natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Czech authorities, there was no time to organise a third concession selection procedure due to the exceptional circumstances surrounding the conclusion of those contracts and the same time constraints did not allow for the delivery of an expert opinion.
Prema češkim tijelima, nije bilo vremena za organizaciju trećeg kruga dodjele koncesija zbog izvanrednih okolnosti sklapanja tih ugovora, a zbog jednakih vremenskih ograničenja dostava stručnog mišljenja nije bila moguća.
The Czech authorities further stressed that, in any event, the price for the transport service was not significantly different from the price obtained through the first and second concession round.
Češka tijela dodatno su naglasila da se cijena usluge prijevoza u svakom slučaju znatno ne razlikuje od cijene postignute u prvom i drugom krugu dodjele koncesija.
The difference in the amount of ca. 7 % could be considered standard in light of the fact that the temporary allocation of human and capital resources for the period of 4 months was more costly than for a longer period.
Razliku u iznosu od približno 7 % može se smatrati standardnom s obzirom na činjenicu da je privremena raspodjela ljudskih i financijskih resursa za četveromjesečno razdoblje skuplja nego za dulje razdoblje.
COMMENTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF STATE AID AS REGARDS THE GUARANTEES AND THE INCREASE OF EQUITY CAPITAL IN FAVOUR OF DP ÚSTÍ
PRIMJEDBE O POSTOJANJU DRŽAVNE POTPORE U POGLEDU JAMSTAVA I DOKAPITALIZACIJE U KORIST DRUŠTVA DP ÚSTÍ
As regards the CZK 5 million and CZK 35 million guarantees provided by the Municipality of Ústí nad Labem securing bank loans obtained by DP Ústí, the Czech authorities argued that DP Ústí would have been able to obtain the loans absent the guarantees.
Kad je riječ o jamstvima u iznosu od 5 milijuna CZK i 35 milijuna CZK koje je dala općina Ústí nad Labem za osiguranje bankovnih kredita odobrenih društvu DP Ústí, češka su tijela tvrdila da bi ti krediti bili odobreni društvu DP Ústí i bez tih jamstava.
The Czech authorities note that DP Ústí obtained a CZK 40 million loan in 2007 for the finalisation of the construction of the trolley-bus line Ústí nad Labem — Střekov and for the purchase of two buses.
Češka tijela naglašavaju da je društvu DP Ústí u 2007. odobren kredit od 40 milijuna CZK za dovršetak izgradnje linije trolejbusa Ústí nad Labem – Střekov te za nabavu dva autobusa.
That loan was granted by Komerční banka, a.s., that is, the same financial institution which granted the two loans to DP Ústí in 2004 and 2005 for which the Municipality of Ústí nad Labem granted the contested guarantees.
Taj je kredit odobrila Komerční banka, a.s., odnosno ista financijska institucija koja je u 2004. i 2005. odobrila dva kredita društvu DP Ústí za koje je općina Ústí nad Labem dala sporna jamstva.
The collateral for that CZK 40 million loan was formed by assets of DP Ústí.
Instrument osiguranja tog kredita od 40 milijuna CZK bila je imovina društva DP Ústí.
The provider of the loan was selected in an open tender as a result of which the best offer was selected without differentiating between the options of securing the loan, i.e. either by a guarantee provided by the Municipality of Ústí nad Labem or a guarantee in the form of the company's assets.
Zajmodavac tog kredita odabran je u otvorenom natječajnom postupku zbog čega je odabrana najbolja ponuda bez obzira na različite opcije osiguranja kredita, odnosno jamstvo koje je dala općina Ústí nad Labem ili jamstvo u obliku imovine društva.
This demonstrates, according to the Czech authorities, that the conditions of the loan in 2007 did not depend on the form of security and that DP Ústí was able to obtain the loan on the same conditions even without the guarantee.
