natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det første fandt EFTA-Domstolen, at begrundelsen for beslutningen ikke var fyldestgørende, da Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke havde gjort rede for, hvordan forlængelsen af koncessionen fra 1. januar 2000 kunne betegnes som en del af en eksisterende støtteordning, eller hvorfor den ikke kunne betragtes som en relevant ændring af denne støtteordning [2].
Firstly, the EFTA Court found that the Decision was inadequately reasoned, in that the Authority had failed to explain how the renewal of the concession, as of 1 January 2000, could be classified as part of an existing aid scheme, or why it could not be considered to be a relevant alteration of that aid scheme [2].
EFTA-Domstolen konkluderede således, at Tilsynsmyndigheden burde have indledt den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure for at blive informeret om forholdene i det omfang, dette var muligt.
Thus, the EFTA Court concluded that the Authority should have opened the formal investigation procedure in order to become, to the extent possible, fully informed of the facts.
Sagsøgers anbringende vedrørende samme spørgsmål med hensyn til perioden 2000-2008 blev også anset for begrundet [3].
The applicant’s plea addressing the same issues with regard to the period 2000 – 2008 was also declared well founded [3].
For det tredje fandt EFTA-Domstolen ikke, at Tilsynsmyndigheden havde fastslået, hvorvidt kapitalindsprøjtningen alene vedrørte manglende dækning af pensionsforpligtelser, der var opstået i forbindelse med opfyldelsen forpligtelserne til offentlig tjeneste, eller om den også dækkede andre aktiviteter.
Thirdly, the EFTA Court held that the Authority had failed to identify whether the capital injection only concerned unfunded pension liabilities that arose in connection with the discharge of public service obligations, or also covered other activities.
Da EFTA-Domstolen ikke kunne gennemgå beslutningen i relation til sagsøgers påstand om, at kapitalindsprøjtningen ikke svarede til en betaling for leverede transportydelser, statuerede Domstolen begrundelsesmangel [4].
As the EFTA Court could not review the Decision in relation to the applicant’s claim that the capital injection did not correspond to a payment for transport services provided, this amounted to a lack of reasoning [4].
Omvurdering af klagen
Re-assessment of the complaint
Klager har påstået, at følgende foranstaltninger kan omfatte ulovlig statsstøtte:
The complainant has alleged that the following measures may involve unlawful state aid:
krydssubsidiering mellem de fire selskaber AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS og Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS [5]
Cross-subsidies between the four companies AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS [5],
en kapitalindsprøjtning på 41499000 NOK foretaget i 2004 af AS Oslo Sporveier til AS Sporveisbussene
A capital injection of NOK 41499000 made in 2004 by AS Oslo Sporveier into AS Sporveisbussene,
gunstige skattemæssige forhold erhvervet i et ikkekonkurrencebetonet marked, der gjorde det muligt for AS Sporveisbussene at undgå at betale skat af overskuddet
A favourable tax position acquired in a non-competitive market, allowing AS Sporveisbussene to avoid paying tax on profits, and
garantier fra AS Sporveisbussene til fordel for datterselskaberne Arctic Express AS og Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS.
Guarantees granted by AS Sporveisbussene to the benefit of its subsidiaries Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS.
Tilsynsmyndigheden igangsatte en omvurdering af klagen og anmodede ved e-mail af 25. oktober 2011 (registreringsnr. 613053) de norske myndigheder om yderligere oplysninger.
The Authority commenced a reassessment of the complaint, and by e-mail dated 25 October 2011 to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 613053) requested additional information.
Ved brev af 27. januar 2012 (registreringsnr. 622888) anmodede Tilsynsmyndigheden de norske myndigheder om yderligere oplysninger [6].
By letter dated 27 January 2012 (Event No 622888), the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities [6].
Disse besvarede anmodningen ved brev af 22. februar 2012 (registreringsnr. 625908, 625916, 625949, 626065 og 626066) og e-mails af 5. marts 2012 (registreringsnr. 627096 og 627097).
The Norwegian authorities responded by letter dated 22 February 2012 (Events No 625908, 625916, 625949, 626065 and 626066) and e-mails of 5 March 2012 (Events No 627096 and 627097).
Formel undersøgelse
Formal investigation
Ved beslutning nr. 123/12/KOL af 28. marts 2012 ("beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure") iværksatte Tilsynsmyndigheden den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure efter protokol 2, del I, artikel 1, stk. 2, i henseende til den eventuelle støtte til AS Oslo Sporveier og AS Sporveisbussene.
