natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I det foreliggende tilfælde har Simet ikke fremlagt nogen beviser for, at kompensationskriterierne for levering af de pågældende ydelser i den periode, der behandles, nogensinde blev fastlagt på forhånd på en objektiv og gennemsigtig måde.
In the present case, Simet has not provided any evidence to show that the compensation parameters for the provision of the services in question over the period under consideration were ever established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Tværtimod siges det i de koncessionsbetingelser, som Simet påberåber sig som grundlag for at vise, at virksomheden blev pålagt en offentlig serviceforpligtelse, at udførelsen af tjenesten ikke giver virksomheden ret til et tilskud eller kompensation af nogen art, og at tjenesten drives helt på virksomhedens egen risiko.
Rather, the concessions specifications upon which Simet relies to demonstrate that a public service obligation was imposed upon it state that the operation of the services does not give the company any right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the service is operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
Det er grunden til, at det i Consiglio di Statos dom 1405/2010 blev bestemt, at den pågældende kompensation skulle beregnes på grundlag af pålidelige data fra virksomhedens regnskaber.
It is for this reason that judgment 1405/2010 of the Council of State ordered that that compensation be calculated on the basis of reliable data from the company’s accounts.
Da der ikke på forhånd er fastlagt kompensationskriterier, er alle sådanne beregninger nødvendigvis udelukkende baseret på efterfølgende vurderinger af de nettoomkostninger, der er involveret i den pågældende interregionale busdrift i fast rute, således som tilfældet er med de beregninger, der er indeholdt i den oprindelige rapport og i flertalsrapporten.
Any such calculations, in the absence of compensation parameters established in advance, are necessarily based solely on ex post estimates of the net costs involved in the provision of the inter-regional scheduled bus services in question, such as the calculations contained in the initial report and the majority report.
Den anden Altmark-betingelse er derfor ikke opfyldt i den foreliggende sag.
The second Altmark condition has therefore not been met in the present case.
Med henblik på at udelukke tilstedeværelsen af en økonomisk fordel i tilfælde, hvor der ydes kompensation til virksomheder som betaling for de offentlige serviceforpligtelser, der pålægges dem, kræver Altmark-dommen, at alle fire betingelser skal være opfyldt, og der er derfor ingen grund for Kommissionen til at undersøge, om de andre tre betingelser er opfyldt i det foreliggende tilfælde.
In order to exclude the presence of an economic advantage where compensation is granted to undertakings in consideration for public service obligations imposed on them, the Altmark judgment requires that all four conditions be satisfied, and there is consequently no reason for the Commission to examine whether the other three conditions have been met in the present case.
Følgelig vil betaling af kompensation til Simet for levering af interregionale bustransportydelser for perioden 1987-2003 give virksomheden en selektiv økonomisk fordel.
Accordingly, the payment of compensation to Simet for the provision of inter-regional bus transport services for the period 1987-2003 does confer on that undertaking a selective economic advantage.
Med hensyn til disse to kriterier er det nødvendigt at undersøge, om den anmeldte foranstaltning er egnet til at fordreje konkurrencen i et sådant omfang, at den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
As regards these two criteria, it is necessary to verify whether the notified measure is likely to distort competition to the extent that it affects trade between Member States.
Som det fremgår af Altmark-dommen [31], har flere medlemsstater siden 1995 åbnet visse transportmarkeder for konkurrence fra virksomheder etableret i de øvrige medlemsstater, således at flere virksomheder allerede tilbyder transportydelser i byer, forstæder eller regioner i andre medlemsstater end deres hjemstat.
As reflected in the Altmark judgment [31], since 1995 several Member States have opened certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so that a number of undertakings are already offering their urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their state of origin.
Denne tendens er endnu mere udtalt for interregionale transporttjenester i fast rute som dem, Simet leverer.
This tendency is even more pronounced for inter-regional scheduled transport services such as those provided by Simet.