To je, prema češkim tijelima, dokaz da uvjeti kredita u 2007. nisu ovisili o obliku osiguranja te da je društvo DP Ústí moglo dobiti kredit po istim uvjetima i bez jamstva.
The Czech authorities argue that this was also the case for the two loans in 2004 and 2005 and that the guarantee thus did not provide any economic advantage to DP Ústí.
Češka tijela tvrde da je tako bilo i u slučaju dva kredita u 2004. i 2005. te da jamstvom, stoga, nije osigurana nikakva ekonomska prednost za društvo DP Ústí.
In any event, the funds obtained from the loans could not have been used for other purposes than the construction of the trolley-bus line.
U svakom slučaju, sredstva dobivena kreditima nisu se mogla upotrijebiti za druge namjene osim izgradnje linije trolejbusa.
The Ústí Region is an area of low environmental quality and the project served the purpose of improving that situation in the region.
Regija je Ústí područje niske kvalitete okoliša te je cilj projekta bilo poboljšanje tog stanja u regiji.
If the bank loan was not granted to DP Ústí, DP Ústí would have been obliged to continue its bus transport service.
Da društvu DP Ústí nije odobren kredit, ono bi bilo obvezno nastaviti pružati uslugu prijevoza.
According to the Czech authorities, the measure effectively prioritised environmental protection over the higher costs associated with the construction of the trolley-bus line and should therefore be considered compatible with the Treaty.
Prema češkim tijelima mjerom je učinkovito stavljen naglasak na zaštitu okoliša u odnosu na veće troškove izgradnje linije trolejbusa te, stoga, treba smatrati da je mjera u skladu s Ugovorom.
Increase of equity capital for DP Ústí
Dokapitalizacija društva DP Ústí
The Czech authorities explained that the resources from the increase of equity capital of CZK 160 million were earmarked for exclusive use in the financing of the construction of the trolley-bus line Ústí nad Labem — Střekov.
Češka su tijela objasnila da su sredstva od dokapitalizacije u iznosu od 160 milijuna CZK namijenjena samo financiranju izgradnje linije trolejbusa Ústí nad Labem – Střekov.
They were kept on a separate account of DP Ústí, from which payments were made for the construction of the trolley-bus line Ústí nad Labem — Střekov.
Ona su se nalazila na zasebnom računu društva DP Ústí s kojeg su se obavljala plaćanja za izgradnju linije trolejbusa Ústí nad Labem – Střekov.
This extension of the system has been planned since 1996.
To je proširenje sustava u planu od 1996.
According to the Czech authorities, the investment will result in a significant improvement in environmental conditions in the municipality, chiefly a reduction of air pollution in the right bank area of the city, a reduction in the noise levels of transport on the affected lines by deployment of trolley-buses instead of buses (above all, in night operation), reduction of emissions on affected lines and reduction of the risk of photochemical smog in the Střekov area.
Prema češkim tijelima, posljedice će tog ulaganja biti znatno poboljšanje okolišnih uvjeta u općini, posebno smanjenje zagađenja zraka u području grada na desnoj obali, smanjenje razina buke od prometa na pogođenim linijama zbog upotrebe trolejbusa umjesto autobusa (prije svega, u noćnom prometu), smanjenje emisija na pogođenim linijama i smanjenje rizika fotokemijskog smoga u području Střekov.
Accordingly, the Czech authorities claimed that the capital increase is covered by an exemption provided for in Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 [25].
Češka su tijela u skladu s tim tvrdila da je dokapitalizacija obuhvaćena iznimkom predviđenom člankom 3. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1107/70 [25].
The Czech authorities argue that the conditions for the application of Article 3(1)(b) are met since (i) the trolley-bus network construction aims at co-ordination and optimisation of transport, (ii) it involves infrastructure costs which other operators using other types of road transport do not have to bear, and (iii) there is no other, financially less burdensome alternative to achieve the common policy objective (i.e. coordination of transport and reduction of CO2 emissions).
