natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen har ikke kendskab til, at de byggeselskaber, der var med til at opføre de forskellige dele af den omhandlede infrastruktur, skulle have opnået nogen fordel.
The need for financing of recipient undertakings may not be taken into account in assessing whether a State measure may be regarded as compensation for discharging PSOs.
Med hensyn til brugerne af infrastrukturen konstaterer Kommissionen, at den pågældende infrastruktur forvaltes af Bus Éireann og Dublin Bus, og at det kun er disse virksomheder, der bruger den.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the fourth Altmark condition is not met, and, since the four conditions are cumulative, that the Altmark conditions are not fulfilled for a finding of no aid.
Kommissionen mener som udgangspunkt ikke, at finansiering af infrastruktur med statsmidler giver brugerne nogen fordel, forudsat at infrastrukturen er åben for alle uden forskelsbehandling i overensstemmelse med EU-lovgivningen og ikke tilgodeser en enkelt bruger [41].
Consequently, the Commission considers that the annual operating compensation for urban, suburban and regional bus services until 30 November 2009 and the financing of new buses confer a selective economic advantage on Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, since they relieve those undertakings of expenses they would normally have to bear in the operation of their business, which they could have not obtained under normal market conditions.
Denne betingelse er ikke opfyldt her, eftersom den pågældende infrastruktur, der er finansieret med statsmidler, udelukkende kommer Bus Éireann og Dublin Bus til gode.
The construction of any type of infrastructure that is meant to be exploited economically is an economic activity in itself, which means that the State aid rules apply to the way in which it is financed [37].
Irland påstår også, at betingelserne i Altmark-dommen er opfyldt, for så vidt angår infrastrukturens finansiering [42].
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that public authorities may legitimately consider that the financing of infrastructure granted prior to the Aéroports de Paris judgment of 12 December 2000 [38] did not entail State aid and that, accordingly, such measures did not need to be notified to the Commission.
Med hensyn til anvendelsen af den fjerde betingelse i Altmark-dommen på tilskuddene til finansiering af infrastruktur var hverken Bus Éireann eller Dublin Bus blevet pålagt de pågældende offentlige serviceforpligtelser i forbindelse med en åben, gennemsigtig og ikke-diskriminerende udbudsprocedure.
It follows that the Commission cannot put such financing measures definitely adopted before the Aéroports de Paris judgment (12 December 2000) into question on the basis of the State aid rules [39].
Kommissionen har ikke kendskab til, at der blev foretaget en sådan analyse.
Therefore the compensation granted to Dublin Bus in 2000 of EUR 4,6 million cannot be considered within the scope of State aid control.
Kommissionen konkluderer som følge heraf, at den fjerde betingelse i Altmark-dommen ikke er opfyldt, og at betingelserne i denne dom ikke er opfyldt, eftersom de fire kriterier er kumulative.
As regards the compensation granted after 2000, the question of the presence of aid in financing the construction of a commercially exploited may arise at three different levels: at the level of the users, at the level of the builder of the infrastructure and at the level of the manager of the infrastructure [40].
Kommissionen konstaterer desuden, at den tilskudsfinansierede infrastruktur, der benyttes af Bus Éireann, både er til gavn for virksomhedernes kommercielle tjenester og for den offentlige trafikbetjening.
In this case, while the owner of the infrastructure is CIÉ, the user and the manager of the infrastructure appear to be identical, as the infrastructure in question is managed and used exclusively by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, which are entirely owned by CIÉ.
Det er derfor ikke sandsynligt, at den første betingelse i Altmark-dommen er opfyldt for Bus Éireanns vedkommende, eftersom støtten ikke kun vedrører den omstændighed, at den begunstigede virksomhed faktisk er blevet pålagt at opfylde offentlige serviceforpligtelser.
As Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus do not raise any income out of the managing of the infrastructure, for the purpose of this case they can therefore only be considered as users of the infrastructure.
Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at tilskuddene til finansiering af særlig infrastruktur giver Dublin Bus og Bus Éireann en selektiv økonomisk fordel.
As regards the construction companies involved in the construction of the different infrastructure elements under assessment, the Commission has no indication that those companies might have received an advantage.
Med hensyn til skoletransportordningen vil Kommissionen undersøge, om ordningen opfylder de betingelser, der er fastsat i Altmark-dommen [43].
As regards the user of the infrastructure, the Commission notes that the infrastructure in question is managed by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, and that use is exclusively confined to those undertakings.
De finansielle rammer for skoletransportordningen var fastsat i en regnskabsaftale fra 1968, der blev ajourført i 1975 [44].
As a general rule, the Commission considers that the financing of infrastructure through State resources does not confer and advantage on its users provided that the infrastructure is open without discrimination to all in accordance with Union legislation, and does not favour one user in particular [41].