By Decision No 123/12/COL of 28 March 2012 (“the opening decision”) the Authority initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 in respect of the potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.
Ved brev af samme dato (registreringsnr. 627869) meddelte Tilsynsmyndigheden de norske myndigheder sin beslutning og opfordrede dem til at fremsende bemærkninger.
By letter of the same date (Event No 627869), the Authority informed the Norwegian authorities of its decision and invited them to submit comments.
Ved brev af 4. juni 2012 (registreringsnr. 636738) fremsendte de norske myndigheder bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren.
By letter dated 4 June 2012 (Event No 636738), the Norwegian authorities submitted comments to the opening decision.
Ved e-mail af 28. juni 2012 (registreringsnr. 639422) anmodede Tilsynsmyndigheden om yderligere oplysninger.
By e-mail of 28 June 2012 (Event No 639422), the Authority requested further information.
Ved e-mail af 7. september 2012 (registreringsnr. 645982) besvarede de norske myndigheder denne anmodning.
By e-mail of 7 September 2012 (Event No 645982), the Norwegian authorities responded.
Ved e-mails udvekslet mellem den 9. og 23. november 2012 (registreringsnr. 653229, 653257, 653526, 654300, 654332, 654345 og 654470) udbad Tilsynsmyndigheden sig og modtog yderligere oplysninger fra de norske myndigheder.
By e-mails exchanged between 9 and 23 November 2012 (Events No 653229, 653257, 653526, 654300, 654332, 654345 and 654470), the Authority requested and received, from the Norwegian authorities, further information.
Beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure blev offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende og EØS-tillægget [7].
The opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement to it [7].
Tilsynsmyndigheden opfordrede interesserede parter til at fremsende deres bemærkninger til denne beslutning.
The Authority called on interested parties to submit their comments on the opening decision.
Tilsynsmyndigheden modtog bemærkninger fra to interesserede parter.
The Authority received comments from two interested parties.
Ved brev af 2. august 2012 (registreringsnr. 643450) modtog Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærkninger fra klageren, Konkurrenten.no AS.
By letter dated 2 August 2012 (Event No 643450), the Authority received comments from the complainant, Konkurrenten.no AS.
Ved brev af 6. august 2012 (registreringsnr. 643459) modtog Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærkninger fra Risdal Touring AS, et søsterselskab til klageren.
By letter dated 6 August 2012 (Event No 643459), the Authority received comments from Risdal Touring AS, a sister company of the complainant.
Ved brev af 4. september 2012 (registreringsnr. 645575) fremsendte Tilsynsmyndigheden disse bemærkninger til de norske myndigheder.
By letter dated 4 September 2012 (Event No 645575), the Authority forwarded those comments to the Norwegian authorities.
Ved brev af 3. oktober 2012 (registreringsnr. 648581) meddelte de norske myndigheder Tilsynsmyndigheden, at de ikke havde bemærkninger til de to interesserede parters betragtninger.
By letter dated 3 October 2012 (Event No 648581), the Norwegian authorities informed the Authority that they had no comments to the observations from the two interested parties.
BESLUTNING OM AT INDLEDE DEN FORMELLE UNDERSØGELSESPROCEDURE
THE DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
De norske myndigheder bekræftede, at AS Oslo Sporveier ikke havde ydet garantier [8].
The Norwegian authorities confirmed that AS Oslo Sporveier had not granted any guarantees [8].
Tilsynsmyndigheden konkluderede derfor, at klagerens påstand vedrørende garantierne var ubegrundet [9].
Therefore, the Authority concluded that the allegation of the complainant concerning the guarantees were without object [9].
Tilsynsmyndigheden nærede dog ingen tvivl med hensyn til de resterede foranstaltninger, der var omfattet af klagen.
The Authority did however have doubts concerning the remaining measures covered by the complaint.