Češka tijela tvrde da su ispunjeni uvjeti za primjenu članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) jer i. je cilj izgradnje mreže trolejbusa koordinacija i optimizacija prijevoza; ii. ona uključuje infrastrukturne troškove koje ostali operatori u drugim vrstama cestovnog prijevoza nemaju; te iii. jer ne postoji druga, financijski manje zahtjevna mogućnost za ostvarivanje zajedničkog cilja politike (odnosno, usklađivanje prijevoza i smanjenja emisija CO2).
COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL MEASURES GRANTED TO DP ÚSTÍ AND DP TEPLICE
PRIMJEDBE O DODATNIM MJERAMA DODIJELJENIMA DRUŠTVIMA DP ÚSTÍ I DP TEPLICE
In 2005, DP Ústí obtained two additional compensations of CZK 4591200 and CZK 7335000 in the context of its public service obligations.
Društvo DP Ústí primilo je u 2005. dvije dodatne naknade u iznosu od 4591200 CZK i 7335000 CZK u pogledu svojih obveza pružanja javne usluge.
However, the Czech authorities clarified that those compensations, provided by the Municipality of Ústí nad Labem, concerned exclusively municipal transport within that municipality and that they were not related to the regional transport compensations granted by the Ústí Region which are the subject-matter of the Opening Decision.
Međutim, češka su tijela pojasnila da su se te naknade koje je dodijelila općina Ústí nad Labem, isključivo odnosile na općinski prijevoz unutar općine te da one nisu bile povezane s naknadama za regionalni prijevoz koje je dodijelila regija Ústí, a koje su predmet Odluke o pokretanju postupka.
As regards the measures granted to DP Teplice, the Czech authorities clarified that the compensations granted by the Municipality of Teplice as well as the lease of vehicles concerned exclusively public service obligations related to the transport within that municipality.
Kad je riječ o mjerama dodijeljenima društvu DP Teplice, češka su tijela pojasnila da su se naknade koje je dodijelila općina Teplice i najam vozila odnosili isključivo na obveze pružanja javne usluge prijevoza unutar te općine.
They were thus unrelated to the regional transport compensations granted by the Ústí Region which are the subject-matter of the Opening Decision.
One, stoga, nisu bile povezane s naknadama za regionalni prijevoz koje je dodijelila regija Ústí, a koje su predmet Odluke o pokretanju postupka.
In any event, due to the account separation put in place by DP Teplice, there was no risk that those compensations would in any way cross-subsidise the regional transport activities of DP Teplice.
U svakom slučaju, zbog odvajanja računa koje je primijenilo društvo DP Teplice, nije postojao rizik da bi te naknade na bilo koji način predstavljale unakrsne subvencije djelatnosti regionalnog prijevoza društva DP Teplice.
Finally, by their very nature, trolley-buses cannot be used outside the trolley-bus lines within the Municipality of Teplice to provide regional transport services.
Konačno, trolejbusi se, zbog svojih obilježja, ne mogu upotrebljavati za pružanje usluga regionalnog prijevoza izvan linija trolejbusa unutar općine Teplice.
DPÚK was the only interested party to submit comments in response to the Opening Decision.
Društvo DPÚK bilo je jedina zainteresirana strana koja je dostavila primjedbe u odgovoru na Odluku o pokretanju postupka.
DPÚK submitted general comments on the legal framework for compensation for public service obligations in the regional bus services sector in the Czech Republic.
Društvo DPÚK dostavilo je općenite primjedbe o pravnom okviru za naknade za obveze pružanja javne usluge u sektoru usluga regionalnog autobusnog prijevoza u Češkoj Republici.
DPÚK claimed that there has been no liberalisation of the public transport sector in the Czech Republic.
Društvo DPÚK tvrdilo je da u Češkoj Republici nije došlo do liberalizacije sektora javnog prijevoza.
