natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Concessions to provide new services or to extend the scope of existing services could be granted only to the extent they did not impinge on the rights of other scheduled services operators, so that the refusals to start new services or extend existing services were the result of a balancing of interests of different economic operators, rather than the consequence of imposing public service obligations as alleged by Simet.
Koncesije za pružanje novih usluga ili proširivanje opsega postojećih usluga mogle su biti dodijeljene samo do mjere u kojoj ne narušavaju prava drugih operatera linijskog prijevoza, tako da su odbijenice u pogledu započinjanja novih ili proširenja postojećih usluga bile rezultat uspostavljanja ravnoteže između interesa različitih poslovnih subjekata, a ne posljedica uvođenja obveza pružanja javne usluge, kao što je tvrdio Simet.
Consequently, Simet has not shown that the Italian authorities unilaterally imposed a public service obligation upon it.
Slijedom toga, Simet nije dokazao da su mu talijanska tijela jednostrano uvela obvezu pružanja javne usluge.
Does the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69?
Udovoljava li naknada plaćena u skladu s tom obvezom odredbama Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69?
In any event, even if a unilateral imposition of public service obligations were shown to exist in some form, the compensation for those services, in order to be exempted from prior notification under Article 17(2) of that Regulation, would still need to comply with the common compensation procedure (Section IV) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
U svakom slučaju, čak i da se pokazalo da je postojao neki oblik jednostranog uvođenja obveza pružanja javne usluge, naknada za te usluge, kako bi je se izuzelo od prethodnog obavješćivanja iz članka 17. stavka 2. ove Uredbe, i dalje bi trebala udovoljavati zajedničkom postupku isplate naknade (odjeljak IV.) Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
The Commission does not consider this to be the case.
Komisija smatra da to nije slučaj.
First, the Commission notes that Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provides, inter alia, that the amount of the compensation must, in the case of an obligation to operate or to carry, be equal to the difference between the reduction in financial burden and the reduction in revenue of the undertaking if the whole or the relevant part of the obligation in question were terminated for the period of time under consideration.
Kao prvo, Komisija napominje da se člankom 10. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69. među ostalim predviđa da iznos naknade, u slučaju obveze rada ili prijevoza, mora biti jednak razlici između smanjenja financijskih obveza i smanjena prihoda poduzeća da se cijela obveza ili njezin odgovarajući dio ukine za promatrano vremensko razdoblje.
The Commission further notes that, according to the Court of Justice in the Antrop judgment, the requirement set out in that provision is not fulfilled where ‘it is not possible to ascertain on the basis of reliable data [from the company’s accounts] the difference between the costs imputable to the parts of [its] activities in the areas covered by the respective concessions and the corresponding income and consequently it is not possible to calculate the additional cost deriving from the performance of public service obligations by [that undertaking]’ [38].
Komisija nadalje navodi da, prema stavu Europskoga suda u presudi u predmetu Antrop, uvjet predviđen navedenom odredbom nije ispunjen ako „na osnovi pouzdanih podataka [iz računovodstva trgovačkoga društva] nije moguće utvrditi razliku između troškova koji se mogu pripisati dijelovima djelatnosti [trgovačkoga društva] u područjima obuhvaćenim pojedinim koncesijama i odgovarajućih prihoda te ako zbog toga nije moguće izračunati dodatni trošak koji proizlazi iz vršenja obveza javne službe od strane [tog poduzeća]” [38].
Moreover, as of 1 July 1992, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, by virtue of Article 1(5)(a) thereof, requires transport undertakings which operate not only services subject to public service obligations but also engage in other activities to operate the public services as separate divisions, whereby: (i) the operating accounts corresponding to each of those activities are separate and the proportion of the assets pertaining to each is used in accordance with the accounting rules in force, and (ii) expenditure is balanced by operating revenue and payments from public authorities, without any possibility of transfer from or to another sector of the undertaking’s activity.