Siden 2011 har der dog været et loft over de »indirekte omkostninger« [45].
In this case, that condition is not fulfilled, as the infrastructure in question, which is financed through State resources, exclusively benefits Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus.
Med hensyn til anvendelsen af den fjerde betingelse i Altmark-dommen [46] på skoletransportordningen var Bus Éireann ikke blevet pålagt de pågældende offentlige serviceforpligtelser i forbindelse med en åben, gennemsigtig og ikke-diskriminerende udbudsprocedure.
Ireland also claims that with regard to the financing of infrastructure, the conditions laid down in the Altmark judgment are met [42].
Kommissionen finder det desuden usandsynligt, at en kompensation, der stadig tildeles den dag i dag, men bygger på finansielle rammer, der blev fastsat for 40 år siden, kan danne grundlag for en analyse af omkostningerne for en gennemsnitsvirksomhed, der er veldrevet og har det fornødne udstyr.
With regard to the application of the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment to the grants for the financing of infrastructure, neither Bus Éireann nor Dublin Bus were entrusted with the PSOs at issue in the course of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure.
Kommissionen konkluderer som følge heraf, at den fjerde betingelse i Altmark-dommen ikke er opfyldt, og at betingelserne i denne dom ikke er opfyldt, eftersom de fire kriterier er kumulative.
The Commission has no indication that such an analysis took place.
Skoletransportordningen fritager Bus Éireann for omkostninger, som selskabet ellers skulle have afholdt i forbindelse med denne aktivitet, hvilket det ikke kunne have opnået under normale markedsvilkår.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the fourth Altmark condition is not met, and that the Altmark conditions are not fulfilled, since the four criteria are cumulative.
Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at finansieringen af skoletransportordningen giver Bus Éireann en selektiv økonomisk fordel.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the grant-funded infrastructure used by Bus Éireann benefits both the companies' commercial and PSO services.
Hvad angår den fordel, der kan være forbundet med finansiering af kurser i handicapforståelse, konstaterede Kommissionen i indledningsafgørelsen, at den offentlige finansiering af kurser i handicapforståelse, som virksomhederne normalt finansierer selv, kan være til fordel for dem, fordi de slipper for en byrde, som de ellers ville have haft i forbindelse med deres virksomhed.
Consequently, it seems unlikely in the case of Bus Éireann, that the first Altmark condition is met, since the funding does not solely relate to the recipient undertaking actually being required to discharge PSOs.
Kommissionen konstaterede imidlertid, at denne type kurser kunne være af social karakter og kunne forbedre handicappedes mobilitet.
The Commission therefore concludes that the grants for the financing of dedicated infrastructure confer a selective economic advantage on Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.
Irland har anført, at finansieringen af kurser i handicapforståelse ikke er statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, og at denne finansiering ikke fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene eller påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
With regard to the School Transport Scheme, the Commission will assess whether the scheme fulfils the conditions set out in the Altmark judgment [43].
Irland har dog ikke begrundet disse argumenter.
The financial arrangements for the School Transport Scheme were set out in an Accounting Agreement from 1968, and then updated in 1975 [44], albeit with a cap on ‘indirect costs’ from 2011 onwards [45].
Irland har også påpeget, at private operatører siden 2006 har haft mulighed for at opnå støtte til kurser i handicapforståelse på lige fod med Dublin Bus og Bus Éireann [47].
With regard to the application of the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment [46] to the School Transport Scheme, Bus Éireann was not entrusted with the PSOs at issue in the course of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure.
Kommissionen konstaterer i denne forbindelse, at den her omhandlede finansiering af kurser i handicapforståelse, som det fremgår af tabel 5, fandt sted i perioden 2001-2003, og at den ikke var tilgængelig for alle operatører på daværende tidspunkt.
Moreover, the Commission considers it unlikely that compensation still being paid in the present day, but based on financial arrangements set out nearly 40 years ago, could constitute the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical, well run and adequately equipped undertaking.
Kommissionen konkluderer som følge heraf, at finansieringen af kurser i handicapforståelse giver Dublin Bus og Bus Éireann en selektiv økonomisk fordel, eftersom de slipper for en byrde, som de ellers ville have haft i forbindelse med deres virksomhed.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the fourth Altmark condition is not met, and considers that the Altmark conditions are not fulfilled, since the four criteria are cumulative.
Konkurrencefordrejning og indvirkning på samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne
The School Transport Scheme relieves Bus Éireann of expenses it would normally have to bear in the operation of that activity, which it could not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Det skal endvidere efterprøves, om den økonomiske fordel, der indrømmes ved hjælp af statsmidler, kan fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og dermed påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The Commission therefore concludes that the funding of the School Transport Scheme confers a selective economic advantage on Bus Éireann.
