Cost-efficiency - Croatia

Download Report

PRB monitoring

  • The en route 2025 actual unit cost of Croatia was 33.78€2022, -8.6% lower than the determined unit cost (36.96€2022). Croatia does not have a terminal charging zone.

  • The en route 2025 actual service units (3.2M) were +6.8% higher than the determined service units (3.0M).

  • The en route 2025 actual total costs were -2.6M€2022 (-2.4%) lower than determined, with all cost categories registering lower-than-planned costs, except staff costs. This is mainly due to lower other operating costs (-2.8M€2022, or -15.1%) and depreciation (-2.5M€2022, or -18.4%) for Croatia Control. The NSA explained this decrease by the deferral of investment projects which resulted in lower-than-expected expenditures, as well as lower intellectual services and travel costs. This was partially compensated by higher staff costs than planned (+3.7M€2022, or +5.8%) for Croatia Control, which the NSA attributed to an adjustment of labour expenses reflecting inflationary pressures.

  • Croatia Control costs of investments were 15.5M€2022 in 2025, -14.4% less than determined (18.0M€2022). According to the NSA, this is mainly due to delays in the entry into operation of some projects and reduced availability of ATCOs for non-operational duties.

  • The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2025 was 37.96€ (-7.5% below the 2025 DUC). The difference between the AUCU and the DUC is mainly driven by other revenues and the traffic risk sharing adjustment.

En route charging zone

Unit cost (KPI#1)

Actual and determined data
Total costs - nominal (M€) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Determined costs 123.2 130.3 136.9 143.2 148.4
Actual costs 123.0 NA NA NA NA
Difference costs -0.2 NA NA NA NA
Inflation assumptions 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Determined inflation rate 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
Determined inflation index* 115 117.5 120.2 122.8 125.6
Actual inflation rate 4.4% NA NA NA NA
Actual inflation index* 117.7 NA NA NA NA
Difference inflation index (p.p.) +2.7 NA NA NA NA
*100 = 2022

AUC vs. DUC

In 2025, the en route AUC was -8.6% (or -3.18 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of significantly higher than planned TSUs (+6.8%) and lower than planned en route costs in real terms (-2.4%, or -2.6 M€2022). It should be noted that the actual inflation index in 2025 was +2.7 p.p. higher than planned.

En route service units

The difference between actual and planned TSUs (+6.8%) falls outside the ±2% dead-band but does not exceed the ±10% threshold foreseen in the traffic risk sharing mechanism. The resulting gain of additional en route revenues is therefore shared between the ANSP and the airspace users (see the main ANSP regulatory result).

En route costs by entity

Actual real en route costs are -2.4% (-2.6 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the main ANSP, Croatia Control (-2.7%, or -2.7 M€2022) and higher costs for the NSA/EUROCONTROL (+0.8%, or +0.1 M€2022).

En route costs for the main ANSP (Croatia Control) at charging zone level

Based on the additional information to the en route reporting tables, the lower than planned en route costs in real terms for Croatia Control in 2025 (-2.7%, or -2.7 M€2022) result from:

  • Significantly higher than planned staff costs (+5.8%), mainly due to collective agreement negotiations concluded in June 2025, inflation-driven salary adjustments, continued recruitment and training to support ATCO capacity needs, and higher pension-related expenses.

  • Significantly lower than planned other operating costs (-15.1%), mainly due to lower than planned CAPEX-related operating expenses, reflecting slight delays in the investment timeline and a higher CAPEX/OPEX ratio for the TOPSKY investment than initially planned. Lower than planned expenses for intellectual services and travel also contributed to the decrease.

  • Significantly lower than planned depreciation (-18.4%), mainly due to delays in the operational deployment of certain CAPEX projects. Investment implementation in 2024 and 2025 continued to rely on significant technical staffing efforts. However, higher than planned traffic and a longer high-traffic season reduced the availability of ATCOs for project-related and other non-operational duties. The CAPEX realisation rate reached 78% of the planned level, representing one of the best historical performances.

  • Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-17.2%), mainly due to a significantly lower level of net current assets than planned. This was driven by higher than planned average interest-bearing assets and higher than planned year-end CAPEX-related liabilities. Lower average fixed assets, resulting from postponed and/or prolonged investment projects in 2024 and 2025, also contributed to the decrease.

