0,13
0,11
0,11
0,11
(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.
Review of the capacity targets for terminal air navigation services
(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.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency 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:
En route charging zone of Sweden
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
SEK 585,33
SEK 766,73
SEK 724,19
SEK 691,88
SEK 672,80
SEK 661,87
SEK 645,00
EUR 55,10
EUR 72,17
EUR 68,17
EUR 65,13
EUR 63,33
EUR 62,30
EUR 60,71
(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.
Review of the cost-efficiency targets for terminal air navigation services
(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.
CONCLUSIONS
(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,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Sweden for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Sweden
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service providers
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
LFV, ACR, AFAB, SDATS
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
D
D
D
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Sweden
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,73 %
1,71 %
1,69 %
1,67 %
1,65 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Sweden
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,18
0,13
0,11
0,11
0,11

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Sweden
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
SEK 585,33
SEK 766,73
SEK 724,19
SEK 691,88
SEK 672,80
SEK 661,87
SEK 645,00
EUR 55,10
EUR 72,17
EUR 68,17
EUR 65,13
EUR 63,33
EUR 62,30
EUR 60,71

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1052 of 19 May 2025 on the consistency of the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of submitted by Slovenia pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period of the Single European Sky performance and charging scheme (notified under document C(2025) 2925)

Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2025/1052 28.5.2025
(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 Slovenia (‘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 Slovenia for the allocation of costs betweenen routeand 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 Slovenia in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:SloveniaTargets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to DAir navigation service providerSafety management objective20252026202720282029Slovenia ControlSafety policy and objectivesCCCCCSafety risk managementDDDDDSafety assuranceCCCCCSafety promotionCCCCCSafety cultureCCCCC Slovenia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Slovenia Control Safety policy and objectives C C C C C Safety risk management D D D D D Safety assurance C C C C C Safety promotion C C C C C Safety culture C C C C C
Slovenia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Slovenia Control Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management D D D D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Slovenia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Slovenia Control Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management D D D D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Slovenia for the air navigation service provider ‘Slovenia Control’ 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 sets out measures for Slovenia Control for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the definition of a new operational risk baseline subject to regular reviews, the evaluation of statistical data, and the use for monitoring purposes of an alerting system enabling the detection of adverse safety trends.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11), the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
(13) As regards the key performance area of environment, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the average horizontalen routeflight 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 Slovenia have been compared to the relevanten routehorizontal 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Slovenia for RP4 and the corresponding national reference values from the ERNIP, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory, are as follows:Slovenia20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory1,70 %1,67 %1,64 %1,61 %1,58 %Reference values1,70 %1,67 %1,64 %1,61 %1,58 % Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 % Reference values 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 %
Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 %
Reference values 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 %
Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 %
Reference values 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Slovenia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Slovenia has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, including the implementation of cross border free route airspace and the application of recommendations for flight efficiency improvements set out in the ERNIP.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
(18) As regards the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the targets included in the draft performance plan regarding the averageen routeair 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 capacity targets of Slovenia 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.
(19) Theen routecapacity targets proposed by Slovenia for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:Slovenia20252026202720282029Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight0,170,120,080,070,07Reference values0,170,120,080,070,07 Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07 Reference values 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07
Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07
Reference values 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07
Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07
Reference values 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07
(20) The Commission observes that theen routecapacity targets proposed by Slovenia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Slovenia has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the localen routecapacity targets, including the implementation of enhanced air traffic flow and capacity management, adjustments to the traffic organisation in response to changes in regional traffic flows, the training and recruitment of additional air traffic controllers, and upgrades to the air traffic management system.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
(23) 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’) foren routeair 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 the third reference period (‘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.
(24) Theen routecost-efficiency targets proposed by Slovenia for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:En routecharging zone of Slovenia2019 baseline value2024 baseline value20252026202720282029Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)EUR 60,67EUR 55,98EUR 55,22EUR 55,13EUR 54,65EUR 54,12EUR 52,83 En routecharging zone of Slovenia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 60,67 EUR 55,98 EUR 55,22 EUR 55,13 EUR 54,65 EUR 54,12 EUR 52,83
En routecharging zone of Slovenia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 60,67 EUR 55,98 EUR 55,22 EUR 55,13 EUR 54,65 EUR 54,12 EUR 52,83
En routecharging zone of Slovenia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 60,67 EUR 55,98 EUR 55,22 EUR 55,13 EUR 54,65 EUR 54,12 EUR 52,83
(25) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Slovenia’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line to the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Slovenia’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,5 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Slovenia’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 55,98 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 55,4 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 36,04 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(28) It is clear that Slovenia's DUC trend for RP4 is in line with the Union-wide RP4 DUC trend whilst Slovenia’s long-term DUC trend outperforms the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. Slovenia thus demonstrates that effective cost-efficiency gains are achieved both over the medium and long term. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation between Slovenia’s baseline value in comparison with the relevant comparator group referred to in recital (27) does not preclude Slovenia’s consistency with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(29) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (24) to (28), 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.
