natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This is because such an award would produce the same result for CSTP as an award of public service compensation for the period under review, despite the fact that the concession specifications governing the services in question were neither exempt from prior notification nor complied with the substantive requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, as demonstrated above.
To je zato što bi takva dodjela imala isti rezultat za trgovačko društvo CSTP kao i dodjela naknade za obavljanje javne usluge za predmetno razdoblje, unatoč tome što specifikacije koncesije koje se primjenjuju na predmetne usluge nisu izuzete od obveze prethodne prijave niti su u skladu s materijalnim zahtjevima Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 ili Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007, kako je prethodno pokazano.
The availability of such an award would thus effectively enable the circumvention of the state aid rules and of the conditions laid down by the Union legislator under which competent authorities, when imposing or contracting for PSOs, compensate public service operators for costs incurred in return for the discharge of PSOs.
Raspoloživost takve dodjele omogućila bi uspješno izigravanje pravila o državnoj potpori i uvjeta koje je propisao zakonodavac Unije prema kojima nadležna tijela, kada nameću obvezu ili sklapaju ugovor o javnim uslugama, plaćaju naknadu operatorima javnih usluga za nastale troškove u zamjenu za izvršavanje obveza pružanja javnih usluga.
Indeed, an award of damages equal to the sum of the amounts of aid that were planned to be granted would constitute an indirect grant of state aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the internal market.
Isplata odštete jednake zbroju iznosa potpore čija se isplata planirala činila bi neizravnu dodjelu državne potpore koja je nezakonita i nespojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
Following that line, the General Court has considered indemnification clauses for the recovery of state aid to constitute state aid.
U skladu s time, Opći sud smatra da odredbe o isplati odštete za povrat državne potpore čine državu potporu.
In any event, the sample concession contract from 1972 under which CSTP was supposedly providing the transport services in question did not provide for the payment of any financial compensation.
U svakom slučaju, u primjerku ugovora o koncesiji iz 1972. u skladu s kojim je trgovačko društvo CSTP navodno obavljalo predmetne usluge prijevoza nije predviđeno plaćanje financijske naknade.
CSTP agreed to run the services under the conditions established in the concession at its own risk.
Trgovačko društvo CSTP složilo se pružati usluge u skladu s uvjetima utvrđenima u koncesiji uz vlastiti rizik.
That conclusion is also confirmed by Article 2 of Regional Law No 16/1983, which provided that any loss or deficit not covered by public contributions was to be borne by the service providers.
Ovaj zaključak potvrđen je člankom 2. Regionalnog zakona br. 16/1983 u kojem je propisano da gubitak ili manjak koji nije obuhvaćen javnim doprinosima snose davatelji usluge.
Accordingly, the Commission does not consider the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato to constitute an award of compensation for damages suffered by CSTP as a result of the wrongful act or other conduct of the national authorities, but as the grant of unlawful and incompatible state aid, which is prohibited under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija stoga ne smatra da presuda suda Consiglio di Stato predstavlja naknadu za štetu koju je trgovačko društvo CSTP pretrpjelo kao rezultat neispravnog postupanja ili drugog postupka nacionalnih tijela već dodjelu nezakonite i nespojive državne potpore, koja je zabranjena u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1. Ugovora.
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the non-notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty which is incompatible with the internal market.
S obzirom na navedeno, Komisija zaključuje da neprijavljena mjera čini državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora koja je nespojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
RECOVERY OF THE AID
POVRAT POTPORE
In accordance with the Treaty and the Court of Justice’s established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
U skladu s Ugovorom i utvrđenom sudskom praksom Suda EU–a, Komisija je nadležna odlučiti da predmetna država članica mora ukinuti ili izmijeniti potporu kada utvrdi da je potpora nespojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
The Court of Justice has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation.
Sud je također dosljedno smatrao da je svrha obveze države da ukine potporu koju Komisija smatra nespojivom s unutarnjim tržištem obnoviti prethodno stanje.
In this context, the CJEU has stated that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.