Derfor må en eventuel kompensation til Simet anses for at kunne fordreje konkurrencevilkårene med hensyn til levering af interregionale bustransporttjenester og at kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne idet den vil have en negativ indvirkning på mulighederne for transportvirksomheder, der er etableret i andre medlemsstater, for at tilbyde deres tjenester i Italien og vil styrke Simets position på markedet.
Accordingly, any compensation granted to Simet should be considered liable to distort competition for the provision of inter-regional bus transportation services and liable to affect trade between Member States to the extent that it negatively impacts on the ability of transport undertakings established in other Member States to offer their services in Italy and strengthens the market position of Simet.
Kommissionen bemærker også, at Simet er aktiv på andre markeder som f.eks. internationale rejseydelser, ydelser inden for turisme samt busudlejning og således klart konkurrerer med andre virksomheder i Unionen på disse markeder.
The Commission also notes that Simet is active in other markets, such as international travel services, tourism services and bus rental services, and thus clearly competes with other companies within the Union in those markets.
Enhver kompensation til Simet ville nødvendigvis også fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og også påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne på disse markeder.
Any compensation granted to Simet would necessarily also distort competition and affect trade between Member States on those markets as well.
Kommissionen mener derfor, at den anmeldte foranstaltning vil kunne fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that the notified measure is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
På baggrund af ovenstående finder Kommissionen, at den anmeldte foranstaltning udgør statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
In light of the above, the Commission finds that the notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
FRITAGELSE FOR UNDERRETNINGSPLIGTEN EFTER FORORDNING (EØF) NR. 1191/69
EXEMPTION FROM THE NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION UNDER REGULATION (EEC) NO 1191/69
Ifølge Consiglio di Statos begrundelse for afgørelserne erhvervede Simet ret til at modtage kompensation for levering af de pågældende transportydelser på det tidspunkt, da virksomheden leverede disse ydelser.
According to the reasoning of the Council of State, Simet acquired the right to obtain compensation for the provision of the transport services in question at the point in time at which it carried out those services.
For at dette ræsonnement skal holde, skulle kompensationsbetalingerne have været fritaget for den obligatoriske anmeldelsesprocedure efter forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69, artikel 17, stk. 2, idet undladelse af at anmelde kompensationen ellers ville have gjort den ulovlig, da den ville have været i strid med traktatens statsstøttebestemmelser.
For this reasoning to hold, the compensation payments would have to have been exempted from the compulsory notification procedure pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69: otherwise failure to notify that compensation would have rendered it illegal, as it would have been contrary to the state aid provisions of the Treaty.
Dette skyldes, at den kompensation, som i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 2, i nævnte forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69, betales efter forordningen, er undtaget fra fremgangsmåden med forudgående underretning i traktatens artikel 108, stk. 3, og dermed fra forudgående anmeldelse.
This is because, under Article 17(2) of that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, compensation paid pursuant to the Regulation is exempted from the preliminary information procedure laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty and thus from prior notification.
Det følger af Combus-dommen, at begrebet »kompensation for offentlig tjeneste« i denne bestemmelses forstand skal fortolkes meget snævert [32].
It follows from the Combus judgment that the concept of ‘public service compensation’ within the meaning of that provision must be interpreted in a very narrow manner [32].
Fritagelsen fra anmeldelse efter artikel 17, stk. 2, omfatter kun kompensation for offentlige serviceforpligtelser, der ensidigt er pålagt en virksomhed i henhold til artikel 2 i nævnte forordning, og som beregnes efter metoden i forordningens artikel 10 til 13 (den fælles kompensationsmetode), og den finder ikke anvendelse på kontrakter om offentlig tjeneste som defineret i artikel 14.
The exemption from notification provided by Article 17(2) covers only compensation for public service obligations imposed unilaterally on an undertaking, pursuant to Article 2 of that Regulation, which are calculated using the method described in Articles 10 to 13 of that Regulation (the common compensation procedure), and not to public service contracts as defined by Article 14.
