natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den 24. marts 2003 besluttede myndighederne i den sydlige Moraviaregion i lyset af ovennævnte vurdering og efter fejlslagne forhandlinger med klageren at indlede forhandlinger med andre operatører om levering af transporttjenester.
On 24 March 2003, given the abovementioned assessment and after unsuccessful negotiations with the Complainant, the authorities of the Southern Moravia Region decided to conduct negotiations for providing transport services with other operators.
De henvendte sig til de kendte transportvirksomheder i den sydlige Moraviaregion med en opfordring til indsendelse af bud på levering af offentlige transporttjenester i Znojmo-området.
They approached the known carriers operating in the Southern Moravia Region with a request to submit tenders for providing public transport services in Znojmo territory.
Indkaldelsen af tilbud blev udsendt til 41 transportvirksomheder, inklusive klageren.
The invitation to submit tenders was sent to 41 carriers, including the Complainant.
Det blev angivet, at de regionale myndigheder var villige til at betale operatørerne en pris på ikke over 26 CZK pr. km for at levere tjenesten.
It envisaged that the regional authorities were willing to pay to the operators a price of not more than CZK 26 per km for providing the service.
Der fandtes desuden et krav om, at operatørerne skulle have et elektronisk behandlingssystem og have et godt forhold til myndighederne.
Additionally, it envisaged a requirement that the operators must have an electronic processing system and be in a good standing with the administration.
De regionale myndigheder modtog svar fra ni transportvirksomheder, der efterfølgende blev indbudt til et møde med den regionale myndighed.
The regional authorities received answers from 9 carriers who subsequently were invited to a meeting with the regional authority.
Et udvælgelsesudvalg udpeget af regionsrådet for det sydlige Moravia vurderede og prioriterede buddene.
A selection committee appointed by the Southern Moravia Regional Council assessed and rated the tenders.
Det anbefalede, at man indgik aftaler om levering af transporttjenester med seks transportvirksomheder, heriblandt klageren, nemlig: Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, TREDOS og klageren (ČAS — Service a.s.).
It recommended that the contracts for providing transport services were concluded with 6 carriers, including the Complainant, namely: Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, Tredos and the Complainant (ČAS-Service a.s.).
Udvælgelsesudvalget tog hensyn til kriterier vedrørende tydelighed og fuldstændighed ved vurderingen af buddene.
The criteria taken into account by the selection committee in assessing the tenders were clarity and completeness.
Desuden tog myndighederne i det sydlige Moravia hensyn til kriteriet om at nedbringe antallet af teknisk operationelle kilometer og sammenhængen af det udvalgte område.
Additionally, the Southern Moravia authorities took into account among others, the criterion of minimising the number of technical operational kilometres and cohesiveness of selected territory.
Ifølge de tjekkiske myndigheder fandt man, at klageren kun opfyldte udvælgelseskriterierne med forbehold, eftersom denne ikke tydeligt angav prisen på sine transportoperationer.
According to the Czech authorities, the Complainant was considered to meet the selection criteria only conditionally, since it did not specify clearly the price of its transport operation.
Ved de følgende møder gav klageren dernæst udtryk for, at han ikke kunne acceptere kompensation til den sats, som myndighederne i det sydlige Moravia havde angivet i tilbudsindkaldelsen.
During subsequent meetings, the Complainant then expressed that it could not accept compensation at the rate proposed by the Southern Moravia authorities in the invitation to submit tenders.
Derfor fastslog de regionale myndigheder, at klageren ikke opfyldte betingelserne i udvælgelsesproceduren, og at man derfor ikke kunne indgå en aftale med klageren om levering af offentlige transporttjenester.
As a consequence, the regional authorities established that the Complainant did not fulfil the conditions of the selection procedure and that contract for providing public transport services could not be concluded with it.
Der blev indgået aftaler med de operatører, som accepterede, at den maksimale pris, der kunne udbetales for levering af offentlige transporttjenester, ville udgøre 26 CZK pr. kilometer.
Contracts were concluded with these operators who accepted that the maximum price to be paid for providing public transport would amount to CZK 26 per km.
Ifølge de tjekkiske myndigheder betød dette, at et veldrevet og veludstyret selskab med udgifter på 23959 CZK pr. km ville opnå et overskud på 2041 CZK pr. km.