(30) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Slovenia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
Slovenia Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider Safety management objective 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Slovenia Control Safety policy and objectives C C C C C
Safety risk management D D D D D
Safety assurance C C C C C
Safety promotion C C C C C
Safety culture C C C C C
Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment,expressed as the average horizontalen routeflight efficiency of the actual trajectory 1,70 % 1,67 % 1,64 % 1,61 % 1,58 %
Slovenia 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes ofen routeATFM delay per flight 0,17 0,12 0,08 0,07 0,07
En routecharging zone of Slovenia 2019 baseline value 2024 baseline value 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency,expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices) EUR 60,67 EUR 55,98 EUR 55,22 EUR 55,13 EUR 54,65 EUR 54,12 EUR 52,83
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(3) point (c) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2803 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the implementation of the Single European Sky (2), and in particular Article 58(3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (3), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,
Whereas:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
(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 Slovenia (‘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 Slovenia 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.
COMMISSION ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the safety targets
(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 Slovenia in respect of the effectiveness of safety management, broken down per safety management objective and expressed as a level of implementation, are as follows:
Slovenia
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from EASA level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Slovenia Control
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
D
D
D
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C
(10) The Commission has found that the safety performance targets proposed by Slovenia for the air navigation service provider ‘Slovenia Control’ 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 sets out measures for Slovenia Control for the achievement of the local safety targets, such as the definition of a new operational risk baseline subject to regular reviews, the evaluation of statistical data, and the use for monitoring purposes of an alerting system enabling the detection of adverse safety trends.
(12) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (9), (10) and (11), the local safety performance targets included in the draft performance plan should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets.
Assessment of the environment targets
(13) 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 Slovenia 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.
(14) The environment performance targets proposed by Slovenia 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:
Slovenia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,70 %
1,67 %
1,64 %
1,61 %
1,58 %
Reference values
1,70 %
1,67 %
1,64 %
1,61 %
1,58 %
(15) The Commission observes that the environment targets proposed by Slovenia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(16) The Commission notes that Slovenia has presented in the draft performance plan measures for the achievement of the local environment targets, including the implementation of cross border free route airspace and the application of recommendations for flight efficiency improvements set out in the ERNIP.
(17) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (14), (15) and (16), 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.
Assessment of the capacity targets
(18) 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 capacity targets of Slovenia 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.
(19) The en route capacity targets proposed by Slovenia for RP4, expressed in minutes of ATFM delay per flight, and the corresponding reference values from the Network Operations Plan, are as follows:
Slovenia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,17
0,12
0,08
0,07
0,07
Reference values
0,17
0,12
0,08
0,07
0,07
(20) The Commission observes that the en route capacity targets proposed by Slovenia are equal to the corresponding national reference values for each calendar year of RP4.
(21) The Commission notes that Slovenia has presented, in the draft performance plan, measures for the achievement of the local en route capacity targets, including the implementation of enhanced air traffic flow and capacity management, adjustments to the traffic organisation in response to changes in regional traffic flows, the training and recruitment of additional air traffic controllers, and upgrades to the air traffic management system.
(22) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (19), (20) and (21), 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.
Assessment of the cost-efficiency targets
(23) 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 the third reference period (‘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.
(24) The en route cost-efficiency targets proposed by Slovenia for RP4, and the related baseline values, are as follows:
En route charging zone of Slovenia
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 60,67
EUR 55,98
EUR 55,22
EUR 55,13
EUR 54,65
EUR 54,12
EUR 52,83
(25) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Slovenia’s DUC trend at charging zone level of -1,2 % over RP4 is in line to the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.
(26) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Slovenia’s long-term DUC trend at charging zone level over RP3 and RP4 of -1,5 % outperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.
(27) Concerning the assessment criterion set out in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that Slovenia’s baseline value for the DUC of EUR 55,98 in real terms at 2022 prices (‘EUR2022’) is 55,4 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 36,04 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7 Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
(28) It is clear that Slovenia’s DUC trend for RP4 is in line with the Union-wide RP4 DUC trend whilst Slovenia’s long-term DUC trend outperforms the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. Slovenia thus demonstrates that effective cost-efficiency gains are achieved both over the medium and long term. Therefore, the Commission considers that the deviation between Slovenia’s baseline value in comparison with the relevant comparator group referred to in recital (27) does not preclude Slovenia’s consistency with the Union-wide cost-efficiency performance targets.
(29) On the basis of the findings set out in recitals (24) to (28), 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.
CONCLUSIONS
(30) In the light of the foregoing, the performance targets included in the draft performance plan of Slovenia should be considered consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The performance targets included in the draft performance plan submitted by Slovenia for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’), listed in the Annex to this Decision, are consistent with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4 set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Slovenia.

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF SAFETY

Slovenia
Targets on the effectiveness of safety management, expressed as a level of implementation, ranging from European Aviation Safety Agency (‘EASA’) level A to D
Air navigation service provider
Safety management objective
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Slovenia Control
Safety policy and objectives
C
C
C
C
C
Safety risk management
D
D
D
D
D
Safety assurance
C
C
C
C
C
Safety promotion
C
C
C
C
C
Safety culture
C
C
C
C
C

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT

Slovenia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of environment, expressed as the average horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
1,70 %
1,67 %
1,64 %
1,61 %
1,58 %

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF CAPACITY

Slovenia
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets in the key performance area of capacity, expressed in minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight
0,17
0,12
0,08
0,07
0,07

KEY PERFORMANCE AREA OF COST-EFFICIENCY

En route charging zone of Slovenia
2019 baseline value
2024 baseline value
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Targets and baseline values in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, expressed as determined unit cost (in real terms at 2022 prices)
EUR 60,67
EUR 55,98
EUR 55,22
EUR 55,13
EUR 54,65
EUR 54,12
EUR 52,83