U tom je kontekstu Sud EU–a utvrdio da je taj cilj ostvaren kada je primatelj izvršio povrat iznosa isplaćenih temeljem nezakonite potpore i time se odrekao prednosti koju je imao nad konkurentima na tržištu i kada je obnovljeno stanje koje je postojalo prije plaćanja potpore.
In line with that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that ‘where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary’.
U skladu s tom sudskom praksom, u članku 14. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 659/1999 propisano je da „kada je donesena negativna odluka o nezakonitoj potpori, Komisija donosi odluku kojom se predmetnoj državi članici nalaže da poduzme sve potrebne mjere kako bi se osigurao povrat potpore od korisnika”.
Therefore, the state aid identified in this Decision must be recovered by Italy, insofar as it has already been paid out to CSTP.
Stoga Italija mora vratiti državnu potporu utvrđenu u ovoj Odluci u mjeri u kojoj je ona već isplaćena trgovačkom društvu CSTP.
Italy must add recovery interest to that aid amount, calculated from the date on which the unlawful aid was put at the disposal of CSTP (i.e. from 21 December 2012) until the date of its recovery, according to Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Nadalje, Italija tom iznosu mora dodati kamate za povrat, koje se računaju od datuma kada je nezakonita potpora stavljena na raspolaganje korisniku (tj. od 21. prosinca 2012.) do datuma povrata, u skladu s poglavljem V. Uredbe Komisije (EZ) 794/2004.
Accordingly, the Commission,
U skladu s time, Komisija,
The state aid amounting to EUR 4 951 838 in favour of CSTP unlawfully granted by the Italian Republic, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is incompatible with the internal market.
Državna potpora u iznosu od 4 951 838 EUR u korist trgovačkog društva CSTP koju je nezakonito odobrila Talijanska Republika kršeći članak 108. stavak 3. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
The Italian Republic shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.
Talijanska Republika od korisnika mora ostvariti povrat potpore iz članka 1.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from 21 December 2012 until their actual recovery.
Na iznose povrata naplaćuje se kamata od 21. prosinca 2012. do stvarnog trenutka povrata.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Kamate se izračunavaju zajednički u skladu s poglavljem V. Uredbe (EZ) br. 794/2004 i Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 271/2008 o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 794/2004.
The Italian Republic shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Talijanska Republika otkazuje sve neisplaćene iznose potpore navedene u članku 1. od datuma stupanja na snagu ove Odluke.
The Italian Republic shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of its notification.
Talijanska Republika osigurava provedbu ove Odluke u roku od četiri mjeseca od dana obavijesti o ovoj Odluci.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information to the Commission:
U roku od dva mjeseca od obavijesti o ovoj Odluci, Italija dostavlja Komisiji sljedeće podatke:
the total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
ukupan iznos (glavnica i kamate) čiji povrat treba ostvariti od korisnika;
documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.
dokumente kojima se dokazuje da se od korisnika zatražio određen povrat potpore.
The Italian Republic shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until the aid referred to in Article 1 has been fully recovered.
Talijanska Republika obavješćuje Komisiju o napretku u provedbi nacionalnih mjera koje se poduzimaju za provedbu ove Odluke do potpunog povrata potpore iz članka 1.
At the Commission’s request, it shall submit information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Na zahtjev Komisije, ona odmah dostavlja informacije o već poduzetim mjerama i mjerama planiranima radi usklađivanja s ovom Odlukom.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the recipient.
Isto tako pruža detaljne informacije koje se odnose na iznose potpore i kamata koji su već vraćeni od korisnika.
Commission Decision of 20 February 2014 on State aid SA.358423 (2012/NN) — Italy — PSO compensation for CSTP, OJ C 156 (23.5.2014, p. 39).
Odluka Komisije od 20. veljače 2014. o državnoj potpori SA.358423 (2012/NN) – Italija – naknada za obavljanje javnih usluga za trgovačko društvo CSTP (SL C 156, 23.5.2014., str. 39.).
The Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1), the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years, beginning on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme.
