Commission Decision (EU) 2026/865 of 27 March 2026 on the initiation of the detailed examination of certain performance targets included in the revised draft functional airspace block performance plan for the fourth reference period submitted by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2026) 2003)

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), second subparagraph 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 15(1) and (3) 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) On 12 June 2024, the Commission adopted Union-wide performance targets for the fourth reference period (‘RP4’, 2025–2029). Those Union-wide performance targets were set out in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688⁽⁴⁾.

(3) On 1 October 2024, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland (the ‘FABEC States’) submitted to the Commission a draft performance plan for RP4 adopted jointly at the level of Functional Airspace Block Europe Central (‘FABEC’). After the verification of completeness of that draft performance plan by the Commission, the FABEC States submitted an updated draft performance plan (‘the draft FABEC performance plan’) on 15 November 2024.

(4) The Commission found that the cost-efficiency performance targets included in the draft FABEC performance plan for the en route charging zones of Belgium and Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland do not meet the assessment criteria laid down in point 1 of Annex IV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 and thus are not consistent with Union-wide performance targets for RP4.

(5) On 16 May 2025, the Commission therefore notified Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands of the findings regarding the inconsistency of the performance targets referred to in recital 4 through Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1040⁽⁵⁾, whilst Switzerland was notified of those findings through Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1039⁽⁶⁾. In those Decisions, the Commission issued recommendations to the FABEC States in view of ensuring the consistency of their performance targets with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.

(6) On 14 August 2025, the FABEC States submitted a revised draft FABEC performance plan for RP4 for assessment by the Commission. Following the verification of completeness of that plan, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland submitted an updated version of the revised draft performance plan (the ‘revised draft FABEC performance plan’) on 17 October 2025.

(7) In accordance with Article 15(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission has assessed the consistency of the local performance targets contained in the revised draft FABEC performance plan on the basis of the assessment criteria laid down in point 1 of Annex IV to that Implementing Regulation, and taking account of local circumstances where relevant.

(8) This Decision sets out the Commission’s doubts about the consistency of the cost-efficiency performance targets of the Netherlands included in the revised draft FABEC performance plan with the Union-wide performance targets for RP4.

(9) The assessment of the revised draft FABEC performance plan by the Commission has also resulted in doubts concerning the consistency of the cost-efficiency performance targets for the en route charging zone of Switzerland. As a third country subject to the performance and charging scheme pursuant to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport⁽⁷⁾, Switzerland has been notified separately by the Commission of the related findings and of the opening of a detailed examination regarding the cost-efficiency performance targets for its charging zone⁽⁸⁾.

(10) The Performance Review Board (‘PRB’), assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance and charging schemes pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/2803, has submitted to the Commission its opinion on the performance targets included in the revised draft FABEC performance plan with regard to the consistency of those targets with the Union-wide performance targets. The findings set out in this Decision have been informed by the detailed technical assessment set out in the PRB opinion⁽⁹⁾.

REASONS FOR INITIATING A DETAILED EXAMINATION

(11) The revised draft FABEC performance plan sets out revised cost-efficiency performance targets for the en route charging zone of the Netherlands, together with the baseline values for the determined unit cost (‘DUC’) for the years 2019 and 2024. The revised cost-efficiency performance targets and baseline values are presented in the table below in comparison with the corresponding numbers included in the draft FABEC performance plan submitted in 2024.

(12) The Commission notes that the cost-efficiency performance targets of the Netherlands were revised downwards for each year of RP4, which constitutes an improvement in comparison with the draft FABEC performance plan submitted in 2024. That improvement, which translates into a lower annual DUC for the charging zone, is entirely due to the reduction of the determined costs as expressed in real terms in 2022 prices (‘EUR 2022’). The Netherlands has also revised downwards the baseline values for the DUC including, for 2024, to take account of the actual costs recorded for the calendar year.

