natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse nr. 8737/2010 af 13. december 2010 udpegede Consiglio di Stato en sagkyndig til at varetage denne opgave.
By order (ordinanza) No 8737/2010 of 13 December 2010, the Consiglio di Stato appointed an expert to undertake that task.
Ifølge de italienske myndigheder kunne den sagkyndige heller ikke bestemme størrelsen af kompensationen.
According to the Italian authorities, that expert was also unable to determine the amount to be compensated.
Ved kendelse nr. 5880/2011 af 7. november 2011, udpegede Consiglio di Stato en anden sagkyndig.
By order (ordinanza) No 5880/2011 of 7 November 2011, the Consiglio di Stato appointed a second expert (‘the second expert’).
Det fremgår af § 9 i Consiglio di Statos dom nr. 5650/2012 af 7. november 2012, at begge sagkyndige udelukkede, at der skulle bestå en ret til kompensation efter artikel 10 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 (dvs. drifts- eller befordringspligten), men at de begge konkluderede, at Buonotourist var blevet underkompenseret i 1998, 1999 og 2000 som følge af anvendelse af metoden i artikel 11 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 (tarifpligten).
It appears from paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (giudizio per l’ottemperanza) No 5650/2012 of 7 November 2012 that both experts excluded the existence of a right to compensation pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (i.e. obligation to operate or carry), but both concluded that Buonotourist was undercompensated for 1998, 1999 and 2000 as a result of the application of the formula provided in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (tariff-related obligation).
De sagkyndige tog derfor allerede fra starten udgangspunkt i, at regionen havde pålagt Buonotourist en tarifpligt.
Implicitly, the experts thus assumed that a tariff obligation had been imposed on Buonotourist by the Region.
Til trods for at den første sagkyndige fandt, at det ikke var passende at anvende en »induktiv metode« til beregning af de ekstra omkostninger, som virksomheden skulle bære som følge af tarifpligten, men i stedet anbefalede at beregne den yderligere kompensation efter ret og billighed, beregnede den anden sagkyndige størrelsen af kompensationen, som skulle betales til virksomheden af regionen, ved hjælp af en sådan induktiv metode, eftersom Consiglio di Stato havde anvendt den i flere kendelser uden at blive anfægtet, og den derfor måtte anses for at være endegyldig.
However, while the first expert concluded that it would have been inappropriate to use an ‘inductive method’ to calculate the additional costs borne by the undertaking due to tariff costs and recommended calculating the additional compensation by means of equity appreciation (in via equitativa), the second expert calculated the sum to be compensated by the Region to the company through the use of such an ‘inductive method’, observing that the Consiglio di Stato held that the choice of the ‘inductive method’ was to be considered definitive, having been used in various judgments without being challenged.
Den anden sagkyndige var ikke i stand til at beregne kompensationen efter artikel 11 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 på grund af manglende data vedrørende både det forventede og det faktiske antal befordringsenheder.
The second expert was nevertheless unable to calculate the compensation pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 due to a lack of essential data on both the anticipated and the actual number of units of measure of transport.
Den anden sagkyndige beregnede derfor den eventuelle størrelse af kompensationen på grundlag af forskellen mellem de potentielle indtægter, som virksomheden ville have opnået som følge af kommerciel drift (estimat), og summen af de faktiske indtægter og modtagne offentlige tilskud.
The second expert therefore calculated the possible amount of undercompensation as the difference between the potential revenues that the company could have obtained by operating the service on a commercial basis (estimate) and the sum of the actual revenues and the public contributions received.
Disse beregninger viser, at Buonotourist kun blev underkompenseret i 1998, 1999 og 2000 for i alt 1 111 572 EUR inkl. renter.
For Buonotourist, those calculations result in an undercompensation for 1998, 1999 and 2000 only, totalling EUR 1 111 572 including interest.
Den sagkyndige konkluderede, at dette beløb kunne betragtes som størrelsen af underkompensationen.
The expert concluded that this amount could be taken as the amount of undercompensation.
SUPPLERENDE OPLYSNINGER/BEMÆRKNINGER FRA DE ITALIENSKE MYNDIGHEDER
Payment of this sum was made by the Region to Buonotourist on 21 December 2012.