According to DPÚK, this meant that the obligations of the operators were clearly set out in the administrative decisions granting licences to operators since Czech legislation is based on a system of ‘public service obligations’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and not ‘public service contracts’ within the meaning of Article 14 of that Regulation.
Prema društvu DPÚK, to je značilo da su obveze operatora jasno utvrđene administrativnim odlukama o dodjeli licenci operatorima jer je češko zakonodavstvo utemeljeno na sustavu „obveza pružanja javne usluge” u smislu članka 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, a ne na „ugovorima o pružanju javne usluge” u smislu članka 14. iste Uredbe.
DPÚK contends that the assessment of the public service compensations in the Opening Decision is affected by an incorrect interpretation of the relevant legal framework.
Društvo DPÚK tvrdi da na procjenu naknada za pružanje javne usluge iz Odluke o pokretanju postupka utječe netočno tumačenje relevantnog pravnog okvira.
It further contends that the Altmark judgment cannot be applied in this case because that judgment concerned a system based on public service contracts and not public service obligations as in the present case.
Ono dalje tvrdi da se u ovom slučaju presuda u predmetu Altmark ne može primijeniti jer se ona odnosi na sustav utemeljen na ugovorima o pružanju javne usluge, a ne na obvezama pružanja javne usluge kao u ovom slučaju.
On that basis, DPÚK claimed that the public service obligations and the level of compensation could not be subject to negotiations between the regional authorities and the operators.
Na temelju toga je društvo DPÚK tvrdilo da obveze pružanja javne usluge i razina naknade ne mogu biti predmet pregovora između regionalnih tijela i operatora.
They could not be subject to competition between operators, as this was impossible in a system based on public service obligations, and the compensation did not represent any contractual price of transport services provided, but was a loss due to the fulfilment of the relevant obligations which resulted from the application of legal provisions, was independent of the will of the operator and the authorities and thus could not be negotiated.
One ne mogu podlijegati tržišnom natjecanju operatora jer je to nemoguće u sustavu utemeljenom na obvezama pružanja javne usluge, a naknada nije predstavljala ugovornu cijenu pruženih usluga prijevoza, već gubitak zbog ispunjavanja relevantnih obveza zbog primjene pravnih odredbi, nije ovisila o volji operatora i tijela te stoga o njoj nije bilo moguće pregovarati.
DPÚK further claimed that the Ústí Region breached the existing legislation by concluding public service contracts with operators selected on the basis of quasi-tendering procedures.
Društvo DPÚK dalje je tvrdilo da je regija Ústí sklapanjem ugovora o pružanju javne usluge s operatorima odabranima na temelju tobožnjih natječajnih postupaka prekršila postojeće zakonodavstvo.
DPÚK contended that such attempts to apply competition principles are in contravention of the system based on public service obligations and thus illegal.
Društvo DPÚK tvrdilo je da su takvi pokušaji primjene načela tržišnog natjecanja u suprotnosti sa sustavom utemeljenim na obvezama pružanja javne usluge, a stoga i nezakoniti.
DPÚK argued that the newly selected operators have been granted licences and received public service compensations illegally, since DPÚK is the holder of the primary licences for the same bus lines.
Društvo DPÚK tvrdilo je da su novoizabranim operatorima nezakonito dodijeljene licence i isplaćene naknade za pružanje javne usluge jer je ono nositelj prvotnih licenci za iste autobusne linije.
The approach of the Ústí Region authorities was motivated by their unwillingness to pay the incumbent operators the compensations to which they are entitled on the basis of the law and incumbent operators which are not willing to accept lower operational subsidies are bullied and replaced by new operators by means of illegal pseudo-tenders.
Motiv je pristupa tijela regije Ústí njihova nespremnost da pozicioniranim operatorima isplate naknade na koje imaju pravo na temelju prava, a pozicionirani se operatori koji nisu spremni prihvatiti niže subvencije za poslovanje izlažu pritisku i zamjenjuju novim operatorima s pomoću nezakonitih tobožnjih natječajnih postupaka.