According to the Czech authorities this meant that a well-managed and well-equipped company with costs of CZK 23959 per km would have received a profit amounting to CZK 2041 per km.
Udgiften på 23959 CZK pr. km stammede fra statistiske undersøgelser i henhold til lov nr. 89/1995 sml. om den statslige statistiske tjeneste.
The cost of CZK 23959 per km was obtained from statistical surveys conducted pursuant to Act No 89/1995 Coll. on the State Statistical Service.
Disse undersøgelser drejede sig om levering af offentlige bustjenester på Tjekkiets område i 2002.
These surveys referred to providing public bus services on the territory of the Czech Republic for the period of 2002.
Den skønsmæssige pris pr. km (ikke over 26 CZK pr. km) blev angivet i kontrakten med de enkelte operatører.
The estimated price per km (not exceeding CZK 26 per km) was specified in the contract with each operator.
Den blev benyttet til at fastslå et samlet indtægtsbeløb (pris pr. kilometer ganget med antal kilometer), som ville blive udbetalt til en operatør for levering af tjenesterne.
This served to establish an overall amount of revenues (price per kilometre multiplied by a number of kilometres) which would be paid to an operator for providing services.
Fra dette beløb trak man de faktiske indtægter for at nå frem til tabet [6].
From this amount actual revenues were deducted in order to define losses [6].
Operatøren skulle over for myndighederne fremlægge dokumentation for de faktiske indtægter efter levering af tjenesterne.
The operator had to provide the authority with documentary proof of actual revenues after providing the services.
Først da kunne det endelige tab fastslås, og udbetalingen af kompensationen finde sted.
Only then would the final amount of losses be established and the payment of the compensation take place.
Ud over de generelle krav til transportvirksomheder i vejtransportloven og på grund af det forhold, at sådanne operatører var indehavere af licenser, indeholder de enkelte kontrakter mere specifikke forpligtelser for de enkelte operatører, nemlig en forpligtelse til at levere transport på bestemte linjer og på fastlagte tidspunkter samt betingelser for ændring af kontrakterne samt sanktioner ved manglende overholdelse af kontrakterne.
Apart from the general requirements envisaged by the Road Transport Law for carriers and deriving from the fact that such operators held licences, each contract stipulated more specific obligations for each operator, namely the obligation to provide transport on specific lines and at defined times as well as conditions for amendments of the contracts and penalties in the event of failure to comply with contracts.
De tjekkiske myndigheder har meddelt Kommissionen, at efter 2003 indvilgede myndighederne i det sydlige Moravia i at indgå yderligere kontrakter om levering af transporttjenester med de samme operatører for 2004 og 2005.
The Czech authorities have informed the Commission that after 2003 the Southern Moravia authorities agreed to conclude further contracts for providing transport services with the same operators for 2004 and 2005.
De tjekkiske myndigheder har erkendt, at der ikke blev gennemført en særlig procedure med henblik på at udvælge de operatører, der skulle levere transporttjenester i 2004 og 2005.
The Czech authorities have acknowledged that no specific procedure was undertaken for the purpose of selecting operators which would provide transport services in 2004 and 2005.
Nedenstående tabel viser de forventede kompensationer i henhold til kontrakterne for 2004 (tabel 1):
The following table provides data concerning the amounts of compensation envisaged in the contracts for 2004 (Table 1):
Operatørens navn
Name of the operator
Kontraktdato
Date of the contract
Maksimalbeløb for kompensationen i henhold til kontrakten
Maximum amount of the compensation envisaged in the contract
Ændret:
Modified:
Desuden blev kontrakterne for 2004 forlænget til 2005 (tabel 2):
Furthermore, contracts concluded for 2004 were prolonged for 2005 (Table 2):
Ifølge de tjekkiske myndigheder modtog ovennævnte virksomheder i løbet af 2004-2005 ikke anden finansiering fra staten eller fra statslige ressourcer i forbindelse med transporttjenester i den sydlige Moraviaregion.
According to the Czech authorities, with regard to transport services in the Southern Moravia Region, the abovementioned undertakings did not obtain in the course of 2004-2005 any other financing from the State or through State resources.
GRUNDLAG FOR AT IVÆRKSÆTTE PROCEDUREN
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Kommissionen besluttede at iværksætte proceduren af de i betragtning 31 til 38 anførte grunde.