Ifølge de italienske myndigheder drev Buonotourist ligesom andre udbydere af regional rutebilkørsel virksomhed på grundlag af midlertidige licenser (koncessioner), som blev fornyet hvert år på selskabets anmodning.
It is the payment of that additional compensation by the Region to Buonotourist as a consequence of judgment No 5650/2012 that constitutes the non-notified measure and the subject matter of this Decision.
Disse koncessioner gav selskabet eneret til at levere de relevante tjenester.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES
De italienske myndigheder anfører, at Buonotourist i den relevante periode årligt anmodede regionen om koncession til at udbyde tjenesterne på de relevante ruter, og at det altid fremgik af koncessionskontrakterne, at de berørte virksomheder bar den fulde risiko for leveringen af tjenesterne, og særligt at levering af disse tjenester ikke gav ret til nogen form for subsidier eller kompensation.
According to the Italian authorities, Buonotourist, like other providers of regional scheduled bus transport services, operated on the basis of provisional licences (concessions) which had to be renewed annually upon the request of the company.
De italienske myndigheder har indsendt en kopi af et eksempel på en koncessionskontrakt fra 1972/73, der vedrører en anden virksomhed, og fremfører, at den svarer til den kontrakt, der blev indgået med Buonotourist for den relevante periode.
Those concessions provided the company with the exclusive right to provide the relevant services.
De har dog ikke indsendt nogen koncessionskontrakt, der rent faktisk blev indgået med Buonotourist for den relevante periode.
The Italian authorities further maintain that Buonotourist requested concessions to provide services on the relevant routes from the Region in each year of the period under review and that those concessions always stipulated that the services were carried out entirely at the risk of the undertakings in question and, specifically, ‘without the performance of the service constituting a right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind’.
De italienske myndigheder fastholder, at det i henhold til koncessionerne stod Buonotourist frit for at foreslå substitution af de anvendte transportformer eller at anmode om fuld eller delvis ophævelse af forpligtelsen til offentlig tjeneste, hvis denne forpligtelse pålagde selskabet økonomiske ulemper, men denne ret blev aldrig udnyttet.
The Italian authorities provided a copy of a sample concession contract concerning another undertaking (‘the sample concession contract’) from 1972/73 attesting that it was the same as the one used with Buonotourist for the period under review.
De påstår desuden, at selskabet aldrig underrettede regionen om de økonomiske ulemper, eller at det leverede nogle tjenester, som det ellers ikke ville have leveret, hvis det ikke havde været forpligtet hertil under en forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste.
However, the Italian authorities did not provide any concession contracts actually concluded with Buonotourist during the period under review.
Desuden anmodede Buonotourist aldrig om ophævelse af forpligtelsen til offentlig tjeneste, hvilket kræves efter artikel 4, stk. 1, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
The Italian authorities maintain that under those concessions Buonotourist was free to propose the substitution of the forms of transport to be used by it or to apply for the termination in whole or in part of its PSOs where such obligations entailed an economic disadvantage to it, but that the company never exercised that right.
De italienske myndigheder anfører, at de offentlige tilskud, der tidligere var blevet ydet til Buonotourist, var baseret på en standardiseret omkostningsberegning med udgangspunkt i visse parametre fastsat i regionallov nr. 16/1983, f.eks. antal tildelte kilometer i forhold til antal kørte kilometer, antal ansatte og busser, som varierer afhængigt af den leverede tjeneste (trafik i by-, bjerg- eller bakkeområder), den juridiske og økonomiske behandling af de ansatte, selskabets størrelse og priserne på busser.
The Italian authorities further allege that the company never informed the Region that it was suffering economic disadvantages or that it was carrying out obligations that it would not have performed if not obliged to do so under a PSO.
De italienske myndigheder tvivler desuden på, at Buonotourist har dokumenteret, at selskabet varetog forpligtelsen til offentlig tjeneste effektivt og korrekt i overensstemmelse med forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 og anfører, at Buonotourist ikke førte et særskilt regnskab som krævet efter artikel 1, stk. 5, i samme forordning.