Nadalje, od 1. srpnja 1992., člankom 1. stavkom 5. točkom (a) Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, od prijevoznih se poduzeća koje ne upravljaju samo uslugama podložnim obvezama pružanja javne usluge nego se bave i drugim djelatnostima zahtijeva da upravljaju javnim uslugama kao zasebnom kategorijom, pri čemu: i. poslovni računi koji odgovaraju svakoj od tih djelatnosti razdvojeni su, a razmjer imovine koji se odnosi na svaku od njih koristi se u skladu s računovodstvenim pravilima koja su na snazi i ii. izdaci su u ravnoteži s prihodima od poslovanja i plaćanjima javnih tijela, bez ikakve mogućnosti prebacivanja iz jednog sektora djelatnosti poduzeća u drugi.
In the present case, Simet failed to implement a proper account separation for the different services provided by it until 2002 and the robustness of the cost accounts as regards account separation for the years 2002 and 2003 can be called into question since there is no evidence that those cost accounts were used by the company’s governance bodies to exercise control over its operations.
U konkretnom slučaju, Simet sve do 2002. nije provodio pravilno računovodstveno razdvajanje za različite usluge koje je pružao, a temeljitost u pogledu računovodstvenog razdvajanja troškovnih računa za godine 2002. i 2003. može se smatrati upitnom jer nema dokaza da su upravljačka tijela trgovačkoga društva koristila te troškovne račune za provođenje nadzora nad njegovim djelovanjem.
Article 10 has therefore not been complied with.
Dakle, nije se udovoljilo članku 10.
Second, Simet has not demonstrated that ‘economic disadvantages … were determined taking into account the effects of the obligation on the undertaking’s activities as a whole’ (Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69), nor was the requirement to fix the amount of compensation in advance (Article 13 of the Regulation) fulfilled, as explained in section 7.1.2.
Kao drugo, Simet nije pokazao da je ekonomska šteta utvrđena… „uzimajući u obzir učinke obveze na poslovanje poduzeća u cjelini” (članak 5. stavak 1. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69), niti je ispunjen zahtjev za utvrđivanjem iznosa naknade unaprijed (članak 13. Uredbe), kao što je objašnjeno u odjeljku 7.1.2.
Finally, the compensation period of the notified measure covers 1987 to 2003. However, the common compensation procedure applied to inter-regional bus services only until July 1992 and was subsequently restricted to ‘urban, suburban, or regional passenger transport services’ by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 [39].
Konačno, razdoblje naknade za prijavljenu mjeru obuhvaća razdoblje od 1987. do 2003.. Međutim, zajednički postupak isplate naknade primjenjivao se na usluge međuregionalnog autobusnog prijevoza samo do srpnja 1992., a potom je ograničen na „usluge gradskog, prigradskog ili regionalnog putničkog prijevoza” Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1893/91 [39].
The definition of ‘regional services’ provided in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (‘transport services operated to meet the transport needs of a region’) cannot be extended to cover all transport services serving the needs of the population of a region and therefore also to cover inter-regional routes.
Definicija „regionalne usluge” iz Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 („usluge prijevoza koje se obavljaju kako bi se zadovoljile prijevozne potrebe neke regije”) ne može se proširiti kako bi obuhvatila sve prijevozne usluge koje služe potrebama stanovništva u nekoj regiji te stoga ne može obuhvatiti ni međuregionalne linije.
This is because such a wide interpretation would have rendered the Regulation largely ineffective, as Member States were in any event allowed to exclude its application to undertakings whose activities were confined exclusively to the ‘operation of urban, suburban or regional services’ [40].
Razlog je to što bi tako široko tumačenje učinilo ovu Uredbu u velikoj mjeri neučinkovitom, jer je državama članicama u svakom slučaju bilo dopušteno isključiti njezinu primjenu na poduzeća čije su djelatnosti bile isključivo ograničene na „pružanje gradskih, prigradskih ili regionalnih usluga prijevoza” [40].
The Commission therefore finds that the notified compensation does not comply with the common compensation procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Komisija, dakle, smatra da prijavljena naknada ne udovoljava zajedničkom postupku isplate naknade propisanom Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
Conclusion on the exemption from notification
Zaključak o izuzeću od obavješćivanja
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the compensation the Council of State considers due to Simet for the provision of inter-regional bus transport services in the period 1987-2003 was not exempted from compulsory prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
S obzirom na gore navedeno, Komisija zaključuje da naknada koju prema mišljenju Državnoga vijeća treba isplatiti društvu Simet za pružanje usluga međuregionalnog autobusnog prijevoza u razdoblju od 1987. do 2003. nije bila izuzeta od obveze prethodnog obavješćivanja na temelju članka 17. stavka 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
SPOJIVOST POTPORE
Since it has not been shown that the compensation payments were exempted from prior notification pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the compatibility of those payments with the internal market will need to be examined, as they constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, as explained in section 7.1 above.