(13) The revised determined costs for the charging zone in EUR 2022 are shown in the table below:

(14) As shown in the table below, the revised traffic forecast applied for the charging zone of the Netherlands, which is based on the Eurocontrol STATFOR base forecast of February 2025, resulted in a lower number of forecasted service units for each year of RP4, in comparison with the traffic forecast presented in the draft FABEC performance plan submitted in 2024. The revision of the traffic forecast for the charging zone thus had a negative cost-efficiency impact, which partially cancelled the positive effect of the reduction of the determined costs referred to in recitals 12 and 13.

(15) The Commission has assessed the consistency of the revised cost-efficiency targets proposed for the Netherlands en route charging zone based on the criteria laid down in points 1.4(a), (b) and (c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

(16) Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(a) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the en route DUC trend at charging zone level of +0,3 % over RP4 underperforms the Union-wide trend of -1,2 % over the same period.

(17) Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(b) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the long-term en route DUC trend at charging zone level over the third reference period (‘RP3) and RP4 of +2,2 % underperforms the long-term Union-wide trend of -1,0 % over the same period.

(18) The Netherlands has requested the Commission to consider the impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine as part of the calculation of the long-term en route DUC trend. According to the Netherlands, the changes in traffic resulting from the war in Ukraine have led to a structural reduction of overflights in the Dutch airspace, and have a persisting negative effect on the traffic volumes in RP4. The Netherlands estimates the loss of overflights due to the impact of the war in Ukraine to represent 8,4 % of the total service units of the charging zone, using the calculation methodology applied by the PRB in respect of other Member States affected by the same circumstances.

(19) Having regard to the PRB opinion, the Commission considers that further analysis is necessary, for the purpose of the assessment criterion referred to in recital 17, in order to establish to what extent the Netherlands has actually incurred a structural loss of overflights as a result of the circumstances due to the war in Ukraine. Indeed, it is not possible to conclude at this stage whether the observed traffic variation reported by the Netherlands is actually due to a shift of traffic flows due to the war in Ukraine or could be rather attributed to other factors. Therefore, the Commission has not recalculated, at this stage of the assessment, the Netherlands’ long-term DUC trend over RP3 and RP4 in light of the structural loss of traffic invoked by the Netherlands as a consequence of the war in Ukraine.

(20) Concerning the criterion laid down in point 1.4(c) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission observes that the baseline value for the DUC of EUR 101,95 of the Netherlands in EUR2022 is 9,0 % higher than the average baseline value of EUR 93,56 in EUR2022 of the relevant comparator group set out in Article 7, point (e), of Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.

(21) In respect of the assessment criterion referred to in recital 20, the Netherlands considers in the revised draft FABEC performance plan that the observed difference in purchasing power parity between the States within the comparator group should be taken into account. Having regard to the PRB opinion, more detailed analysis is required in order to appraise the impact of the invoked purchasing power parity differences on the cost bases of the air navigation service providers (‘ANSPs’) concerned. Such further analysis should also consider any other relevant operational or economic factors significantly impacting comparability between the ANSPs within the comparator group set out in Article 7, point (e), of Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1688.

(22) Furthermore, the Commission has examined whether the deviations referred to in recitals 16, 17 and 20 may be deemed necessary and proportionate in accordance with point 1.4(d) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317. Accordingly, the Commission has assessed whether the observed deviations from the Union-wide DUC trend and from the long-term Union-wide DUC trend referred to in recitals 16 and 17 are exclusively due to additional determined costs related to measures necessary to achieve the performance targets in the key performance area of capacity or to restructuring costs within the meaning of Article 2, point (18), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

(23) The PRB has calculated the estimated differences between the determined costs for RP4 set by the Netherlands in the revised draft FABEC performance plan and the determined costs that would be required to meet the Union-wide DUC trend for RP4 and the long-term Union-wide DUC trend for RP3 and RP4 combined. Based on the PRB findings, the total determined costs for RP4 proposed by the Netherlands fall short by approximately EUR 77,1 M in EUR2022 of the level required to meet the Union-wide DUC trend, which represents an average annual gap of EUR 15,4 M in EUR 2022. A more significant difference amounting over the whole RP4 to approximately EUR 370 M in EUR2022 is observed against the level required to meet the long-term Union-wide DUC trend, which corresponds to an annual average gap of approximately EUR 74 M in EUR 2022.