Finally, according to the Italian authorities, Buonotourist never requested the termination of the PSO as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
KOMPENSATIONENS STØRRELSE
According to the Italian authorities, the public contributions granted to Buonotourist in the past were based on standard cost methodology, calculated on the basis of certain parameters established in Regional Law No 16/1983, such as the number of kilometres awarded vis-à-vis the kilometres travelled, the number of employees and buses, which vary depending on the type of service performed (urban, mountain, hill services), the legal and economic treatment of employees, the size of the undertaking, and the costs of the buses.
Det fremgår af betragtning 15, at Consiglio di Stato udpegede to sagkyndige til at fastslå størrelsen af den yderligere kompensation, som regionen skyldte Buonotourist efter artikel 6, 10 og 11 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
The Italian authorities also doubt whether Buonotourist has demonstrated that it had efficiently and correctly operated the PSOs in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and submit that Buonotourist did not have an account separation system as required by Article 1(5) of that Regulation.
Den 27. september 2012 offentliggjorde de to sagkyndige hver deres rapport, men kun den anden sagkyndige havde kunnet beregne den yderligere kompensation, som regionen skulle betale Buonotourist.
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
I rapporten nævner den anden sagkyndige gentagne gange, at parterne indgav data, som ikke stemte overens eller ikke var tilstrækkelig præcise, men blot var tilnærmelser.
As explained in recital 15, the Consiglio di Stato appointed two experts to determine the additional compensation owed to Buonotourist by the Region on the basis of Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Den anden sagkyndige bemærker navnlig, at parterne havde indgivet modstridende dokumentation vedrørende den kompensation, der tidligere var betalt.
On 27 September 2012, the two experts each issued their respective reports, but only the second expert was able to calculate the additional compensation due to Buonotourist by the Region (‘the report’).
I modsætning til de italienske myndigheders påstand bemærker den anden sagkyndige, at Buonotourist førte særskilt regnskab med sine offentlige og private transportaktiviteter, men forklarer, at det ikke var muligt at bekræfte, at visse udgifter var tilregnet den ene eller den anden sektor korrekt.
In the report, the second expert frequently reiterates that the parties submitted data that did not match or that were not precise enough, constituting only an approximation.
Den anden sagkyndige gør videre rede for, at det selv ved anvendelse af den induktive metode som fastlagt af Consiglio di Stato, ikke var muligt at fremskaffe pålidelige data vedrørende de omkostninger, som virksomheden havde været fritaget for, hvis den ikke havde været pålagt en forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste.
In particular, the second expert observes that the parties have provided contradictory documentary evidence regarding the compensation paid in the past.
Den anden sagkyndige konkluderede derfor, at størrelsen af kompensationen for drifts- eller befordringspligten ikke kunne fastslås ved anvendelse af artikel 10 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69).
In contrast to the claim made by the Italian authorities, the second expert notes that Buonotourist kept separate accounts for its public and private transport activities, but explains that no verification could be made of the correct imputation of some costs to the one or the other sector of activity.
Med hensyn til den yderligere kompensation for tarifpligten (jf. artikel 11 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69) konstaterede den anden sagkyndige, at den på grund af manglende og/eller upålidelige data ikke kunne beregnes på basis af artikel 11, stk. 1.
The second expert further explains that it was not possible to acquire reliable data on the costs that would not have been incurred in case of termination of the PSO — even using the ‘inductive method’ prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato.
Derfor blev den induktive metode som fastlagt af Consiglio di Stato anvendt.
Accordingly, the second expert concluded that no additional compensation for the obligation to operate or carry, calculated on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 could be determined.
I artikel 11 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 bestemmes det bl.a., at størrelsen af kompensationen i tilfælde af en tarifpligt svarer til forskellen mellem følgende to størrelser:
As regards additional compensation in relation to tariff obligations — Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — the second expert acknowledges that it could not be calculated on the basis of paragraph 1 of that provision, because of missing and/or unreliable data.
Den første størrelse svarer til forskellen mellem produktet af antallet af forventede befordringsenheder og:
Therefore, the ‘inductive method’ prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato was applied.
enten den gunstigste tarif, som transportbrugerne kunne gøre krav på, hvis forpligtelsen ikke havde bestået
Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provides, inter alia, that the amount of the compensation must, in the case of a tariff obligation, be equal to the difference between the following two amounts.