Den besluttede derfor at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure vedrørende følgende tre foranstaltninger:
Therefore, it decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure with regard to the following three measures:
kompensationen for rutebuskørsel i Oslo betalt til AS Oslo Sporveier og AS Sporveisbussene i perioden fra den 1. januar 1994 til den 30. marts 2008 ("den årlige kompensation")
the compensation for scheduled bus services in Oslo paid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene during the period 1 January 1994 – 30 March 2008 (“the annual compensation”);
kapitalindsprøjtning betalt af Oslo kommune i 2004 ("kapitalindsprøjtningen i 2004") til dækning af et akkumuleret underskud i pensionskassen i relation til:
the capital injection paid by Oslo Municipality in 2004 (“the 2004 capital injection”), which covered an accrued pension fund shortfall related to:
a. levering af offentlig tjeneste ("kapitalindsprøjtning til offentlig tjeneste")
a. the provision of public services (“the public service capital injection”), as well as to
b. kommerciel virksomhed ("kapitalindsprøjtning til kommerciel virksomhed")
b. commercial activities (“the commercial activities capital injection”); and
anvendelsen af koncernbeskatningsbestemmelser ("foranstaltning vedrørende koncernbeskatning").
the application of the group taxation rules (“the group taxation measure”).
BAGGRUND – GÆLDENDE LOVGIVNING OM LOKAL RUTEBUSKØRSEL
BACKGROUND – THE CURRENT LEGISLATION ON LOCAL SCHEDULED BUS TRANSPORT
Lov om yrkestransport med motorvogn og fartøy (yrkestransportlova) af 2002 og forskrift om yrkestransport innenlands med motorvogn og fartøy (yrkestransportforskriften) af 2003
Commercial Transport Act 2002 and Commercial Transport Regulation 2003
Sektoren for lokal rutebusdrift er for nærværende omfattet af lov om yrkestransport med motorvogn og fartøy af 2002 ("LY") [10] og forskrift om yrkestransport innenlands med motorvogn og fartøy af 2003 ("FY") [11].
At present, the local bus transport sector is regulated by the Commercial Transport Act of 2002 (the “CTA”) [10] and the Commercial Transport Regulation of 2003 (the “CTR”) [11].
LY ophævede og erstattede loven om yrkestransport af 1976 [12].
The CTA repealed and replaced the Transport Act of 1976 [12].
FY ophævede og erstattede to forskrifter [13].
The CTR repealed and replaced two regulations [13].
De norske myndigheder har bekræftet, at de relevante bestemmelser ikke var blevet ændret i nævneværdig grad siden EØS-aftalens ikrafttræden i 1994.
The Norwegian authorities have confirmed that the relevant provisions have not been significantly altered since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994.
Fylkernes administrative ansvar
Administrative responsibility of the counties
I Norge er fylkerne ansvarlige for levering af offentlig lokaltransport.
In Norway, the responsibility for providing local public transport services is conferred on the counties.
Fylkerne har dog ikke pligt til at tilbyde disse ydelser.
However, the counties are not under any obligation to offer such services.
Fylkerne kan enten administrere lokal rutebuskørsel gennem deres egne enheder eller gennem et administrationsselskab [14], som fylket opretter.
The counties can either administer local bus transport services through their own organisation or through an administrative company [14] set up by the county.
Det bestemmes i LY, at når fylket opretter et administrationsselskab, afsættes midlerne til at finansiere lokal rutebuskørsel til dette selskab [15].
The CTA provides that when the county sets up an administrative company, the funds intended for the financing of the local bus transport services will be allocated to that company [15].
Administrationsselskaberne kan enten købe rutebusydelserne hos en tredjepart eller selv levere ydelserne.
The administrative companies can either obtain the bus transport services from a third party, or provide the services themselves.
Statens og fylkernes delte finansiering af lokale transportydelser
Co-financing of local transport services by the State and counties
Fylkerne finansierer delvist de lokale transportydelser via skatteindtægter.
The counties partly finance the local transport services with tax revenue.
Derudover modtager fylkerne i medfør af LY statsmidler i form af et årligt bloktilskud [16].
In addition, under the CTA the counties receive state funding by way of annual block grants [16].
Størrelsen af dette bloktilskud bestemmes ud fra fylkernes behov for midler fra staten.
The amount of the grants is determined on the basis of the extent to which the counties need contributions from the State.
Fylkerne skal derfor tilsende Transportministeriet budgetter, regnskaber og andre oplysninger af relevans for vurderingen af behovet for statsmidler [17].
Therefore the counties have to provide the Ministry of Transport with budgets, accounts and other relevant information necessary to assess the need for contributions [17].
De norske myndigheder har fremført, at det ville få følger for fremtidige tilskud, hvis et fylke reducerede den del af bloktilskuddet, der blev brugt til finansiering af udgifter til lokal rutebustransport.
The Norwegian authorities have stated that in the event that a county reduced the amount of the block grant used for the financing of local scheduled transport costs, this would have consequences for future grants.