Kompensation, der betales i henhold til en kontrakt om offentlig trafikbetjening som defineret i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69, artikel 14, der udgør statsstøtte, skal anmeldes til Kommissionen, før den gennemføres.
Compensation paid pursuant to a public service contract as defined by Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 which constitutes state aid must be notified to the Commission before it is put into effect.
Undladelse af dette vil resultere i, at kompensation bliver anset for ulovligt gennemført støtte.
Failure to do so will result in that compensation being deemed illegally implemented aid.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt artikel 17, stk. 2, faktisk fritog de italienske myndigheder for forhåndsanmeldelse i den foreliggende sag, afhænger derfor for det første af, om de italienske myndigheder rent faktisk ensidigt pålagde Simet en offentlig serviceforpligtelse, og for det andet af, om den kompensation, der betales i henhold til denne forpligtelse, er i overensstemmelse med forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
The question of whether Article 17(2) indeed dispensed the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case therefore depends, first, on whether a public service obligation was in fact unilaterally imposed on Simet by the Italian authorities and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Kommissionen vil i det følgende undersøge begge spørgsmål.
The Commission will examine both questions in turn.
Pålagde de italienske myndigheder ensidigt Simet en offentlig serviceforpligtelse?
Did the Italian authorities unilaterally impose a public service obligation on Simet?
Efter Simets opfattelse [33] kan den ensidige pålæggelse af en offentlig serviceforpligtelse udledes af de nærmere betingelser vedrørende de ydelser, der skal leveres, og som er fastsat i koncessionsbetingelserne for hver enkelt interregional buslinje i fast rute, af ministeriets pålæg vedrørende billetpriser og af de ministerielle afslag på at acceptere ændringer i de eksisterende linjer eller at udstede koncessioner på nye linjer.
According to Simet [33], the unilateral imposition of a public service obligation upon it can be inferred from the specifications regarding the details of the services to be provided as laid down in the concession specifications issued for each separate inter-regional scheduled bus route, the imposition of fares by the Ministry and the ministerial refusals to accept changes to existing services or to issue new service concessions.
På grundlag af de oplysninger, den har modtaget, finder Kommissionen imidlertid, at Simet ikke på overbevisende måde har vist, at de italienske myndigheder ensidigt pålagde virksomheden en offentlig serviceforpligtelse.
However, on the basis of the information it has received, the Commission finds that Simet has not convincingly shown that the Italian authorities unilaterally imposed a public service obligation upon it.
For det første kan det forhold, at Simet på eget initiativ anmodede om fornyelse af koncessionsbetingelserne gennem alle seksten år i den periode, der behandles, ikke forenes med ensidigt pålæg af en offentlig serviceforpligtelse.
First, Simet’s initiative in requesting the renewal of concession specifications for all sixteen years during the period under review cannot be reconciled with the unilateral imposition of a public service obligation.
Formålet med disse betingelser var at give Simet eneret til at levere de relevante ydelser i den pågældende periode.
The purpose of those specifications was to provide Simet with the exclusive right to provide the relevant services for the period under review.
Trods det forhold, at det i hver af disse betingelser hed, at udførelsen af tjenesten ikke gav koncessionshaveren ret til kompensation, og at tjenesten blev drevet udelukkende på virksomhedens egen risiko, anmodede Simet gang på gang om forlængelse af disse rettigheder.
Despite the fact that each of those specifications stipulated that the operation of the service was not subject to compensation and that the service was operated entirely at the company’s own risk, Simet repeatedly requested the prolongation of those rights.
For det andet betyder det forhold, at der i disse betingelser blev fastsat takster, ruter, frekvenser og tider tjenesterne, ikke nødvendigvis, at der blev pålagt Simet offentlige serviceforpligtelser som et resultat af koncessionerne.
Second, the fact that these specifications stipulated the fares, the routes and the frequency and timing of the services does not necessarily mean that unilateral public service obligations were imposed on Simet as a result of the concessions.