The Commission decided to initiate the procedure on the grounds stated in recitals 31 to 38.
Statsstøtte
Presence of aid
Kommissionen var i tvivl om, hvorvidt den tredje betingelse i Altmark-dommen [7] var opfyldt.
The Commission had doubts that the third condition set in the Altmark judgment [7] was fulfilled.
Kommissionen udtrykte imidlertid tvivl om begrebet uforudset omkostning i den tjekkiske lovgivning, der kunne fungere som begrundelse for en ekstraordinær forhøjelse af kompensationstærsklen.
However, the Commission expressed doubts on the notion of unforeseeable cost in the Czech legislation, which could serve as a justification for an extraordinary increase of the cap for the compensation.
Kommissionen konkluderede desuden, at den fjerde betingelse i Altmark-dommen heller ikke var opfyldt.
In addition, the Commission concluded that neither the fourth condition set in the Altmark judgment was fulfilled.
Kommissionen fandt, at den procedure, de tjekkiske myndigheder havde anvendt, ikke kunne betragtes som en offentlig indkøbsprocedure eller en procedure, der sikrede, at kompensationens størrelse blev fastsat i henhold til en analyse af omkostningerne, som en typisk veldrevet virksomhed med et tilstrækkeligt antal transportmidler ville have haft, hvilket kræves i Altmark-dommen.
The Commission considered that the procedure applied by the Czech authorities could not be considered a public procurement procedure or a procedure ensuring that the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided with means of transport would have incurred, as required by the Altmark judgment.
Derfor fandt Kommissionen, at der ikke var klare beviser for, at kompensationen ikke havde medført en selektiv fordel, og derfor, idet de øvrige betingelser i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, var opfyldt, udgjorde statsstøtte i henhold til betydningen i denne bestemmelse.
As a consequence, the Commission considered that there was no clear evidence to prove that the compensation had not granted a selective advantage and therefore, given that the other conditions of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty were fulfilled, State aid within the meaning of this provision.
Forenelighed med traktaten
Compatibility
Kommissionen bemærkede, at det skal vurderes, hvorvidt en sådan statsstøtte er forenelig med det indre marked, i henhold til de generelle principper i EF-traktaten, retspraksis ved EF-Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans samt Kommissionens beslutningspraksis inden for andre områder end offentlig transport [8].
The Commission noted that the compatibility of such State aid with the common market should be assessed in light of the general principles derived from the EC Treaty, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and the Commission’s decision practice in other areas than public transport [8].
Efter gennemgang af de foreliggende oplysninger fandt Kommissionen, at de overordnede principper for vurderingen af støttens forenelighed med traktaten var overholdt i denne sag.
Having examined the available information, the Commission considered that the general principles governing the assessment of compatibility of the aid were complied with in the case in hand.
Den forudgående fastsættelse af en maksimumspris for kompensationen baseret på en national statistisk analyse allerede i udvælgelsesproceduren sikrede mod overkompensation til operatørerne.
The pre-establishment in the selection procedure of a maximum price for compensation based on national statistical analysis guaranteed the absence of overcompensation of the operators.
Men eftersom der i den foreliggende sag ikke var gennemført nogen offentlig udbudsprocedure, og eftersom klagerens påstand går på, at Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, TREDOS modtog ulovlig statsstøtte, fandt Kommissionen, at den måtte give klageren og tredjemand mulighed for at kommentere den metode, som myndighederne i det sydlige Moravia havde anvendt til at fastsætte kompensationsbeløbet, før man med sikkerhed kunne konkludere, at støtten er forenelig med EF-traktatens artikel 73 i medfør af artikel 14 i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999.
However, as in the case at hand there was no public procurement procedure and that the Complainant pleads that Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, Tredos received illegal State aid, the Commission considered that it had to give the opportunity to the Complainant and third parties to comment on the methodology applied for establishing the amount of compensation by the Southern Moravia authorities, before being able to conclude with certainty that the aid is compatible with Article 73 of the EC Treaty by virtue of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA DE TJEKKISKE MYNDIGHEDER
COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH AUTHORITIES
Tjekkiet erklærede, at princippet om uforudsete udgifter er omfattet af vejtransportloven i forbindelse med det foreløbige ekspertskøn over påviseligt tab for hele perioden, for hvilken den offentlige tjenestekontrakt indgås.