(24) In respect of the criterion set out in point 1.4(d)(i) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, the Commission notes that the Netherlands refers in the revised draft FABEC performance plan to additional determined costs incurred over RP4 by the en route ANSPs LVNL and the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (‘MUAC’) in relation to measures for the achievement of capacity targets (‘capacity measures’).

(25) The Netherlands recalls, in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, that LVNL and MUAC provide services in a highly complex and densely operated airspace. According to the Netherlands, the focus over RP4 is to maintain a high quality of services to airspace users in the context of the forecasted steady increase of traffic. To this end, both LVNL and MUAC have to train and recruit a significant number of new air traffic controllers (‘ATCOs’) and implement a range of capacity-enhancing investments in systems and operational concepts. The Netherlands points out that reducing or delaying the planned capacity measures would lead to a deterioration of the quality of services in Dutch airspace and could also have detrimental ripple effects on the European air traffic management network overall.

(26) Furthermore, the Netherlands emphasises that the required service levels for air navigation services in Dutch airspace, including in terms of staffing and investments, are determined on the basis the peak hour traffic demand. ANS operations are designed to accommodate, with a high degree of operational reliability, the consecutive arrival and departure peaks of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, followed by periods of lower traffic demand, throughout a regular day of operations. The Netherlands reports that the traffic demand during peak hours has reached its pre-COVID levels, whilst the overall volume of traffic in the Dutch airspace remains still at a lower level.

(27) The Netherlands explains that the peak hour traffic demand at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport is significantly higher than at the primary airports of the other States comprised within the comparator group referred to in recital 20. The Netherlands estimates that the delivery by LVNL of the peak hour capacity needed to accommodate traffic to and from Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, represents an additional annual cost of approximately EUR 40 M. It was not possible for the PRB, based on the information available, to verify that estimate and the underlying assumptions. It also remains unclear whether that amount has been calculated in relation the provision of en route air navigation services only or includes also costs related to terminal air navigation services. Further information and analysis are therefore required in order to conclude regarding this matter.

(28) The Commission observes that the Netherlands has presented and quantified a total of seven capacity measures for LVNL and MUAC in the revised draft FABEC performance plan. Over RP4 as a whole, those capacity measures amount to determined costs of EUR 159,9 M expressed in real terms in 2022 prices. 84 % of those reported additional determined costs relate to capacity measures put in place by LVNL, whilst the capacity measures implemented by MUAC only represent a share of 16 %.

(29) The Commission has initially examined and analysed below the following capacity measures reported by the Netherlands in relation to LVNL and MUAC:

• Training of new ATCOs by LVNL (‘Measure 1’);

• Deployment by LVNL of a new air traffic management (‘ATM’) system (‘Measure 2’);

• Implementation by LVNL of other operational improvements and technical upgrades (‘Measure 3’);

• Training of new ATCOs by MUAC (‘Measure 4’);

• Implementation of various operational and technical capacity-enhancement measures by MUAC (‘Measure 5’).

(30) Measure 1 includes the training of new ATCOs by LVNL for its area control centre (‘ACC’), mainly to replace the significant number of ATCOs planned to retire over RP4 but also to accommodate the forecasted traffic growth and to support the modernisation of systems. LVNL plans an annual intake of 27 ATCO students and aims at an average success rate above 75 % for the training. The number of ATCOs working on en route sectors at the Amsterdam ACC is expected to rise from 82 full-time equivalents (‘FTEs’) in 2024 to 85 FTEs in 2029, thus showing a moderate increase of 3 FTEs over RP4. The costs accounted for under Measure 1 comprise both the ATCO student salaries and other costs incurred in relation to their training.