  • Lower than planned exceptional costs (-2.3%), mainly due to the inflation impact (+2.7 p.p.), while the nominal amount was fully in line with the plan. These costs relate to ICAO space weather services provided by EU Member States under the Joint Declaration by the Single Sky Committee regarding the inclusion of charges for space weather information services in RP4 performance plans.

  • Significantly lower than planned deduction for VFR exempted flights (-9.2%).

Assessment of the actual performance in the charging zone reported by the NSA

The NSA of Croatia provides the following overall assessment of the actual performance in 2025 at charging zone level:

“The improvement in Croatia's cost-efficiency performance in 2025 was primarily driven by higher than planned traffic growth. Nominal costs were kept mainly at planned levels despite a high inflation environment, allowing CEF performance to improve as the growth is service volumes outpaced the rise in costs.

In 2025, nominal total costs are mainly in line with the planned figures, but with service units being 6.8% higher than planned, the resulting CEF performance is 8.6% better than anticipated.”

Explanation of the differences between actual and determined costs at charging zone level reported by the NSA

The NSA provides the following explanation for the differences between actual and determined costs in the charging zone:

“Overall nominal costs on state level were marginally below planned level (-0.2%) with higher than planned staff costs driven mainly by demanding collective agreement negotiations on ANSP level coupled with higher than planned state pension cost, which was offset by lower than planned other operating costs, depreciation and cost of capital primarily as a result of lower than planned investment activity due to higher than planned traffic growth (which resulted in slightly postponed investment timeline).”

Recommendations formulated by the NSA to the ANSP (Croatia Control) to rectify the situation and actions taken by the ANSP

No information was provided in the NSA 2025 Monitoring Report by either the NSA or Croatia Control.

Actual unit cost incurred by the users (AUCU) (PI#1)

AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
€/SU
DUC 41.06
Inflation adjustment 0.70
Cost exempt from cost sharing -0.65
Traffic risk sharing adjustment -1.12
Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS) -0.35
Financial incentives -0.04
Modulation of charges 0.00
Cross-financing 0.00
Other revenues -1.63
Application of lower unit rate 0.00
Total adjustments -3.10
AUCU 37.96
AUCU vs. DUC -7.5%
Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025 €'000 €/SU
New and existing investments -2,598.5 -0.81
Competent authorities and qualified entities costs 121.2 0.04
Eurocontrol costs -46.3 -0.01
Pension costs 453.8 0.14
Interest on loans 0.0 0.00
Changes in law 0.0 0.00
Total cost exempt from cost risk sharing -2,069.9 -0.65

En route AUCU monitoring at charging zone level

The actual en route unit cost incurred by airspace users (AUCU) in respect of activities performed in 2025 (37.96 €) is -7.5% lower than the nominal DUC (41.06 €). The difference between these two figures (-3.10 €/SU) is due to:

  • the positive inflation adjustment resulting from higher than planned inflation (+0.70 €/SU);

  • the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-0.65 €/SU);

  • the deduction of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (-1.12 €/SU);

  • the deduction of the traffic adjustment (-0.35 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing;

  • the impact of financial incentives (-0.04 €/SU); and,

  • the deduction of other revenues (-1.63 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 7.2%.

Initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI reported by the NSA

The NSA of Croatia provides the following information regarding the initiatives:

“Participation in EU funding facilities continues and other revenues steaming from this programs will be channelled to users via "Other revenues" unit rate deduction mechanism as was the case in previous years. The process established for monitoring this PI includes Data collection (mandatory and additionally requested); Data assessment; Data validation - in accordance with Reg. (EU) 2019/317.”

Regulatory result (RR)

Croatia Control net gain/loss on activity in the Croatia en route charging zone in 2025

Croatia Control reported a net gain of +4.0 M€, as a combination of a gain of +0.4 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a gain of +3.7 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism and a loss of -0.1 M€ relating to financial incentives.

Croatia Control overall regulatory result (RR) for the en route activity

Ex-post, the overall RR, taking into account the net gain from the en route activity mentioned above (+4.0 M€) and the actual RoE (+5.2 M€), amounts to +9.1 M€ (7.7% of the en route revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 12.9%, which is higher than the 7.3% planned in the PP.