Kako se nije pokazalo da su isplate naknade izuzete od obveze prethodnog obavješćivanja prema članku 17. stavku 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, trebat će se ispitati spojivost tih isplata s unutarnjim tržištem, jer predstavljaju državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije, kao što je objašnjeno u gore navedenome odjeljku 7.1.
The Commission considers that the examination of the compatibility of the notified measure should be conducted under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, which entered into force on 3 December 2009 and repealed Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, since that is the legislation in force at the time the present decision is being adopted [41].
Komisija smatra da bi se ispitivanje spojivosti prijavljene mjere trebalo obaviti u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1370/2007, koja je stupila na snagu 3. prosinca 2009. i kojom je stavljena izvan snage Uredba (EEZ) br. 1191/69, jer je to propis koji je na snazi u trenutku donošenja predmetne odluke [41].
It notes in this respect that the compensation awarded to Simet by the Council of State has not yet been paid, so that the date on which the effects of the planned aid would occur is the same as that on which the Commission adopts the decision ruling on the compatibility of the aid with the internal market [42].
Ona u tom pogledu napominje da naknada koje je Državno vijeće dodijelilo društvu Simet još nije isplaćena, tako da se datum kada bi se ostvarili učinci planirane potpore poklapa s datumom donošenja odluke Komisije o spojivosti potpore s unutarnjim tržištem [42].
Moreover, it is questionable that an entitlement to that compensation was irrevocably granted to Simet prior to judgment 1405/2010, delivered by the Council of State on 9 March 2010, which effectively obliges the Italian State to make those payments to that undertaking.
Osim toga, dvojbeno je to što je priznanje prava na ovu naknadu nepovratno dodijeljeno društvu Simet prije presude 1405/2010, koju je donijelo Državno vijeće 9. ožujka 2010., što učinkovito obvezuje državu Italiju na izvršavanje plaćanja tome poduzeću.
As explained in (94) above, the concession specifications upon which Simet relies to demonstrate that a public service obligation was imposed upon it stipulate that the operation of the services does not give the company any right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the provision of those services was operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
Kao što je objašnjeno u gore navedenoj uvodnoj izjavi 94., u specifikacijama koncesije, na osnovi kojih društvo želi pokazati da mu je obveza pružanja javne usluge uvedena, navodi se da pružanje usluga ne daje društvu pravo na subvenciju ili naknadu bilo koje vrste te da se usluge obavljaju u potpunosti na rizik samog društva.
Finally, it should be stressed that the amount of the compensation to be paid to Simet has not yet been decided by the Council of State.
Konačno, trebalo bi naglasiti da Državno vijeće još nije odlučilo o iznosu naknade koji treba isplatiti društvu Simet.
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 governs the award of public service contracts, as defined in Article 2(i) thereof, in the field of public passenger transport by road and by rail.
Uredbom (EZ) br. 1370/2007 uređuje se dodjela ugovora o javnim uslugama, kao što je definirano u njezinu članku 2. stavku 2. točki i., u području cestovnog i željezničkog javnog prijevoza putnika.
Under to Article 9(1) of that Regulation, ‘public service compensation for the operation of public passenger transport services … paid in accordance with this Regulation shall be compatible with the [internal] market. Such compensation shall be exempt from the prior notification requirement laid down in Article [108(3)] of the Treaty.’
U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 1. te Uredbe, „naknada za javnu uslugu obavljanja javnog prijevoza putnika ... koja je plaćena u skladu s ovom Uredbom, sukladna je s [unutarnjim] tržištem. Takva je naknada izuzeta od obveze prethodne prijave utvrđene u članku [108. stavku 3.] Ugovora.”
For the reasons set out below, the Commission considers that the notified compensation does not comply with the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, and so it cannot be declared compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 9(1) of that Regulation.