(31) Measure 1 also comprises the further development by LVNL of its training facilities, air traffic control training simulators and related applications. As a result, it is expected in particular that a larger share of the ATCO training will be conducted through improved air traffic control simulators as ‘independent learning’ activities, thus reducing the need for more resource-intensive on-the-job training involving instructors, i.e. licensed ATCOs. These improvements are reported to increase the training capacity, thus supporting the employment of an adequate number of ATCOs to meet the RP4 capacity targets.

(32) Measure 1 represents a total cost of over EUR 88,1 M in nominal terms over RP4. The Commission notes that Measure 1 alone accounts for approximately half of the total costs of the capacity measures (including both LVNL and MUAC) invoked by the Netherlands.

(33) Measure 2 comprises the costs incurred for the deployment by LVNL of a new ATM system, named ‘ICAS’.

(34) The new ICAS ATM system is expected to bring about major technical improvements enabling increased airspace capacity and allowing the implementation of advanced operational solutions such as the 4D trajectory-based operations and system wide-information management. The ICAS system implementation is also planned to support the optimal structuring and usage of the Dutch airspace, pursued through the Dutch Airspace Redesign Programme. Furthermore, it will provide a direct interface with the Eurocontrol Local and Sub-Regional Airspace Management Airspace Reservation System (LARA).

(35) The project aiming at the deployment of the ICAS ATM system was initiated already in RP3. The project however faced delays because of the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and due to additional efforts required for the transition from the existing ATM system of LVNL. The new ICAS ATM system is, according to the information in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, planned to enter into operation by 2028 at the latest.

(36) The costs reported for Measure 2 amount to approximately EUR 33,7 M in nominal terms over RP4.

(37) Measure 3 comprises several distinct operational improvements and technical upgrades undertaken by LVNL in RP4, including in particular the following elements:

• Setting up a reduced 2,5 nautical mile radar separation for approach and landing at Schiphol Airport with the aim of increasing runway throughput and improving the efficiency of sequencing arriving flights, particularly during peak traffic periods – the Netherlands has allocated 68 % of the determined costs associated with this project in RP4 to its en route cost base;

• Implementing controller-pilot data link communications, a departure management planning system and enhanced decision-making tools;

• Applying additional contingency measures to support the roll-out of the new ICAS ATM system presented under Measure 2.

(38) Measure 3 was added by the Netherlands into the revised draft FABEC performance plan as an additional justification for the observed deviations from the Union-wide DUC trends. The costs reported under Measure 3 relate primarily to the depreciation of the relevant technical systems, and amount to a total of approximately EUR 26,5 M in nominal terms over RP4.

(39) Measure 4 concerns the training of new ATCOs by MUAC for the purpose ensuring that its overall ATCO staffing levels remain adequate to accommodate the growing traffic demand over RP4 and beyond.

(40) According to the information provided in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, MUAC will face a high number or ATCOs leaving operational service during the remainder of RP4, given that a third of all the ATCOs employed by MUAC are approaching the retirement age. The training of new ATCOs by MUAC will hence mainly aim to replace the generation of current ATCOs which will retire within the next years.

(41) There is no breakdown, in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, of the ATCO numbers of MUAC between the Belgium-Luxembourg, Germany and the Netherlands charging zones. Overall, for MUAC as a a whole, the number of ATCOs in operations is planned to increase from 296 FTEs in 2024 to 306 FTEs in 2029, which thus amounts to an increase of 10 FTEs over RP4.

(42) The Netherlands has reported, for its charging zone, a total cost of EUR 18,5 M in nominal terms over RP4 for Measure 4.