I betragtning af, at de leverede ydelser var trafik i fast rute, var det nemlig nødvendigt, at der i de koncessionsbetingelser, hvorved der tillagdes Simet en eksklusiv ret til at levere ydelserne, på forhånd blev fastsat oplysninger om de ydelser, der skulle leveres.
Rather, considering that the services provided were regular scheduled services, it was necessary for the concession specifications, which granted Simet an exclusive right to provide those services, to stipulate in advance the details of the services to be provided.
Der er ikke fremlagt beviser for formelle anmodninger om at ændre disse betingelser efterfulgt af afslag fra ministeriets side.
No evidence has been provided of formal requests to change those details followed by refusals by the Ministry.
Simet har heller ikke fremlagt dokumentation, der viser, at disse betingelser blev ensidigt pålagt Simet af de italienske myndigheder, snarere end at de blev foreslået af operatøren til gengæld for retten til at levere tjenesteydelser på et eksklusivt grundlag og efterfølgende godkendt af ministeriet.
Nor has Simet provided evidence to show that these details were unilaterally imposed by the Italian authorities on Simet, rather than proposed by that operator, in return for the right to provide services on an exclusive basis, and subsequently authorised by the Ministry.
For det tredje har Simet, for så vidt angår den påståede forpligtelse til at transportere postforsendelser, ikke fremlagt nogen dokumentation for den faktisk ydede service og de dermed forbundne nettoomkostninger.
Third, as regards the alleged obligation to transport postal items, Simet has failed to provide any evidence setting out the services actually provided and the net cost involved.
Simet har heller ikke fremlagt dokumentation for, at virksomheden nogensinde har anfægtet bestemmelserne i koncessionsbetingelserne vedrørende transport af postforsendelser.
Nor has Simet provided evidence that it ever contested the clauses of the concession specifications concerning the transportation of postal items.
Det kan enten betyde, at ydelse af denne service ikke var i strid med virksomhedens kommercielle interesser, eller at den anså ydelse af denne service som et rimeligt vederlag for retten til at drive den interregionale transport på et eksklusivt grundlag.
This could either mean that the provision of those services did not go against the commercial interests of the company or that it considered the provision of those services as a fair remuneration for the right to operate the inter-regional transport services on an exclusive basis.
For det fjerde, hvad angår de billetpriser, som Simet kunne opkræve fra passagererne for de ydelser, virksomheden leverede, har de italienske myndigheder erkendt, at der ganske vist indtil år 2001 faktisk fandtes nationale bestemmelser, der fastsatte generelle retningslinjer for prissætningen af bustransportydelser som led i en bredere national transportpolitik og en bredere prispolitik [34], men operatørerne kunne indgive en særlig ansøgning om at måtte anvende en anden billetpris.
Fourth, as regards the fares that Simet could charge to passengers for the services it provided, while the Italian authorities acknowledge that until 2001 there were indeed national provisions setting broad principles for the pricing of bus transport services pricing as part of a wider national transport policy and a wider pricing policy [34], operators could submit a specific application to apply a different fare.
Dette er tydeligt forklaret i det ministerielle brev, som Simet refererer til [35].
This is clearly explained in the ministerial letter that Simet refers to [35].
Kommissionen noterer sig imidlertid, at Simet ikke har fremlagt nogen beviser for, at virksomheden nogensinde har indgivet en sådan ansøgning til de italienske myndigheder, eller at eventuelle ansøgninger om billetprisændringer i løbet af perioden 1987-2003 nogensinde blev afvist af ministeriet.
The Commission notes, however, that Simet has provided no evidence that it ever submitted such an application to the Italian authorities, nor that any applications for fare changes during the period 1987-2003 were ever rejected by the Ministry.
I modsætning til det af Simet anførte betyder det forhold, at billetpriserne for busdrift i fast rute på lange distancer var »godkendt« af ministeriets provinsmotorkontor [36] samt henvisningen til »regulerede« takster i cirkulære nr. 3/02 af 5. april 2002 [37] ikke, at disse takster ikke oprindeligt var fastsat af operatørerne.
Contrary to Simet’s contention, the fact that long-distance scheduled transport fares were ‘approved’ by the Provincial Motor Vehicle Office of the Ministry [36] and the reference to ‘regulated’ fares in circular No 3/02 of 5 April 2002 [37] do not mean that those fares were not initially set by the operators.
Brugen af disse udtryk betyder blot, at der var tale om billetpriser, som blev fastsat på forhånd af hensyn til gennemsigtighed og til oplysning for passagererne og efterfølgende blev godkendt af de kompetente ministerielle tjenester.
Rather, the use of these terms only means that the fares were set in advance in the interests of transparency and publicity for passengers and subsequently authorised by the competent ministerial services.
Hvad angår de ministerielle afslag, som Simet har forelagt, bemærker Kommissionen afslutningsvis, at disse var anmodninger om udvidelse og ikke vedrørte ændringer i den måde, hvorpå levering af eksisterende tjenester fandt sted.
Finally, as regards the ministerial refusals submitted by Simet, the Commission observes that these were requests for expansion and did not concern changes in the manner of provision of existing services.
En udvidelse af tjenesterne var ikke altid muligt på grund af den måde, hvorpå drift af passagerbefordring i fast rute reguleres i henhold til lov nr. 1822/39.
An expansion of services was not always possible, because of the way in which the operation of scheduled passenger transport services is regulated under Law No 1822/39.
Koncessioner til at levere nye tjenester eller til at udvide omfanget af eksisterende tjenester kunne kun gives i det omfang, de ikke berørte de rettigheder, der tilkom andre operatører med fast rute. Afslag på at starte nye tjenester eller udvide eksisterende tjenester var således resultatet af en afvejning af forskellige erhvervsdrivendes interesser og ikke en konsekvens af at pålægge offentlige serviceforpligtelser som påstået af Simet.
Concessions to provide new services or to extend the scope of existing services could be granted only to the extent they did not impinge on the rights of other scheduled services operators, so that the refusals to start new services or extend existing services were the result of a balancing of interests of different economic operators, rather than the consequence of imposing public service obligations as alleged by Simet.
Dermed har Simet ikke godtgjort, at de italienske myndigheder ensidigt pålagde virksomheden en offentlig serviceforpligtelse.
Consequently, Simet has not shown that the Italian authorities unilaterally imposed a public service obligation upon it.
Er den kompensation, der betales i henhold til denne forpligtelse, i overensstemmelse med forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69?
Does the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69?
Under alle omstændigheder, og selv hvis det blev påvist, at et ensidigt pålæg af offentlige serviceforpligtelser forelå i en eller anden form, skulle kompensationen for disse tjenester for at være fritaget for forudgående anmeldelse efter artikel 17, stk. 2, i den nævnte forordning, stadig opfylde kravene i den fælles kompensationsmetode (afdeling IV) i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
In any event, even if a unilateral imposition of public service obligations were shown to exist in some form, the compensation for those services, in order to be exempted from prior notification under Article 17(2) of that Regulation, would still need to comply with the common compensation procedure (Section IV) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Kommissionen mener ikke, at dette er tilfældet.
The Commission does not consider this to be the case.
Kommissionen bemærker først, at artikel 10 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 bl.a. bestemmer, at størrelsen af kompensationen i tilfælde af en drifts- eller befordringspligt skal svare til forskellen mellem formindskelsen af byrderne og formindskelsen af indtægterne for virksomheder ved en fuldstændig eller delvis ophævelse af forpligtelsen i det pågældende tidsrum.
First, the Commission notes that Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provides, inter alia, that the amount of the compensation must, in the case of an obligation to operate or to carry, be equal to the difference between the reduction in financial burden and the reduction in revenue of the undertaking if the whole or the relevant part of the obligation in question were terminated for the period of time under consideration.