The Czech Republic stated that the concept of unforeseeable costs is governed by the Road Transport Law with regard to the preliminary expert estimate of the demonstrable loss for the entire period for which the public service obligation contract is concluded.
Dette skøn, som indgives af transportøren, udgør en obligatorisk del af den offentlige tjenestekontrakt.
This estimate, which is submitted by the carrier, forms a mandatory part of the public service contract.
Det hedder i 19 b (3) i denne lov, at regionen efterfølgende skal godtgøre det påviselige tab op til et beløb, der ikke overstiger ekspertskønnet, kun forhøjet med påviselige, uforudsete udgifter.
Section 19b(3) of that law stipulates that the region must subsequently reimburse the demonstrable loss up to an amount not exceeding the expert estimate, augmented only by unforeseeable demonstrable costs.
Vejtransportloven indeholder imidlertid ikke en mere detaljeret definition af påviselige uforudsete udgifter, og det overlades til de enkelte købere af transporttjenester at definere dette begreb.
However, the Road Transport Law does not provide a more detailed definition of unforeseeable demonstrable costs and definition of this concept is left to the individual purchasers of transport services.
I denne forbindelse bærer operatørerne risikoen for højere faktiske omkostninger og lavere faktiske indtægter i forhold til det foreløbige skøn, med undtagelse af uforudsete bevislige omkostninger.
In this context, the risk of higher actual costs and lower actual revenue in relation to the preliminary estimate of demonstrable loss was borne by the operators, with the exception of unforeseeable proven costs.
Begrebet uforudsete omkostninger beskrives nærmere i de offentlige tjenestekontrakter, som den sydlige Moraviaregion indgår med de enkelte transportoperatører.
The concept of unforeseeable costs was set out in greater detail in the public service contracts concluded by the Southern Moravia Region with the individual transport operators.
Uforudsete omkostninger vedrører situationer, som virksomhedernes ledelse ikke har indflydelse på, såsom naturkatastrofer, statslige prisindgreb, omlægninger eller ændringer af punktafgifter, moms osv. Tjekkiet stillede de relevante sammendrag af de offentlige servicekontrakter til rådighed for Kommissionen.
Unforeseeable costs refer to situations which are independent from the companies’ management such as natural disasters, price interventions by the State, diversions or changes in excise duties, VAT, etc. The Czech Republic provided the Commission with the relevant abstracts in the public service contracts.
KOMMENTARER FRA TREDJEPART OG BEMÆRKNINGER FRA DE TJEKKISKE MYNDIGHEDER
COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE CZECH AUTHORITIES
Klageren var den eneste tredjepart, der indsendte bemærkninger efter Kommissionens beslutning om at iværksætte proceduren.
The Complainant was the only third party to submit comments following the decision of the Commission to initiate the procedure.
Bemærkningerne fra klageren vedrørte følgende aspekter:
Comments of the Complainant regarded the following aspects:
påstanden om, at de pågældende transportydelser ikke var bestilt som offentlige tjenestekontrakter, men i henhold til begrebet forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste i henhold til vejtransportloven
the allegation that the concerned transport was not commissioned as public service contracts but within the notion of public service obligation deriving from the Road Transport Law,
påstanden om, at Altmark-dommen ikke skulle have været anvendt i denne sag
the allegation that the Altmark judgment should not have been applied in this case,
modstanden mod at betragte beløbet på 26 CZK pr. km som maksimumsprisen på transportoperationen med henblik på fastsættelsen af kompensationen.
the opposition to consider the amount of CZK 26 per km as the maximum price of the transport operation for the determination of the compensation.
Klageren mente, at dette beløb snarere blot er en del af det foreløbige ekspertskøn, ifølge hvilket transportøren skal kompenseres for det bevislige tab i overensstemmelse med vejtransportloven
The Complainant considered indeed that this amount is rather just a part of the preliminary expert estimate according to which the provable loss should be compensated to the carrier in compliance with the Road Transport Act,
påstanden om, at der ikke blev taget hensyn til de lokale betingelser for de offentlige rutetransportoperationer ved fastsættelsen af prisen for levering af transportydelserne på 26 CZK pr. km.
the allegation that the local conditions of the public scheduled transport operations were not taken into account when setting the price paid for the provision of transport operations amounting to CZK 26 per km.