Zbog razloga iznesenih u nastavku, Komisija smatra da prijavljena naknada ne udovoljava uvjetima iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 te se stoga ne može proglasiti spojivom s unutarnjim tržištem temeljem članka 9. stavka 1. te Uredbe.
In particular, the Commission notes that even if the concession specifications met the requirements under Article 2(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/07 for the definition of a public service contract, not all the provisions of Article 4 of that Regulation, which establishes the mandatory content of public service contracts and general rules, have been complied with.
Komisija posebno napominje da čak i ako su specifikacije koncesije udovoljavale zahtjevima iz članka 2. točke i. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/07 s obzirom na definiciju ugovora o javnim uslugama, nije se udovoljilo svim odredbama članka 4. ove Uredbe, kojim se utvrđuje obvezni sadržaj ugovora o javnim uslugama i općih pravila.
For instance, Article 4(1)(b) requires that the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner in a way that prevents overcompensation, while Article 4(1)(c) and Article 4(2) lay down the arrangements with regard to the allocation of costs and revenues.
Na primjer, člankom 4. stavkom 1. točkom (b) zahtijeva se da se parametri na temelju kojih se računa plaćanje naknade utvrde unaprijed na objektivan i transparentan način koji onemogućuje prekomjernu naknadu, dok se člankom 4. stavkom 1. točkom (c) i člankom 4. stavkom 2. određuju uvjeti raspodjele troškova i prihoda.
As explained in relation to the Commission’s examination of the second criterion of the Altmark judgment in section 7.1.2, the concession specifications at issue stipulated that the operation of the services does not give Simet any right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the service is operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
Kao što je objašnjeno u odnosu na ispitivanje drugog kriterija iz presude u predmetu Altmark u odjeljku 7.1.2, koje je provela Komisija, specifikacijama koncesije o kojima je riječ propisivalo se da pružanje usluga ne daje društvu Simet pravo na subvenciju ili naknadu bilo kakve vrste i da se te usluge pružaju u potpunosti na rizik samog društva.
Such an exclusion of compensation necessarily entails that the compensation parameters have not been established in advance, so that Article 4 of the Regulation has not been complied with.
Takvo izuzeće naknade nužno podrazumijeva da parametri naknade nisu unaprijed utvrđeni, što znači da se nije udovoljilo članku 4. te Uredbe.
Furthermore, Article 6(1) provides that in the case of directly awarded public service contracts, compensation must comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and with the provisions laid down in the Annex to ensure that the compensation does not go beyond what is necessary to carry out the public service obligation.
Nadalje, člankom 6. stavkom 1. predviđa se da u slučaju izravno sklopljenih ugovora o javnim uslugama naknada treba biti u skladu s odredbama Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 i u skladu s odredbama propisanim u Prilogu, kako bi se osiguralo da naknada ne prijeđe iznos potreban za ispunjenje obveza pružanja javne usluge.
That Annex requires, inter alia, a separation of accounts (point (5) and specifies how the maximum amount of compensation should be determined.
Tim se Prilogom, među ostalim, zahtijeva računovodstveno razdvajanje (točka 5.) i točno utvrđuje kako odrediti maksimalni iznos naknade.
Moreover, in the absence of compensation parameters laid down in advance, any cost allocation must necessarily be conducted ex post on the basis of arbitrary assumptions, as was done in both the initial report and the majority report.
Usto, zbog izostanka unaprijed utvrđenih parametara koncesije, svaka raspodjela troškova mora se nužno obaviti ex post na temelju proizvoljnih pretpostavki, kao što je učinjeno i u početnom izvješću i u izvješću većine.
The Commission cannot accept, however, the assumptions made in the majority report that each service provided by the company should necessarily represent the same proportion of revenues and costs in a given year.
Komisija, međutim, ne može prihvatiti pretpostavke iznesene u izvješću većine da svaka usluga koju je trgovačko društvo pružilo treba nužno predstavljati jednak omjer prihoda i troškova u dotičnoj godini.
Moreover, since an ex post calculation will necessarily result in full compensation of the costs incurred in the provision of the service, the Commission considers that a rate of return on equity exceeding the relevant swap rate plus 100 basis points, as employed in both the initial report and the majority report, would normally not be viewed as a suitable reference for calculating the reasonable profit.