Komisija podsjeća da, u skladu s člankom 15. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 659/1999 o 22. ožujka 1999. utvrđivanju detaljnih pravila primjene članka 108. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije (SL L 83, 27.3.1999., str. 1), ovlasti Komisije u vezi s povratom potpore podliježu roku zastare od deset godina počevši od dana kada je nezakonita potpora dodijeljena korisniku, bilo kao pojedinačna potpora ili u okviru programa potpora.
Any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid interrupts the limitation period.
Rok zastare prekida se bilo kojom radnjom koju Komisija ili neka država članica, djelujući na zahtjev Komisije, poduzme u vezi s nezakonitom potporom.
Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, p. 1).
Uredba Vijeća (EEZ–a) br. 1191/69 od 26. lipnja 1969. o aktivnostima država članica u vezi s obvezama koje su svojstvene javnim uslugama u željezničkom, cestovnom i riječnom prijevozu (SL L 156, 28.6.1969., str. 1.).
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provides that the amount of compensation related to an obligation to provide transport services is to be determined as the difference between the reduction of revenues and the reduction of costs resulting from the termination of the corresponding obligation during the period concerned.
U članku 10. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 predviđa se da se iznos naknade koja se odnosi na obvezu obavljanja usluga prijevoza utvrđuje na temelju razlike između smanjenja prihoda trgovačkog društva i smanjenja rashoda proizišle iz ukidanja odgovarajuće obveze u predmetnom razdoblju.
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, [2003] EU.C.2003.415.
Predmet C–280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, EU.C.2003:415.
Modelli E, namely the documents based on the accounts of the company containing the information necessary for the annual calculation of the public contribution.
Obrasci E (Modelli E) odnosno dokumenti utemeljeni na izvješćima trgovačkog društva koja sadržavaju informacije potrebne za godišnji izračun javnog doprinosa.
Case C-527/12 Commission v Germany, EU:C:2014:2193, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited.
Predmet C–527/12 Komisija protiv Njemačke, EU:C:2014/2193, stavak 56. i ovdje navedena sudska praksa.
See also Case C-119/05 Lucchini, EU:C:2007:434, paragraph 59, described in recital (94) below.
Vidjeti isto presudu u predmetu C–119/05 Lucchini, EU:C:2007:434, stavak 59, opisanu u uvodnoj izjavi 94. u nastavku.
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans v Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, [2003] EU:C:2003:415, paragraphs 87 and 88.
Predmet C–280/00 Altmark Trans i Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, [2003] EU:C:2003:415, stavci 87. i 88.
Case C-172/03 Heiser, EU:C:2005:130, paragraph 55.
Predmet C–172/03 Heiser EU:C:2005:130, stavak 55.
Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd, [2004] EU:2004:76, paragraphs 77, 78 and 79.
Predmet T–157/01 Danske Busvognmænd, [2004] EU:T:2004:76, stavci 77., 78. i 79.
Case C-504/07 Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) and Others v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris) and Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP), [2009] EU:C:2009.290.
Predmet C–504/07 Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) and Others v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris) and Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP), [2009] EU:C:2009:2009.290.
Case 156/77 Commission v Belgium, [1978] ECR 1881, paragraph 10.
Predmet 156/77 Komisija protiv Belgije [1978.] ECR 1881, stavak 10.;
Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of the Council of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ L 130, 15.6.1970, p. 1).
Uredba Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1107/70 od 4. lipnja 1970. o dodjeli potpora za željeznički i cestovni promet te promet unutarnjim plovnim putovima (SL L 130, 15.6.1970., str. 1.).
Case C-334/0 P Commission v Freistaat Sachsen, [2008] ECR I-9465, paragraphs 50 to 53; Case T-3/09 Italy v Commission, [2011] ECR II-95, paragraph 60.
Predmet C–334/07 P Komisija protiv Freistaat Sachsen, 2008, str. I–9465, stavci 50. do 53.; predmet T–3/09 Italija protiv Komisije [2011.] str. II–95, stavak 60.
For example tort or unjust enrichment.
Primjerice, šteta ili neopravdano bogaćenje.
Joined Cases 106 to 120/87, Asteris AE and others v Greece and EEC, EU:C:1988:457.