Den anden størrelse svarer til forskellen mellem de omkostninger, der ville fremkomme enten ved anvendelsen af den gunstigste tarif eller af det vederlag, som virksomheden ville have anvendt ved en forretningsmæssig drift, og de omkostninger, der følger af anvendelsen af den pålagte tarif.
The first amount is equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the product of the anticipated number of units of measure of transport and:
Med hensyn til den anden størrelse vurderede den sagkyndige, at den skulle svare til de reelle omkostninger (eller »standardomkostninger«, hvis de er lavere), minus forskellen mellem de reelle omkostninger (eller »standardomkostninger«, hvis de er lavere) og størrelsen af den kompensation, der allerede er modtaget.
and, on the other hand, the product of the actual number of units of measure of transport and the rate imposed for the period under consideration.
Ifølge den anden sagkyndige følger det af disse beregninger, at Buonotourist i den relevante periode kun kan hævde at være blevet underkompenseret i 1998, 1999 og 2000 som følge af påståede tarifpligter.
The second amount is equal to the difference between the costs which would be incurred applying either the most favourable existing rate or the rate which the undertaking would have applied if operating on a commercial basis and the costs actually incurred under the obligatory rate.
Den anden sagkyndige fastslog, at underkompensationen for de tre år beløb sig til 838 593,21 EUR, hvortil blev lagt en lovbestemt rente på 272 979,13 EUR, dvs. en samlet yderligere kompensation på 1 111 572 EUR.
In the absence of the data required to determine those amounts, the second expert calculated the amount of compensation due as the difference between the two amounts as interpreted below.
Det var det beløb, som Consiglio di Stato pålagde regionen at betale til Buonotourist, og som regionen betalte den 21. december 2012.
In the absence of the anticipated and the actual number of units of measure of transport, the first amount is equal to the amount necessary to cover the real costs (or the ‘standard costs’ if lower), minus the revenues obtained from the traffic carried.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR INDLEDNING AF PROCEDUREN
As regards the second amount, the expert considered that it should be equal to the real costs (or the ‘standard costs’ if lower) minus the difference between the real costs (or the ‘standard costs’ if lower) and the amount of compensation already received.
Det fremgår af åbningsafgørelsen, at Kommissionen havde flere betænkeligheder med hensyn til foranstaltningens forenelighed med det indre marked.
According to the second expert, it follows from those calculations that during the period under review Buonotourist could only claim to have been undercompensated in 1998, 1999, and 2000 as a result of alleged tariff obligations being imposed upon it.
Kommissionen satte for det første spørgsmålstegn ved, om de fire betingelser, der opstilles i Domstolens dom i Altmark-sagen, var opfyldt.
The amount of undercompensation for those three years was calculated by the second expert to amount to EUR 838 593,21, to which legal interest of EUR 272 979,13 was added, resulting in additional compensation of EUR 1 111 572.
For det andet var Kommissionen betænkelig med hensyn til fritagelsen for forpligtelsen til underretning efter forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
It was this amount which the Consiglio di Stato ordered the Region to pay to Buonotourist, which it actually paid on 21 December 2012.
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 Buonotourist 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 betingelserne i forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Kommissionen kunne ikke konkludere, om kompensationen til Buonotourist opfyldte disse betingelser.
As explained in the opening decision, the Commission had several doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the internal market.
For det tredje var Kommissionen i tvivl om foranstaltningens forenelighed efter Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1370/2007.
First, the Commission questioned whether the four conditions laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the CJEU’) in its Altmark case-law had been fulfilled.
Hvis det blev konstateret, at mindst en af betingelserne for fritagelsen for underretning i henhold til forordning (EØF) nr. 1191/69 ikke var opfyldt, og at der skulle foretages en vurdering efter forordning (EF) nr. 1370/2007, betvivlede Kommissionen, at betingelserne i sidstnævnte forordning var opfyldt i denne sag.