Nadalje, kako će ex post izračun nužno imati za rezultat punu naknadu troškova nastalih pri pružanju usluge, Komisija smatra da se stopa povrata na vlasnički kapital koja premašuje relevantnu kamatnu stopu za zamjenu (swap) za više od 100 baznih bodova, koja se koristila i u početnom izvješću i izvješću većine, obično ne bi smatrala prikladnom referencom za izračun razumne dobiti.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the compensation ordered by the Council of State, which is not provided for in the concession specifications, would not be paid in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, and therefore that the notified measure is incompatible with the internal market.
Prema tome Komisija smatra da naknada koju je naredilo Državno vijeće, a koja nije predviđena specifikacijama koncesije, ne bi bila isplaćena u skladu s odredbama Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007. te da stoga prijavljena mjera nije sukladna s unutarnjim tržištem.
Finally, as regards Simet’s claim that judgment 1405/2010 of the Council of State does not concern an award of public service compensation based on the applicable Council Regulation, but represents an award of damages related to a breach of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 which stems from the alleged illegal unilateral imposition of public service obligations under Articles 1(3) and 1(5) of that Regulation, the Commission notes that while no reference to Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 appears in the operative part of judgment 1405/2010, that judgment does refer to Simet’s right to receive amounts by way of compensation pursuant to Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which must be determined by the administration on the basis of reliable data [43].
Naposljetku, što se tiče tvrdnje društva Simet da se presuda 1405/2010 Državnog vijeća ne tiče dodjele naknade za javne usluge utemeljene na primjenjivoj Uredbi Vijeća, nego da ona predstavlja dodjelu odštete koja se odnosi na kršenje Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, a koja proizlazi iz navodno nezakonitog jednostranog uvođenja obveza pružanja javne usluge u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 3. i člankom 1. stavkom 5. te Uredbe, Komisija napominje sljedeće: premda u izreci presude 1405/2010 nema pozivanja na Uredbu (EEZ) br. 1191/69, ta se presuda ipak odnosi na pravo društva Simet da primi novčane iznose putem naknade u skladu člancima 6., 10. i 11. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, koje upravno tijelo mora utvrditi na temelju pouzdanih podataka [43].
Furthermore, in judgment 1405/2010, the Council of State itself dismissed Simet’s claim for damages, which it understood to cover the residual losses not covered by the compensation to be awarded, and its claim for unjust enrichment, since the main claim for compensation on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 had been accepted [44].
Nadalje, u presudi 1405/2010, Državno je vijeće samo odbacilo zahtjev društva Simet za odštetom, za koju je smatralo da bi trebala pokriti preostale gubitke koji nisu pokriveni naknadom koja se treba dodijeliti, kao i zahtjev društva za nepravednim bogaćenjem, jer je prethodno prihvaćen glavni zahtjev za naknadom na osnovi Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 [44].
Thus, in point 3.3 of the judgment the Council of State states that: ‘No claims for damages put forward by the appellant can be accepted at present, because only when the administration has determined the amount referred to above will it be known whether there is residual damage not covered by the amount assessed, which must be calculated and demonstrated by the company concerned.’
Stoga u točki 3.3 presude Državno vijeće izjavljuje sljedeće: „Trenutačno se ne mogu prihvatiti nikakvi zahtjevi za naknadom štete koje je podnio podnositelj žalbe, jer će tek kada upravno tijelo odredi gore navedeni iznos biti poznato postoji li preostala šteta koja nije pokrivena procijenjenim iznosom, što mora izračunati i prikazati dotično trgovačko društvo.”
In any event, the Commission considers that an award of damages in favour of Simet for the alleged illegal unilateral imposition of public service obligations by the Italian authorities, calculated on the basis of the common compensation procedure laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, would contravene Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty.
U svakom slučaju, Komisija smatra da bi se dodjela odštete u korist društva Simet za navodno nezakonito jednostrano uvođenje obveza pružanja javne usluge od strane talijanskih tijela, koja je izračunata na temelju zajedničkog postupka isplate naknade propisanog Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1191/69, prekršili članci 107. i 108. Ugovora.