Spojeni predmeti 106 do 120/87, Asteris i ostali protiv Grčke i EEZ–a [1988.] EU:C:1988:457.
See Commission Decision of 16 June 2004 on Dutch aid in favour of Akzo Nobel in order to minimise chlorine transports (Case N 304/2003), summary notice in OJ C 81, 2.4.2005, p. 4; see also Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 on Dutch aid for relocation of car dismantling company Steenbergen (Case N 575/2005), summary notice in OJ C 80, 13.4.2007, p. 1.
Vidjeti Odluku Komisije od 16. lipnja 2004. o potpori Akzo Nobelu u cilju maksimalnog smanjenja prijevoza klora (predmet N 304/2003), sažetak obavijesti u SL C 81, 2.4.2005., str. 4. vidjeti isto Odluku Komisije od 20. prosinca 2006. o predmetu Bedrijfsverplaatsing van autodemontagebedrijf Steenbergen (predmet N 575/2005), sažetak obavijesti u SL C 80, 13.4.2007., str. 1.
Case C-119/05 Lucchini, EU:C:2007:434, paragraph 59.
Predmet C–119/05 Lucchini, EU:C:2007:434, stavak 59.
Ibid, paragraph 61.
Ibid., stavak 61.
Opinion of 28 April 2005 in Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03 Atzori, EU:C:2005:256, paragraph 198.
Mišljenje od 28. travnja 2005. u Spojenim predmetima C–346/03 i C–529/03 Atzeni, EU:C:2005:256, stavak198.
Case T-384/08 Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou v Commission, EU:T:2011:650, and Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries v Commission, EU:T:2012:415, paragraphs 23, 114 and 120 to 131.
Predmet T–384/08 Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou protiv Komisije, EU:T:2011:650, i predmet T–565/08 Corsica Ferries protiv Komisije, EU:T:2012:415, stavci 23., 114. i 120. do 131.
See also, by analogy, Case C-111/10 Commission v Council, EU:C:2013:785, paragraph 44.
Vidjeti, isto, po analogiji predmet C–111/10 Komisija protiv Vijeća, EU:C:2013:785, stavak 44.
Case C-70/72 Commission v Germany, [1973] ECR 813, paragraph 13.
Predmet C–70/72 Komisija protiv Njemačke, [1973.] ECR 813, stavak 13.
Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission, [1994] ECR I-04103, paragraph 75.
Spojeni predmeti C–278/92, C–279/92 i C–280/92 Španjolska protiv Komisije, [1994.] ECR I–04103, stavak 75.
Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission, [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraphs 64 and 65.
Predmet C–75/97 Belgija protiv Komisije, [1999.] ECR I–3671, stavci 64. i 65.;
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).
Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 659/1999 od 22. ožujka 1999. o utvrđivanju detaljnih pravila za primjenu članka 108. Ugovora o EZ–u (SL L 83, 27.3.1999., str. 1.).
See Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99.
Vidjeti članak 14. stavak 2. Uredbe (EZ) 659/99.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 794/2004 od 21. travnja 2004. o provedbi Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 659/1999 o utvrđivanju detaljnih pravila za primjenu članka 93. Ugovora o EZ–u (SL L 140, 30.4.2004., str. 1.).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 82, 25.3.2008, p. 1).
Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 271/2008 od 30. siječnja 2008. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 794/2004 o provedbi Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 659/1999 o utvrđivanju detaljnih pravila za primjenu članka 93. Ugovora o EZ–u (SL L 82, 25.3.2008., str. 1.).
According to the Italian authorities, that expert was also unable to determine the amount to be compensated and it was only with the help of an additional expert, appointed by the Consiglio di Stato by order No 5897/2011 of 7 November 2011, that a specific amount of compensation was calculated using an ‘inductive method’, as prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato by order No 3244/2011 of 25 July 2011.
Prema talijanskim nadležnim tijelima stručnjak nije uspio izračunati iznos naknade te je tek uz pomoć drugog stručnjaka, kojeg je imenovao sud Consiglio di Stato nalogom br. 5897/2011 od 7. studenoga 2011., izračunan točan iznos naknade primjenom „induktivne metode”, kako je propisao sud Consiglio di Stato Odlukom br. 3244/2011 od 25. srpnja 2011.