Second, the Commission had doubts regarding the exemption from the notification obligation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA ITALIEN
The question of whether Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 indeed exempted the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case thus depends, first, on whether a PSO was in fact unilaterally imposed on Buonotourist by the Region and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
De italienske myndigheder på nationalt plan har ikke indgivet nogen bemærkninger til åbningsafgørelsen.
The Commission could not conclude whether the compensation awarded to Buonotourist fulfilled those conditions.
Regionen fremførte for det andet, at den ikke ensidigt havde pålagt nogen forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste i den relevante periode.
If it was confirmed that at least one of the conditions for exemption from notification pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 was not met and an assessment under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had to be conducted, the Commission had doubts whether the conditions of that Regulation were complied with in the present case.
Den bemærkede, at virksomheden under de dengang gældende regler årligt ansøgte om forlængelser af koncessionerne, og at ingen af koncessionskontrakterne omfattede et ensidigt pålæg om offentlig tjeneste.
COMMENTS BY ITALY
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA INTERESSEREDE PARTER
For example, Buonotourist appears to have provided international and interregional bus transport services in the period under review.
Den eneste interesserede part, der reagerede på åbningsafgørelsen, var støttemodtageren, Buonotourist.
In addition, the Region explained that Buonotourist only had accounting separation between rental services and bus transport services, without further distinguishing the ‘authorised services’ that the company performed at its own risk.
Buonotourist er uenig i Kommissionens foreløbige konstateringer i åbningsafgørelsen.
Second, the Region reiterated that no unilateral imposition of PSOs took place during the period under review.
Til at underbygge sin påstand om, at det blev pålagt forpligtelser, fremfører Buonotourist, at forpligtelserne til offentlig tjeneste ikke var udspecificeret i koncessionskontrakten, eftersom der ikke fandtes et sådant dokument, men at de udelukkende fulgte af regionens egen lovgivning, som danner rammerne for virksomhedsorganisation og kompensation gennem standardomkostningsberegningen.
The Region noted that the company, under the rules then in force, requested yearly renewal of the concession services and that none of the concession acts entailed the unilateral imposition of PSOs.
Buonotourist gjorde rede for, at Italien havde reguleret forpligtelserne til offentlig tjeneste ved lov nr. 151/81, regionallov nr. 16/83, § 4 i lov nr. 59/97 og lovdekret nr. 422/97.
Moreover, following the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato in 2009, the Region repeatedly asked Buonotourist to provide the acts or contracts imposing PSOs on it in order to comply with the judgment.
»kontrakten om overgangydelser«, der blev indgået mellem Buonotourist og regionen for 2003 i overensstemmelse med § 46 i regionallov nr. 3/02 om forlængelse og erstatning af de eksisterende koncessioner
According to the Region, the company never replied to these requests.
regionsregeringens beslutning (delibera della Giunta Regionale) nr. 8726 af 30. december 1999 om tilladelse til Buonotourist til at ændre visse ruter efter anmodning fra både selskabet og andre interesserede parter
Regarding the cap on tariffs, the Region noted that the tariffs indicated by the concession contracts derived from general measures of price policy applied by all companies operating in the same sector.
regionsregeringens beslutning nr. 323 af 4. maj 2000 om forlængelse af suspensionen af prisstigninger for abonnementskort til personbefordring med bus i regionen
COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
note 4770/2000 om forskellen mellem beregning af prisen for almindelige abonnementer og abonnementer til pendlerruter (»linee operaie«)
The only third party to submit observations in response to the opening decision was Buonotourist, the beneficiary of the measure.
dekret fra regionens transportudvalg nr. 1609/2001 om overgangen fra lire til euro, i hvilket tjenesteudbyderne blev påmindet om forbuddet mod ureglementerede stigninger i priserne, som er en forpligtelse i henhold til koncessionen/kontrakten.
In its submissions, Buonotourist disagreed with the preliminary positions taken by the Commission in the opening decision.
Buonotourist har dog ikke indgivet nogen dokumentation, der kan underbygge denne påstand.
Buonotourist explained that Italy had regulated the PSOs by means of Law No 151/81, Regional Law No 16/83, Article 4 of Law No 59/97 and Legislative Decree No 422/97.