Der bemærkes i denne henseende følgende i Altmark-dommen [48]:
With regard to the presence of an advantage resulting from the financing of disability awareness training, the Commission noted in the Opening Decision that the public financing of disability awareness training should normally be financed by undertakings, since it relieves them of a burden they would normally have to bear in the operation of their business.
»(…) det [er] på ingen måde (…) udelukket, at et offentligt tilskud til en virksomhed, som alene leverer lokale eller regionale transportydelser, og som ikke leverer transportydelser uden for den oprindelige medlemsstat, ikke desto mindre kan have indvirkning på samhandelen mellem medlemsstater [49].«
Nevertheless, the Commission noted that this type of training might have a social character and might improve the mobility of the disabled people.
Når en medlemsstat yder et offentligt tilskud til en virksomhed, kan den pågældende virksomheds stilling inden for levering af transportydelser derved blive opretholdt eller styrket med den konsekvens, at chancerne for de virksomheder, der er etableret i de øvrige medlemsstater, for at levere transportydelser på denne medlemsstats marked herved blive formindskede [50].
Ireland argues that the financing of disability awareness training is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and that it does not distort or threaten to distort competition, or affect trade between Member States.
Dette er i denne sag ikke blot en hypotetisk konstatering, idet flere medlemsstater, som det bl.a. fremgår af Kommissionens indlæg, siden 1995 er begyndt at åbne 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.
However Ireland does not provide any reasoning for these arguments.
Det bemærkes endelig, at i henhold til Domstolens faste praksis findes der ikke en grænseværdi eller en procentsats, hvorunder samhandelen mellem medlemsstater ikke vil blive påvirket.
Ireland further points out that since 2006, financing of disability awareness training has been available to private operators on the same terms as those provided to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann [47].
Den omstændighed, at en støtte er forholdsvis ubetydelig, eller at den støttemodtagende virksomhed er af beskeden størrelse, udelukker således ikke på forhånd, at samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne kan være påvirket [51].
In this regard the Commission notes that the financing for disability awareness training examined in this decision occurred in the period 2001-03, as set out in Table 5, and at the time of that financing it was not available to all operators.
Den anden betingelse for anvendelse af traktatens artikel 92, stk. 1, i henhold til hvilken støtten skal kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstater, afhænger derfor ikke af, om de leverede transportydelser er lokale eller regionale, eller af størrelsen af det omhandlede aktivitetsområde.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the financing of disability awareness training confers a selective economic advantage on Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann since it relieves them of a burden they would normally have to bear in the operation of their business.
Kommissionen finder derfor, at den offentlige støtte, der er omhandlet i den foreliggende sag, kan påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne og fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene i det indre marked.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
Konklusion om forekomsten af statsstøtte
It furthermore needs to be verified whether the economic advantage granted from State resources is liable to distort competition and to thereby affect trade between Member States.
Kommissionen kan på baggrund af det ovenfor anførte fastslå, at alle de omhandlede foranstaltninger udgør statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
In this respect, as the Altmark judgment [48] points out:
Kvalificering af foranstaltningerne som eksisterende støtte
‘It is not impossible that a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States [49].’
Irland påstår, at alle de omhandlede foranstaltninger udgør eksisterende støtte i henhold til artikel 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999.
Where a Member State grants a public subsidy to an undertaking, the supply of transport services by that undertaking may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of providing their transport services in the market in that Member State [50].
Kommissionen vil undersøge denne påstand i det følgende afsnit.
In this case, that finding is not merely hypothetical, since, as appears in particular from the observations of the Commission, several Member States have, since 1995, started to open 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.
Generelle bemærkninger
Finally, according to the Court's case-law, there is no threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected.
Ny støtte defineres i artikel 1, litra c), i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 som »enhver støtte, dvs. støtteordninger og individuel støtte, som ikke er eksisterende støtte, herunder ændringer i eksisterende støtte«.
The relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected [51].
Kommissionen konstaterede i indledningsafgørelsen, at på det tidspunkt, hvor transportlovene og den første nationale udviklingsplan (for 1993-1999) trådte i kraft, var markedet for offentlige transporttjenester (herunder vejtransport i byer, forstæder og regioner) lukket for konkurrence inden for EU.
The second condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, does not therefore depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.
De pågældende foranstaltninger udgjorde derfor ikke statsstøtte på dette tidspunkt.
The Commission thus considers the public financing at issue in the current case might affect inter-State trade and distort or threaten to distort competition in the internal market.