Finally, DPÚK noted that the newly selected operators are in many instances municipal bus service operators, owned and subsidised by the relevant municipalities, so that unfair competition exists between those operators and operators in the regional passenger transport market.
Konačno, društvo DPÚK naglasilo je da su novoizabrani operatori u brojnim slučajevima operatori općinskog autobusnog prijevoza, u vlasništvu relevantnih općina koje ih subvencioniraju, pa među tim operatorima i operatorima regionalnog putničkog prijevoza postoji nelojalna konkurencija.
DPÚK argued that it is unacceptable that the local bus operators are allowed to operate regional lines beyond the area of their municipality.
Društvo DPÚK tvrdilo je da je neprihvatljivo da je operatorima lokalnog autobusnog prijevoza dopušteno prometovanje na regionalnim linijama izvan područja njihove općine.
As regards the guarantee and increase of equity by the Municipality of Ústí nad Labem, DPÚK claimed that it had proposed to the authorities a significantly cheaper alternative for an environmentally-friendly local transport service on the line Ústí nad Labem — Střekov (based on CNG-buses instead of the trolley buses of DP Ústí), but that that alternative was rejected.
Kad je riječ o jamstvu i dokapitalizaciji općine Ústí nad Labem, društvo DPÚK tvrdilo je da je ono tijelima predložilo znatno jeftiniju alternativu za ekološki prihvatljivu uslugu lokalnog prijevoza na liniji Ústí nad Labem – Střekov (uz upotrebu autobusa na komprimirani prirodni plin umjesto trolejbusa društva DP Ústí), koja je odbačena.
As regards the measures which according to the Opening Decision were granted before the accession of the Czech Republic to the Union, DPÚK claimed that all of them have a long-term effect going well beyond the date of accession.
Kad je riječ o mjerama koje su prema Odluci o pokretanju postupka dodijeljene prije pristupanja Češke Republike Uniji, društvo DPÚK tvrdilo je da sve te mjere imaju dugoročni učinak koji u velikoj mjeri nadilazi datum pristupanja.
As regards the assessment by the Commission of the transfer of operation of parking meters to DP Děčín, DPÚK claimed that the analysis in the Opening Decision is incorrect as the de minimis threshold did not apply in the public transport sector.
Kad je riječ o procjeni Komisije prijenosa upravljanja funkcioniranjem uređaja za naplatu parkiranja u korist društva DP Děčín, društvo DP Ústí tvrdilo je da je analiza iz Odluke o pokretanju postupka netočna jer se prag de minimis ne primjenjuje u sektoru javnog prijevoza.
COMMENTS OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE INTERESTED PARTY
PRIMJEDBE ČEŠKE REPUBLIKE O PRIMJEDBAMA ZAINTERESIRANE STRANE
The Czech authorities did not agree with the interpretation of the legal framework for compensations for public service obligations in the regional bus services sector in the Czech Republic as described by DPÚK in its submissions.
Češka se tijela nisu složila s tumačenjem pravnog okvira za naknade za obveze pružanja javne usluge u sektoru usluga regionalnog autobusnog prijevoza u Češkoj Republici koje je navelo društvo DPÚK u svojim podnescima.
The Czech authorities also disagreed with the DPÚK's claim that public transport services had not yet been liberalised in the Czech Republic.
Češka se tijela nisu složila ni s tvrdnjom društva DPÚK da usluge javnog prijevoza u Češkoj Republici još uvijek nisu liberalizirane.