Koncessioner
Concessions
I henhold til LY skal man have en koncession for at kunne levere bustransportydelser mod betaling (dvs. betaling fra brugerne (passagerne) af transportydelserne) [18].
Under the CTA, concessions are required to carry out passenger transport services by bus for remuneration (i.e. for payment by the users (the passengers) of the transport services) [18].
Busselskaber, der leverer rutebuskørsel mod betaling, skal have både en generel og en særlig koncession.
Both a general and a special concession are needed for operators of scheduled passenger transport services by bus for remuneration.
Generel koncession til passagertransport
General concession for passenger transport
Virksomheder, der leverer passagertransportydelser mod betaling, skal have en generel koncession [19].
Undertakings providing passenger transport services for remuneration must have a general concession [19].
For at få en sådan skal ansøgeren i) fremvise en vandelsattest, ii) have tilstrækkelige økonomiske midler og kapacitet og iii) have de nødvendige faglige kvalifikationer [20].
In order to obtain a general concession, the applicant must (i) provide a certificate of good conduct, (ii) have satisfactory financial means and abilities, and (iii) have satisfactory professional qualifications [20].
Generelle koncessioner er ikke begrænset i tid [21].
General concessions are not time limited [21].
3.4.3. Særlige koncessioner til rutebuskørsel
Special concessions for scheduled passenger transport
Ud over den generelle koncession skal en virksomhed, der ønsker at levere rutebuskørsel mod betaling, have en særlig koncession [22].
In addition to the general concession, any undertaking wishing to carry out scheduled passenger transport for remuneration must have a special concession [22].
Der findes to typer særlige koncessioner: i) områdekoncessioner og ii) rutespecifikke koncessioner.
There are two types of special concessions: (i) area concessions, and (ii) route specific concessions.
Områdekoncessionen er uspecificeret, for så vidt som den giver koncessionaren ret til at levere rutebuskørsel i hele det omfattede område, i det omfang der ikke er givet andre rutespecifikke koncessioner i området.
The area concession is of a residual nature, in that it permits its holder to operate scheduled bus transport services in the entire area covered, in so far as other route specific concessions have not been granted in the area.
Indehaveren af en rutespecifik koncession er den eneste enhed, der har ret til at levere rutebuskørsel på den pågældende rute.
The holder of a route specific concession is the sole entity entitled to operate scheduled bus transport on that route.
Den særlige koncession giver koncessionaren både ret og pligt til at levere den transportydelse, der er omfattet af koncessionen [23].
The special concession confers upon the concessionaire both a right and a duty to carry out the transport service as set out in the concession [23].
En ansøger til en særlig koncession skal indsende et forslag til ruteplan og transporttakster [24].
When applying for a special concession, a proposal for a transportation schedule and tariffs must be submitted [24].
Køreplaner og takster kontrolleres af fylket [25].
Schedules and tariffs are subject to the control of the counties [25].
Fylket kan kræve ændringer i planer og takster [26].
The counties can order changes in the schedules and tariffs [26].
De særlige koncessioner kan enten tildeles i) gennem udbudsprocedurer (tildelt for en bestemt periode i en udbudsprocedure [27], som under alle omstændigheder ikke kan overstige 10 år [28]), eller ii) direkte uden udbudsprocedure (tildelt for en 10-årig periode [29]).
The special concessions can either be awarded (i) through tender procedures (granted for the period determined in the tender procedure [27], which in any event will not be for a longer period than 10 years [28]), or (ii) directly without the use of a tender (granted for a 10 year period) [29].
Billetsystemer
Ticketing systems
Koncessionarernes billetsystemer skal godkendes af kommunerne [30].
The concessionaires must deploy ticketing systems approved by the counties [30].
Som supplement til koncessionerne kan fylkerne indgå kontrakter med koncessionarerne om levering af den offentlige tjeneste.
To complement the concessions, the counties may enter into contracts with the concessionaires about the provision of the public service.
Fylkerne kan frit bestemme disse kontrakters form [31].
The counties are free to determine the form of these contracts [31].
Kompensation til koncessionarerne
Compensation to the concessionaires
Fylkerne er ansvarlige for at yde kompensation til koncessionarerne [32].
The counties are responsible for compensating the concessionaires [32].
Kompensation gives kun til virksomheder, der driver urentable ruter (f.eks. til dækning af differencen mellem indtægterne fra billetsalg og driftsudgifterne).