Som det fremgår af Altmark-dommen, blev markedet for transporttjenester ikke åbnet som følge af en liberalisering af området iværksat af EU, men ved at visse medlemsstater besluttede det uafhængigt og spontant.
Classification of the measures as existing aid
Markedet for offentlig personbefordring blev imidlertid åbnet for konkurrence i henhold til EU-retten pr. 3. december 2009, hvor forordning (EF) nr. 1370/2007 trådte i kraft.
Ireland claims that all of the measures at issue constitute existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Det fremgår af fast retspraksis [53], at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der er blevet indført en ny støtteforanstaltning eller sket en ændring af en eksisterende støtteordning — når støtten har hjemmel i en tidligere lovgivning, som ikke er blevet ændret — ikke kan vurderes på grundlag af støttens størrelse og navnlig ikke på grundlag af det støttebeløb, som der på forskellige tidspunkter er tale om for den pågældende virksomhed.
The Commission will examine this claim in the following section.
Ved afgørelsen af, om en støtte er blevet ændret, er det med andre ord vigtigt at undersøge, om de bestemmelser, som støtten har hjemmel i, er blevet ændret.
General observations
Det er i øvrigt kun i det tilfælde, hvor ændringen påvirker selve indholdet af den oprindelige ordning, at denne ordning bliver en ny støtteordning [54].
Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 defines new aid as ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
Det er kun væsentlige ændringer, der bevirker, at eksisterende støtte bliver til ny støtte [55].
Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 considers as existing aid ‘aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State’.
Kommissionen vil gennemgå de enkelte foranstaltninger ud fra disse principper for at afgøre, om de kan anses for at være eksisterende støtte, sådan som Irland påstår.
Article 1(b)(v) further provides that ‘[w]here certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by Community law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation.’.
Kommissionen kom i indledningsafgørelsen frem til den foreløbige konklusion, at indførelsen af årlige aftalememoranda fra og med 2003 ændrede kompensationsordningen for de to busselskaber, således at de kompensationer for offentlige serviceforpligtelser, der oprindeligt var baseret på transportlovene, regnet fra 2003 kunne anses for at være ny støtte i henhold til artikel 1, litra c), i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission noted that when the Transport Acts and the first National Development Plan (1993-99) were put into effect, the market for public transport services (including urban, suburban and regional transport by road) was closed to competition throughout the Union.
Irland argumenterede dog i sit efterfølgende svar på indledningsafgørelsen, at de årlige aftalememoranda ikke ændrede støtten hvad angik de årlige driftskompensationer til de to busselskaber, og at der blot var tale om en administrativ ændring, der skulle gøre det lettere at forvalte støtten til CIÉ.
Therefore, at that time those measures did not constitute State aid, since they did not have the potential to distort competition, the relevant markets being closed to competition.
Den samlede støtte, der tildeles i form af årlige driftskompensationer, anvendes ifølge Irland til at kompensere for den retlige forpligtelse til at varetage offentlig trafikbetjening, der er fastsat i transportlovene.
Since the Altmark judgment, the Commission has accepted, in its subsequent decisional practice [52], that since 1995 the market for public transport services has been de facto opened to competition in parts of the internal market.
Irland pegede i denne forbindelse på, at aftalememorandaene ikke har retsvirkning i henhold til irsk ret.
As pointed out in the Altmark judgment, the market for transport services had not been opened following a liberalisation of an activity by Union law, but rather a result of independent and spontaneous decisions of some Member States.
Dette støttede Irland på en dom fra Irish Supreme Court [56], hvori der fastslås følgende [fremhævelse tilføjet]: »Der er […] intet som helst grundlag for at anse [den administrative retsakt] eller en del heraf for at være »underlagt« aftalememorandummet.
As of 3 December 2009, however, the market for public passenger transport has been opened to competition by Union law by the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Dette er ikke et fortolkningsspørgsmål, men et principspørgsmål.
According to settled case-law [53], the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered.
På den anden side har Irland oplyst, at der af aftalememorandummet for Dublin Bus og Bus Éireann for henholdsvis 2003 og 2007 fremgår følgende:
In other words, to establish whether an aid has been altered, it is decisive to examine whether the provisions providing for it have been altered.
»Dette aftalememorandum om servicestandarder og -mål har ingen retsvirkning og er ikke bindende for Bus Átha Cliath [Dublin Bus] eller transportministeriet.«
Moreover, it is only where the alteration affects the actual substance of the original scheme that the latter is transformed into a new aid scheme [54].
Der bestemmes endvidere følgende i aftalememorandummet for Bus Éireann for 2003:
On the basis of these principles, the Commission will examine in relation to each of the measures at issue whether they can be considered to constitute existing aid as Ireland contends.