The Czech authorities argued that the national legislative framework included two possibilities for arranging public bus transport under the public service obligation regime:
Češka su tijela tvrdila da nacionalni zakonodavni okvir uključuje dvije mogućnosti za organiziranje javnog autobusnog prijevoza na temelju sustava obveza pružanja javne usluge:
on the basis of a public service contract based on section 19 of the Road Transport Act and Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and (ii) on the basis of a decision unilaterally imposing a public service obligation.
i. na temelju ugovora o pružanju javne usluge na temelju članka 19. Zakona o prijevozu u cestovnom prometu i članka 14. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69; te ii. na temelju odluke kojom se jednostrano nameće obveza pružanja javne usluge.
The second type is, however, only used marginally.
Druga se vrsta, međutim, upotrebljava vrlo ograničeno.
In the Ústí Region, all regional public bus transport operations are currently based on contracts resulting from open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedures.
U regiji se Ústí sve usluge regionalnoga autobusnog prijevoza trenutačno temelje na ugovorima sklopljenima nakon otvorenih, transparentnih i nediskriminirajućih natječajnih postupaka.
The Czech authorities argued that despite certain differences in the terms used, the public service contracts corresponded to public service contracts within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Češka su tijela tvrdila da, unatoč određenim razlikama u upotrijebljenim pojmovima, ugovori o pružanju javne usluge odgovaraju ugovorima o pružanju javne usluge u smislu Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
This was clear from the reading of the Road Transport Act as well as from its interpretation in various decisions of the relevant authorities.
To je vidljivo iz tumačenja Zakona o prijevozu u cestovnom prometu, kao i iz tumačenja iz različitih odluka mjerodavnih tijela.
The Czech authorities also clarified that the licence for operating bus transport services was an authorisation enabling the operator to provide bus transport services on individual lines but did not represent an entrustment of public service obligations.
Češka su tijela pojasnila i da je licenca za pružanje usluga autobusnog prijevoza dozvola izdana operatoru za pružanje usluga autobusnog prijevoza na pojedinačnim linijama, ali da ona ne predstavlja povjeravanje obveza pružanja javne usluge.
Those obligations were entrusted to the operators by way of public service contracts between the respective operator and the relevant authority (the Ústí Region in this case).
Te se obveze povjeravaju operatorima putem ugovora o pružanju javne usluge između operatora i mjerodavnog tijela (u ovom slučaju, regije Ústí).
There could be more operators with a licence for a certain bus line, but the public service compensation was accorded only to the operator who had concluded the contract for that line with the regional authorities or on whom the obligation was imposed by a decision of the authorities.
Dozvolu za određenu autobusnu liniju može dobiti više operatora, ali se naknada za pružanje javne usluge dodjeljuje samo operatoru koji je s regionalnim tijelima sklopio ugovor za tu liniju ili kojem je obveza uvedena odlukom tijela.
In addition, the licence could not represent a decision on the imposition of public service obligations within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, as it did not provide for compensation to be granted in respect of the financial burden resulting from the obligation as required by Article 6 of that Regulation.
Osim toga, licenca nije mogla predstavljati odluku o uvođenju obveza pružanja javne usluge u smislu članka 1. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 jer njome nije predviđena dodjela naknade za financijsko opterećenje koje je posljedica obveze kako je propisano člankom 6. iste Uredbe.
The Czech authorities further considered that the compensations paid on the basis of the public service contracts fulfilled the Altmark criteria and for that reason they were not notified to the Commission.
Češka su tijela dalje smatrala da su naknade isplaćene na temelju ugovora o pružanju javne usluge u skladu s kriterijima iz predmeta Altmark te zbog toga nisu o njima obavijestila Komisiju.
The Czech authorities claimed that due to the open, transparent and non-discriminatory selection procedures, the bus transport services within the framework of the public service obligation in the Ústí Region had been provided for prices which were much more advantageous than before.
Češka su tijela tvrdila da su se, zbog otvorenih, transparentnih i nediskriminirajućih postupaka odabira, usluge autobusnog prijevoza u okviru obveze pružanja javne usluge u regiji Ústí pružale po povoljnijim cijenama u odnosu na ranije.