(43) Measure 5 includes a wide range of operational and technical projects launched by MUAC with the objective of enhancing airspace capacity and an efficient use of airspace. Those projects are divided, in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, into the following categories:

• ‘Airspace’: The relevant projects include actions by MUAC to reduce airspace complexity by improving the interface with the neighbouring ANSPs, accommodating the needs of military users, and optimising airspace usage including through structural changes in the Amsterdam terminal manoeuvring area. The total costs reported for the relevant projects amount to approximately EUR 1,4M in nominal terms over RP4.

• ‘Products’: The initiatives reported within this category comprise the development by MUAC of new tools and functions to foster the supply of adequate capacity to airspace users. The presented products consist, inter alia, of solutions to improve ATM operations (including the used back-up solutions and systems), to facilitate air traffic flow and capacity management and to optimise manpower planning. The projects undertaken by MUAC in this category are reported to constitute a total cost of approximately EUR 7,5 M in nominal terms over RP4 as a whole.

• ‘Communication’: Under this category, MUAC plans to roll out certain technical upgrades of its voice communication systems for the purpose of air navigation service provision. The total costs of the related initiatives amount to approximately EUR 0,6 M in nominal terms over RP4.

(44) Although the abovementioned three categories of actions by MUAC are separately reported in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, the related projects have been grouped together by the Commission under Measure 5 in order to facilitate their overall review. The actions presented under Measure 5 altogether amount to a total cost of EUR 9,4 M in nominal terms over RP4.

(45) Overall, the five capacity measures invoked by the Netherlands to justify a deviation from the Union-wide cost-efficiency trends are significant both in terms of magnitude and financial impact. A more detailed analysis of those capacity measures is necessary to assess their scope, costs, and proportionality in view of the achievement of the capacity targets.

(46) Without prejudice to the outcome of the further analysis referred to in recital 45, it is nonetheless clear that the additional costs reported by the Netherlands for the capacity measures referred to in recitals 29 to 44 only partially justify the observed average annual gap over RP4 from the long-term Union-wide cost-efficiency trend as quantified in recital 23. That deviation can hence not be exclusively attributed to the additional determined costs of the presented capacity measures, regardless of whether those measures are in their entirety considered necessary and proportionate for the achievement of the local capacity targets.

(47) Therefore, the criterion set out in point 1.4(d)(i) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 is not fulfilled in respect of the Netherlands.

(48) In respect of the criterion set out in point 1.4(d)(ii) of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, it suffices to mention that the Netherlands has not presented, in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, any restructuring measures which would justify a deviation from the Union-wide DUC trend or from the Union-wide long-term DUC trend. Therefore, the criterion set out in point 1.4(d)(ii) is not fulfilled in respect of the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

(49) In conclusion, the Commission considers that the Netherlands has not adequately addressed, in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, the recommendations set out in Article 3 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1040 with regard to the cost-efficiency performance targets for its en route charging zone.

(50) In particular, the Commission notes that the revised cost-efficiency performance targets proposed by the Netherlands are consistent neither with the RP4 Union-wide DUC trend, nor with the long-term Union-wide DUC trend. The Commission also observes that the determined costs for the charging zone have not been reduced to a sufficient extent in view of ensuring consistency with the Union-wide performance targets.

(51) Finally, the Commission did not find, based on the elements and justifications provided in the revised draft FABEC performance plan, that the deviation from the long-term Union-wide DUC trend could be exclusively attributed to additional costs incurred for capacity measures. Further information and analysis would be required in order to examine other operational and economic considerations raised by the Netherlands to justify the deviations observed in recitals 16, 17 and 20 in respect of the asessment criteria set out in points 1.4 (a), (b) and (c) of Annex IV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317.

(52) On the grounds of the findings set out in recitals 15 to 51, the Commission therefore considers, at this stage of the assessment of the revised draft FABEC performance plan, that doubts remain as to the consistency of the revised cost-efficiency performance targets proposed by the Netherlands.

(53) The Commission has therefore decided to initiate the detailed examination set out in Article 15(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 in respect of the cost-efficiency performance targets for the Netherlands en route charging zone,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: