natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I denne forbindelse bemærker Kommissionen, at den af den sagkyndige fastsatte risikopræmie er særligt høj, eftersom den risiko, som Arfea var eksponeret for, var temmelig begrænset.
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner,
Arfea havde netop eneret til koncessionerne, hvilket beskyttede virksomheden mod konkurrence fra andre operatører, og kompensationen fastsat af den sagkyndige kompenserede alle de påståede udgifter til leveringen af forpligtelserne til offentlig tjeneste.
Third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,
Kommissionen bemærker desuden, at den sagkyndige nok påpegede, at transportsektoren nød godt af en gennemsnitlig risiko, der var lavere end markedsrisikoen, men han korrigerede risikopræmien op for at tage højde for Arfeas egen økonomiske eksponering, som var højere en den gennemsnitlige eksponering i sektoren.
Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
På den måde tog den sagkyndige således ikke hensyn til en almindelig transportvirksomheds risiko men for Arfeas egen risiko, som var højere end den gennemsnitlige risiko i sektoren.
The Altmark judgment requires that all four conditions are cumulatively satisfied to exclude the presence of an economic advantage where compensation is granted to undertakings in consideration for public services obligations imposed on them.
På baggrund af ovenstående finder Kommissionen således ikke, at den tredje Altmark-betingelse er opfyldt.
First Altmark condition
Konklusion
As regards the first Altmark condition, the Commission notes first of all that it is for Member States to show that a particular undertaking was entrusted with public service obligations and that the imposition of such public service obligations is justified by considerations of general interest [12].
Eftersom alle betingelserne i Altmark-dommen skal være opfyldt, og eftersom den foreliggende foranstaltning ikke opfylder de første tre Altmark-betingelser, er der ikke noget behov for, at Kommissionen undersøger, om den fjerde Altmark-betingelse er opfyldt.
However, the Italian authorities did not explain what public service obligations justified by considerations of general interest were imposed on Arfea.
På baggrund af ovenstående finder Kommissionen, at den yderligere kompensation til Arfea for de tjenester, virksomheden ydede i den relevante periode, ikke opfylder alle fire Altmark-betingelser, og de har derfor givet den en selektiv økonomisk fordel, jf. traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
On the contrary, they argued that Arfea had not been entrusted with any public service obligation.
Fordrejning af konkurrencen og påvirkning af samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne
Second, the Commission notes that the notion of public service obligation relates to conditions imposed on an operator, which that operator, if it were considering its own commercial interest, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent without reward.
Kommissionen bemærker for det første, at de foreliggende kompensationer blev tilkendt Arfea ved to domme afsagt af den regionale forvaltningsdomstol i Piemonte den 10. oktober 2013 og blev betalt af Piemonte-regionen den 7. februar 2014, dvs. længe efter, at markedet for passagerbefordring med bus blev åbnet for konkurrence i EU.
Moreover, these conditions must be clearly defined by the authority in an entrustment act.
EU-Domstolen bemærkede i denne forbindelse i Altmark-dommen, at flere medlemsstater siden 1995 var begyndt at åbne visse transportmarkeder for konkurrence fra virksomheder etableret i andre medlemsstater, således at flere virksomheder allerede tilbød transportydelser i byer, forstæder eller regioner i andre medlemsstater end deres hjemstat på dette tidspunkt.
In that regard, Arfea has not been able to explain precisely what public service obligations had been imposed upon it nor to show that these PSOs had been clearly defined in an entrustment act.
Enhver kompensation til Arfea må således anses for at kunne fordreje konkurrencen inden for personbefordring med bus og at kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, for så vidt som den forringer de muligheder, som transportselskaber etableret i andre medlemsstater har for at tilbyde deres tjenester i Italien, og styrker Arfeas position på markedet ved at frigøre virksomheden for omkostninger, den ellers skulle have båret i forbindelse med de daglige forretningsaktiviteter.
Moreover, for the reasons explained in recitals 77 to 82 below, the Commission considers that there are serious indications that no such clearly defined public service obligations were imposed upon Arfea.
Kommissionen bemærker desuden, at Arfea er aktiv på andre markeder, såsom markedet for private transporttjenester, og at virksomheden således konkurrerer med andre virksomheder i EU på disse markeder.
Second Altmark condition
Der er desuden risiko for, at enhver kompensation til Arfea fordrejer konkurrencen og påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne på disse markeder.
As regards the second Altmark condition, the Commission observes that, the parameters for the calculation of the compensation awarded to Arfea by the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court were not set in advance.
Kommissionen finder derfor, at foranstaltningen fordrejer konkurrencen og påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
They were determined based solely on an ex post calculation made by the expert on the basis of various assumptions which were not properly explained and in the absence of separation of accounts.
I lyset af ovenstående konkluderer Kommissionen, at foranstaltningen udgør statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
Contrary to what Arfea argues, it cannot be considered that the parameters for the calculation of these compensations had been established in the decision of the Regional Council of 16 February 1984.
Fritagelse for underretningspligten efter forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69
Indeed, the compensations awarded to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court are additional compensations, the purpose of which was precisely to cover the financial burden of the PSOs allegedly imposed on Arfea, which would not have been fully covered by the compensations already granted to it in application of the decision of the Regional Council of 16 February 1984.
For at den regionale forvaltningsdomstols begrundelse, for at Arfea var berettiget til yderligere kompensation for offentlig tjeneste efter forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69, er gyldig, skulle Arfea have erhvervet retten til yderligere kompensation på det tidspunkt, hvor virksomheden leverede disse tjenester, og kompensationerne skulle have været fritaget fra den obligatoriske underretningsprocedure i medfør af artikel 17, stk. 2 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
Such an approach is in contradiction with the second Altmark condition and any compensation granted on that basis constitutes State aid.
I modsat fald, i det omfang kompensationen udgør statsstøtte i henhold til TEUF's artikel 107, stk. 1, ville manglende underretning af den pågældende kompensation have medført, at kompensationen var ulovlig i medfør af TEUF's artikel 108.
The Court has indeed made clear in its Altmark judgment that ‘payment by a Member State of compensation for the loss incurred by an undertaking without the parameters of such compensation having been established in advance beforehand, where it turns out that after the event that the operation of certain services in connection with the discharge of public service obligations was not economically viable, constitutes a financial measure which falls within the concept of State aid within the meaning of 107§1 of the TFEU’ [13].
Det skyldes, at i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 2, i den forordning er kompensation, der følger af anvendelsen af denne forordning, undtaget fra den forudgående underretning, der er fastlagt i TEUF's artikel 108, stk. 3, og dermed fra kravet om forudgående anmeldelse.
The Commission therefore concludes that the notified measure does not meet the second Altmark condition.
Det følger i denne forbindelse af Combus-dommen, at begrebet »kompensation for offentlig tjeneste« i den bestemmelses forstand skal fortolkes meget snævert [14].
Third Altmark condition
Fritagelsen for underretning efter artikel 17, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 omfatter kun kompensation for forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste, der ensidigt er pålagt en virksomhed i henhold til artikel 2 i samme forordning, og som beregnes efter metoden i forordningens artikel 10-13 (den fælles kompensationsmetode).
As regards the third Altmark condition, the Commission considers first of all that, when an undertaking carries out both activities which are subject to PSOs and activities which are not subject to PSOs, it is not possible to determine precisely what are the costs incurred in the discharge of PSOs in the absence of a proper separation of account between the different activities of the provider.
Den finder imidlertid ikke anvendelse på kontrakter om offentlig tjeneste efter definitionen i artikel 14.
In the present instance, the Italian authorities have argued that Arfea did not implement a proper separation of account between its activities allegedly subject to PSOs imposed by the Piedmont Region and its other activities.
Kompensation, der betales i henhold til en kontrakt om offentlig tjeneste som defineret i artikel 14 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69, og der udgør statsstøtte, skal anmeldes til Kommissionen, før den betales.
The Commission also expressed doubts on whether Arfea had implemented such a separation of accounts and Arfea did not provide any comments on this issue.
I tilfælde af manglende anmeldelse vil kompensationen blive betragtet som ulovligt gennemført støtte efter traktatens artikel 108.
Moreover, the extracts of Arfea's account which the expert mandated by the court used to determine the amount of the compensations do not show any separation of account between the different activities of Arfea.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt artikel 17, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 faktisk fritog de italienske myndigheder for forudgående underretning i den foreliggende sag, afhænger for det første af, om regionen rent faktisk ensidigt pålagde Arfea en forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste, og for det andet af, om den kompensation, der blev betalt som følge af denne forpligtelse, er i overensstemmelse med forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
The cost allocation done by the Court mandated expert has been done ex post, based on the base model prepared by Arfea's consultants, which determined percentages of costs to be allocated to the different activities of Arfea.
Kommissionen vil i det følgende undersøge begge spørgsmål.
Second, the Commission considers that the profit levels taken into account by the expert for the calculation of the amounts of compensation are higher than what can be considered as a reasonable profit in the meaning of the third Altmark condition.
Ensidig pålæggelse af en forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste
The expert considered that a rate of return on invested capital of 12,89 % for 1997 and of 10,81 % for 1998 was a reasonable profit rate; these rates being based on the yield of Italian 10 years State bond (6,8 % for 1997) plus an average risk premium (4,8 % for 1997) corrected upwards to take into account Arfea's own financial situation (by 1,28 for 1997).
Ifølge Arfea pålagde Piemonte-regionen virksomheden forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste, der var defineret i koncessionsaftalerne for levering af personbefordring med bus samt i aftaler og dokumenter vedhæftet disse koncessionsaftaler.
In that regard, the Commission observes that the risk premium determined by the expert is particularly high, given that the risk to which Arfea was exposed was rather limited.
Disse forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste vedrører driftsprogrammer, busruter, stoppesteder og tariffer.
Indeed, Arfea operated the concessions on the basis of an exclusive right, which shielded it from competition from other operators, and the compensation determined by the expert compensated the alleged full cost incurred in the discharge of public service obligations.
Kommissionen bemærker først og fremmet, at koncessionsaftalerne klart fastlagde, at de kun var gyldige i ét år, og at de kunne fornys på anmodning fra transportselskabet, efter betaling af et koncessionsgebyr.
Moreover, the Commission notes that, while the expert noted that the transport sector benefited from an average risk below market, it corrected the risk premium upwards in order to take into account Arfea's own financial exposure which was higher than the sector's average.
Det følger, at disse koncessioner udgjorde grundlaget for et kontraktmæssigt forhold mellem Arfea og Piemonte-regionen, som Arfea frivilligt indgik i.
By doing so the expert therefore did not take into account the risk of a typical transport company but Arfea's own risk, which was higher than the average of the sector.
På baggrund af disse aftaler er der således ikke grundlag for at anse forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste i betydningen af forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 for ensidigt pålagt Arfea.
Taking into account the above, the Commission considers that the third Altmark condition is not met.
Retten påminder i sin dom af 3. marts 2016 i Simet-sagen T-15/14 om, at frivillig indgåelse af et kontraktforhold er forskelligt fra ensidig pålæggelse af forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste og giver ikke anledning til en kompensationspligt efter forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 [15].
Conclusion
For det andet bemærker Kommissionen, at Arfea ikke tydeligt udpegede de aftaler og dokumenter vedhæftet koncessionsaftalerne, som ville have pålagt virksomheden forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste.
Considering the cumulative nature of the Altmark conditions and the fact that the measure at stake does not comply with the first three Altmark conditions, there is no need for the Commission to examine whether the fourth Altmark condition is met.
Kommissionen er imidlertid af den opfattelse, at Arfea henviser til aftalerne om busruter og tidsplaner, som var vedhæftet koncessionsaftalerne, og til tabeller, der fastlægger regionale tariffer, og som nogle af koncessionsaftalerne henviste til.
Based on the above, the Commission considers the additional compensation paid to Arfea for services performed during the period under review does not meet the four cumulative Altmark condition and therefore confer on that company a selective economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Hvad angår disse aftaler om busruter og tidsplaner, bemærker Kommissionen, at de ikke kan anses for ensidigt at pålægge Arfea forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
Ligesom selve koncessionsaftalerne indgik Arfea dem faktisk frivilligt.
The Commission notes, in the first place, that the compensations at stake were awarded to Arfea by two judgments of the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont of 10 October 2013 and were paid by the Piedmont Region on 7 February 2014, i.e. long after the market for passenger transport by bus had been opened to competition in the EU.
Indholdet af disse aftaler, f.eks. busruterne, er desuden blevet ændret på anmodning fra Arfea for flere koncessioner.
In that regard, the CJEU remarked in its Altmark judgment that since 1995 several Member States started to open certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so that a number of undertakings were already offering their urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their State of origin by that point in time.
De kan derfor ikke anses for ensidigt at have pålagt forpligtelser til offentlige tjenester efter artikel 2 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
Accordingly, any compensation granted to Arfea should be considered liable to distort competition for the provision of passenger transport services by bus 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 Arfea by relieving it of expenses it would otherwise have had to bear in the course of its day-to-day business operations.
For så vidt angår fastsættelse af regionale tariffer, der fastsætter de højeste tariffer for alle passagerer, bemærker Kommissionen, at Retten i sin dom af 3. marts 2016 i Simet-sagen T-15/14 tydeligt har gjort rede for, at generelle regler om tariffer ikke pålægger forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste i betydningen af artikel 2 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
The Commission further notes that Arfea is active on other markets, such as private transport services, and thus competes with other companies within the Union on those markets.
I henhold til Retten, dækker begrebet tarifpligter i den forstand, at bestemmelsen er begrænset til de maksimale tariffer, der indføres for en bestemt kategori af passagerer eller produkter, ikke almindelige prispolitiske foranstaltninger [16].
Any compensation granted to Arfea may also risk distorting competition and affecting trade between Member States on those markets as well.
Til slut bemærker Kommissionen, at det under alle omstændigheder er vanskeligt at forene det forhold, at Arfea anmodede om fornyelse af koncessionerne og endda betalte et koncessionsgebyr for dem, med pålæggelsen af nogen forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste efter artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the measure distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
I medfør af den bestemmelse skal der nemlig »ved forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste forstås forpligtelser, som transportvirksomheden ikke ville påtage sig i egen forretningsmæssig interesse eller i hvert fald ikke i samme omfang og ikke på samme betingelser«.
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Retten bemærker i sin dom af 3. marts 2016 i Simet-sagen T-15/14, at det er vanskeligt at forestille sig, at en virksomhed ville anmode om fornyelsen af en koncession, når de forpligtelser, der er knyttet til den, tages i betragtning, hvis udførelsen af den koncession ikke er i virksomhedens forretningsmæssige interesse.
Exemption from notification obligation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69
Kompensationens overensstemmelse med den almindelige kompensationsprocedure
For the reasoning of the Regional Administrative Court to hold that Arfea was entitled to additional PSO compensation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, Arfea would have had to have acquired the right to additional compensation at the point in time at which it carried out those services and those compensation payments must have been exempted from the compulsory notification procedure pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Selv hvis forpligtelserne til offentlig tjeneste blev anset for at være ensidigt pålagt Arfea, ville kompensationen, i denne sag, quod non, for disse tjenester stadig skulle være i overensstemmelse med den almindelige kompensationsprocedure (afdeling IV) i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 for at kunne fritages for forudgående underretning efter artikel 17, stk. 2.
Otherwise, to the extent the compensation constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, failure to notify that compensation would have rendered that compensation unlawful in accordance with Article 108 TFEU.
Kommissionen mener ikke, at det er tilfældet.
This is because, in accordance with Article 17(2) of that regulation, compensation paid pursuant to this regulation is exempted from the preliminary information procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU and thus from notification.
Kommissionen minder i denne forbindelse om, at det af artikel 10 og 11 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 følger, at en kompensation ikke må være højere end den økonomiske byrde for virksomheden som følger af at pålægge den forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste.
In that regard, 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 [14].
Artikel 1, stk. 5, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 fastlægger desuden i den udgave, der trådte i kraft den 1. juli 1992, at: »Når en transportvirksomhed både præsterer tjenesteydelser, der er omfattet af forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste, og udfører andre aktiviteter, skal de pågældende offentlige tjenester udgøre særlige afdelinger, der mindst opfylder følgende betingelser:
The exemption from notification provided by Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 covers only compensation for PSOs 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).
regnskabet for hver af disse driftsaktiviteter skal føres særskilt, og de tilsvarende aktiver skal opføres efter gældende regnskabsforskrifter
It does not apply however to public service contracts as defined by Article 14.
For det andet minder Kommissionen om, at myndighederne i henhold til artikel 13 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 på forhånd skal fastsætte størrelsen af kompensationen.
Compensation paid pursuant to a public service contract as defined by Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which entails State aid, must be notified to the Commission before it is put into effect.
I den foreliggende sag, finder Kommissionen, at kompensationerne tilkendt Arfea ikke opfylder disse krav.
Failure to do so will result in that compensation being deemed illegally implemented aid in accordance with Article 108 of the Treaty.
For det første bemærker Kommissionen, som det fremgår af betragtning 59 herover, at det ikke er påvist, at Arfea har gennemført en korrekt adskillelse af regnskaberne for de aktiviteter, der angiveligt skulle være underlagt forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste, og de øvrige aktiviteter, i medfør af artikel 1, nr. 5), litra a), i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
The question whether Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 indeed dispensed the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case thus depends, first, on whether a PSO was in fact unilaterally imposed on Arfea by the Region and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Tværtimod, uddragene fra Arfeas regnskaber for 1997 og 1998, som den sagkyndige udpeget af retten benyttede til at bestemme størrelsen af kompensationerne, viser nærmere, at udgifterne ikke var adskilt for hver aktivitet.
The Commission will examine both questions in turn.
For det andet bemærker Kommissionen, at i modsætning til artikel 13 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69, er kompensationen til Arfea ikke fastsat på forhånd, den er derimod fastsat på baggrund af en efterfølgende vurdering, som fastsat af den regionale forvaltningsdomstol.
PSO unilaterally imposed
I lyset af disse bemærkninger, konkluderer Kommissionen, at de yderligere kompensationer tilkendt Arfea af den regionale forvaltningsdomstol i Piemonte-regionen ikke var fritaget for forudgående underretning i medfør af artikel 17,stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
According to Arfea, the Piedmont Region imposed upon it public service obligations which were defined in the concession agreements for the provision of bus transport services as well as in agreements and regulations attached to these concession agreements.