Hvis man havde taget højde for disse lokale forhold, ville beløbet have været højere
Should these local conditions have been taken into account, it would have resulted in a higher amount,
kompensationen for forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste gav de øvrige transportvirksomheder mulighed for at udskifte deres flåde
the public service compensation was a mean for the other carriers to replace their fleet,
Kommissionen burde ligeledes have vurderet klagen for perioden forud for den 1. maj 2004
the Commission should have assessed the complaint also for the period before 1 May 2004,
påstanden om, at de offentlige tjenestekontrakter førte til en konkurrencesituation mellem støttet og ikke-støttet transport, hvilket fører til konkurrenceforvridning.
the allegation that the public service contracts led to a situation of competition between subsidised and non-subsidised transport which create a distortion of competition.
Klageren kommenterede imidlertid ikke begrebet uforudsete omkostninger.
However, the Complainant did not comment on the concept of unforeseeable costs.
Klageren kommenterede heller ikke det forhold, at den forudgående fastsættelse af et maksimumsbeløb for kompensationen baseret på en national statistisk analyse kan sikre mod overkompensation til operatørerne.
Nor did the Complainant comment on the fact that the pre-establishment of a maximum price for compensation based on national statistical analysis could guarantee the absence of overcompensation for the operators.
Klageren anfører tværtimod, at de tjekkiske myndigheder ikke burde have betragtet referencebeløbet på 26 CZK pr. km som en maksimal transportpris.
On the contrary, the Complainant argued that this reference amount of CZK 26 per km should not have been considered by the Czech authorities as a maximum transport price.
Derfor vedrørte klagerens bemærkninger ikke specifikt de tvivlsspørgsmål, som Kommissionen berørte i sin beslutning om at iværksætte proceduren.
Therefore, the Complainant comments did not specifically concern the doubts that the Commission expressed in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Desuden tilsendte Tjekkiet Kommissionen sine bemærkninger til klagerens bemærkninger.
In addition, the Czech Republic submitted to the Commission its observations on the comments of the Complainant.
Disse bemærkninger bekræftede Kommissionens vurdering af de specifikke spørgsmål, som klageren har fremført.
These observations confirmed the Commission assessment on the specific issues brought forward by the Complainant.
Derfor ændrer klagerens bemærkninger ikke ved Kommissionens juridiske vurdering i beslutningen om at iværksætte proceduren.
As a consequence, the Complainant’s comments do not alter the Commission legal assessment developed in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Kommissionens kompetence til at undersøge foranstaltninger indført af lande, der blev medlemmer af Den Europæiske Union den 1. maj 2004
Competence of the Commission to examine measures granted by countries acceding European Union on 1 May 2004
Bestemmelserne i kapitel 3, bilag IV, i tiltrædelsesakten af 2003 udgør en juridisk ramme for vurdering af foranstaltninger, der blev indført af tiltrædelsesmedlemsstaterne, før de blev medlemmer af EU, og som stadig er gældende efter tiltrædelsen.
The provisions of Annex IV, Chapter 3 to the 2003 Act of Accession create a legal framework for assessment of measures which were put into effect by the acceding Member States before their accession to the EU and are still applicable after accession.
Med særlig henvisning til transportsektoren hedder det i bestemmelserne i bilag IV, at »støtteordninger og individuel støtte i transportsektoren, som er iværksat i en ny medlemsstat inden tiltrædelsesdatoen, og som fortsat finder anvendelse efter denne dato, kan på følgende betingelse blive anset for en eksisterende støtteordning, jf. EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 1: Kommissionen underrettes om støtteforanstaltningerne senest fire måneder efter tiltrædelsesdatoen«.
With particular reference to the transport sector the provisions of Annex IV stipulate that ‘aid schemes and individual aid (…), put into effect in a new Member State before the date of accession and still applicable after that date, shall be regarded as existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty subject to the following condition: the aid measures shall be communicated to the Commission within four months of the date of accession’.
I henhold til den etablerede beslutningspraksis [9], kan »støtteforanstaltninger, der ikke er gældende efter tiltrædelsen, […] ikke undersøges af Kommissionen efter procedurerne i EF-traktatens artikel 88 eller efter interimsproceduren.
According to the established decision practice [9], ‘aid measures granted before accession and not applicable after accession cannot be examined by the Commission neither under the procedures laid down in Article 88 EC Treaty nor under the interim mechanism.