On the basis of those calculations, the experts concluded that CSTP was undercompensated only for 1998 as a result of the application of the formula provided in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (i.e. tariff obligation).
Na temelju tih izračuna stručnjaci su zaključili da je trgovačko društvo CSTP primilo prenisku naknadu samo za 1998., kao rezultat primjene formule iz članka 11. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 (tarifna obveza).
Accordingly, the Consiglio di Stato issued Judgment No 5649/2012 of 7 November 2012 quantifying the additional compensation the Region was obliged to pay to CSTP at EUR 4 951 838, which represented the amount of undercompensation it suffered in 1998, and ordered payment of this sum to take place by 7 December 2012.
U skladu s time, sud Consiglio di Stato donio je presudu br. 5649/2012 od 7. studenoga 2012. kojom se Regiji nalaže da do 7. prosinca 2012. trgovačkom društvu CSTP plati iznos od 4 951 838 EUR koji odgovara iznosu preniske naknade pogrešno određene za 1998.
Payment of that sum was made by the Region to CSTP on 21 December 2012.
Regija je taj iznos trgovačkom društvu CSTP platila 21. prosinca 2012.
The PSOs were entrusted to CSTP by the Region by means of a concession act in 1972/73 and renewed every year until 2003.
Regija je povjerila obavljanje javne usluge trgovačkom društvu CSTP na temelju akta o koncesiji 1972./73. koji je obnavljan svake godine do 2003.
The fact that the PSOs were imposed on CSTP during the period under review, such as tariff obligations, routes, times and stops, can be allegedly inferred from the following documents:
Iz sljedećih se dokumenata navodno može zaključiti da su trgovačkom društvu CSTP za predmetno razdoblje nametnute obveze obavljanja javne usluge kao što su tarifne obveze, linije, postaje i vozni red:
Fourth, concerning the state aid assessment in the opening decision, CSTP argued that the market for public transport in Italy in the period in question was not open to competition from undertakings established in other Member States. CSTP therefore concluded that there was no effect on trade or distortion of competition.
Četvrto, u pogledu procjene državne potpore iz odluke o pokretanju postupka, trgovačko društvo CSTP tvrdilo je da u predmetnom razdoblju tržište javnog prijevoza u Italiji nije bilo otvoreno tržišnom natjecanju trgovačkih društava s poslovnim nastanom u drugim državama članicama te je zaključilo da nije bilo učinka na trgovinu ni narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja.
First, the Commission notes that the additional compensation awarded to CSTP concerns only 1998.
Prvo, Komisija primjećuje da se dodatna potpora koja je dodijeljena trgovačkom društvu CSTP odnosi samo na 1998.
CSTP has admitted that in that year, in addition to its alleged PSOs, it also engaged in commercial activities, namely rental services.
CSTP je priznao da je u navedenoj godini, osim navodnih obveza obavljanja javne usluge, obavljao i poslovne djelatnosti, odnosno usluge iznajmljivanja.
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 states that: ‘It shall be for transport undertakings to apply to the competent authorities of the Member States for the termination in whole or in part of any public service obligation where such obligation entails economic disadvantages for them’. Article 6(3) reads: ‘The competent authorities of the Member States shall take decisions within one year of the date on which the application is lodged as regards obligations to operate or to carry, and within six months as regards tariff obligations. The right to compensation shall arise on the date of the decision by the competent authorities…’.
U članku 4. stavku 1. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 propisano je sljedeće: „Prijevoznici moraju zatražiti od nadležnih tijela država članica ukidanje obveze obavljanja javne usluge u cijelosti ili djelomično ako ih ta obveza stavlja u gospodarski nepovoljni položaj.” Članak 6. stavak 3. glasi: „Nadležna tijela država članica donose odluke u roku od godine dana od datuma podnošenja zahtjeva u vezi s obvezama obavljanja usluge i prijevoza i u roku od šest mjeseci u vezi s tarifnim obvezama. Pravo na naknadu nastaje na dan kada nadležna tijela donesu odluku […]”.