Compensation is only granted to undertakings that operate unprofitable routes (i.e. where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service).
Ifølge de norske myndigheder har fylket i henhold til artikel 22 i LY pligt til at kompensere operatører for den drift af urentable ruter, som fylket ønsker at oprette eller bevare i sin region [33].
According to the Norwegian authorities, under Article 22 CTA the county is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes it wishes to establish or maintain within its region [33].
Fylkerne kan selv bestemme, hvordan koncessionarerne skal kompenseres. LY og FY indeholder ingen bestemmelser om, hvordan kompensationen skal gives.
The counties are free to determine the manner in which the concessionaires are to be compensated; the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the compensation is to be provided.
Tilsynsmyndighedens forståelse er, at artikel 22 i LY giver mulighed for at yde kompensation til dækning af omkostningerne ved den offentlige tjeneste (herunder et rimeligt overskud) minus billetindtægterne, og at kompensation herudover ikke kan begrundes i LY.
The Authority understands that Article 22 CTA is read as allowing for compensation to cover the cost of the public service (including a reasonable profit) minus the ticket revenues, and that compensation beyond that could not be based on the CTA.
YDERLIGERE BAGGRUND – LOVGIVNING FØR EØS OM RUTEBUSKØRSEL – TRANSPORTLOV AF 1976
FURTHER BACKGROUND –PRE-EEA LEGISLATION ON SCHEDULED PUBLIC TRANSPORT –TRANSPORT ACT OF 1976
Som svar på beslutningen om at indlede proceduren har de norske myndigheder fremlagt oplysninger om kompensationssystemet for lokal rutebuskørsel set i et historisk perspektiv.
In response to the opening decision, the Norwegian authorities have provided more information on the history of the system of compensation for local scheduled transport services.
Centraliseret statsligt ansvar for lokal rutebuskørsel
Centralised State responsibility for local scheduled transport
De norske myndigheder har forklaret, at staten (Transportministeriet), dengang transportloven af 1976 trådte i kraft [34], var ansvarlig for lokal rutebuskørsel.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the State (the Ministry of Transport) at the time of the entry into force of the Transport Act of 1976 [34] was responsible for local scheduled transport services.
Statslige transportvirksomheder leverede den lokale rutebuskørsel i hvert fylke.
State transport agencies managed the local scheduled transport in each county.
Decentraliseringsproces
De-centralisation process
Kort tid efter at transportloven af 1976 trådte i kraft, blev en decentraliseringsproces iværksat.
Shortly after the entry into force of the Transport Act of 1976, a de-centralisation process was initiated.
Fra den 1. januar 1979 kunne Transportministeriets beføjelser uddelegeres til fylkerne.
From 1 January 1979, the powers of the Ministry of Transport could be delegated to the county.
Samtidig blev de statslige transportvirksomheder ændret til kommunale administrationsorganer.
At the same time, the State transport agencies were turned into county administrative bodies.
I 1981 kunne staten efter indførelsen af artikel 24a i transportloven af 1976 ved at yde økonomisk støtte til fylkerne overdrage ansvaret for at finansiere lokal rutebuskørsel til disse [35].
In 1981, with the introduction of Article 24a to the Transport Act of 1976, by providing funding to the counties, the State could confer the responsibility for financing local scheduled transport to the counties [35].
I Oslo trådte artikel 24a i kraft i 1983, da Oslo kommune (der også er et fylke) [36] for første gang modtog en sådan finansiering.
In Oslo, Article 24a became applicable in 1983, when Oslo Municipality (which is also a county) [36] first received such funding.
Forskriften af 1980
The 1980 Regulation
Et andet vigtigt element i decentraliseringsprocessen var forskrift af 19. december 1980 om kompensation for levering af lokal rutebuskørsel ("forskriften af 1980").
Another important element of the de-centralisation process was the Regulation of 19 December 1980 on compensation for providing local scheduled transport (“the 1980 Regulation”).
Det fastslås i denne forskrifts artikel 1, at fylket er ansvarligt for at finansiere lokal rutebuskørsel.
Article 1 of the 1980 Regulation states that the county has the responsibility to finance local scheduled transport.
I henhold til artikel 3 fastlægges kompensationens størrelse årligt på grundlag af forskellen mellem anslået indkomst ifølge de fastlagte takster og rabatter og rimelige omkostninger.
Pursuant to Article 3, the amount of the compensation shall be decided on an annual basis, based on the difference between estimated income according to the decided tariffs and discounts, and reasonable costs.