natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Some of this funding was used for the accessibility improvements for infrastructure, described in recitals 53 to 57.
Dio tih sredstava upotrijebljen je za poboljšanja dostupnosti infrastrukture, što je opisano u uvodnim izjavama 53. do 57.
However, from 2001 onwards, the Department of Transport also supported disability awareness training to enhance the delivery of services by public and private transport operators to disabled people.
Međutim, od 2001. nadalje Ministarstvo prometa davalo je potporu i osposobljavanju u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu kako bi se poboljšalo pružanje usluga prijevoznika iz javnog i privatnog sektora osobama s invaliditetom.
Bus operators used this funding to train front line personnel such as drivers and ticketing staff.
Autobusni prijevoznici ta su sredstva uložili u osposobljavanje osoblja u izravnom kontaktu s korisnicima, poput vozača i radnika na naplati i provjeri karata.
At the time of the Opening Decision, only Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Veolia Transport had disability awareness training programmes in place and the Irish authorities stated that, under the concept ‘Transport for All’, the Department of Transport was considering providing support for disability awareness training to all private bus and coach operator sectors.
U vrijeme donošenja Odluke o pokretanju postupka, programi osposobljavanja u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu postojali su samo kod prijevoznika Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann i Veolia Transport, a irske su vlasti izjavile kako je, u skladu s konceptom „prijevoz za sve”, Ministarstvo prometa razmatralo pružanje potpore za osposobljavanje u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu svim privatnim sektorima autobusnih prijevoznika na kraćim i dužim relacijama.
The disability awareness training programme for Bus Éireann staff commenced in November 2001 and was delivered throughout the country and a similar programme for Dublin Bus began in 2002.
Taj program osposobljavanja u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu za osoblje prijevoznika Bus Éireann pokrenut je u studenome 2001. i provodio se u čitavoj zemlji, a sličan je program za Dublin Bus pokrenut 2002.
Over the period 2001 to 2003 Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann received part funding for disability awareness training as set out in Table 5:
Tijekom razdoblja 2001.–2003. Dublin Bus i Bus Éireann primili su dio sredstava za osposobljavanje u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu kako je izneseno u tablici 5:
Funding for staff
Sredstva za osoblje
Costs borne by
Troškovi na teret
Total per company
Ukupno za prijevoznika
Total CIÉ
Ukupno CIÉ
The funding was paid to CIÉ and then transferred to the accounts of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.
Ta su sredstva plaćena CIÉ-u, a zatim prenesena na račune prijevoznika Dublin Bus i Bus Éireann.
In subsequent years, no further grants were made for disability awareness training to Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus.
U godinama koje su uslijedile ni Bus Éireann ni Dublin Bus nisu primali bespovratna sredstva za osposobljavanje u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu.
Such training instead became part of the normal induction training processes in those companies.
Umjesto toga, kod ovih je prijevoznika takvo osposobljavanju uključeno u standardne postupke osposobljavanja prilikom uvođenja novih zaposlenika na radno mjesto.
However, in recognition of the need for equivalent training in the private sector, funding was made available for disability awareness training from 2006 onwards, and for 2007 and 2008, that funding amounted to EUR 25550, which the Irish authorities emphasise was 100 % of the funding requested for this purpose by the private sector.
Međutim, prepoznajući potrebu za odgovarajućim osposobljavanjem u privatnom sektoru, za osposobljavanje u pogledu osviještenosti o invaliditetu osigurana su sredstva od 2006. nadalje, a za 2007. i 2008. ta su sredstva iznosila 25550 EUR, a irske vlasti ističu da taj iznos odgovara 100-postotnom iznosu sredstava koja je privatni sektor za tu svrhu tražio.
Compensation for public bus transport services: operating compensation for urban, suburban and regional bus services, financing of new buses and the School Transport Scheme
Naknada za usluge javnog autobusnog prijevoza: naknada za poslovanje za usluge gradskog, prigradskog i regionalnog autobusnog prijevoza, financiranje novih autobusa i sustava školskog prijevoza
With regard to the existence of State aid, the Commission considered in the Opening Decision that the Irish authorities had not yet provided enough information to enable it to conclude that all the criteria set by the Altmark judgment [27] had been fulfilled.
S obzirom na postojanje državne potpore Komisija je u Odluci o pokretanju postupka ocijenila da irske vlasti još uvijek nisu pružile dovoljno informacija potrebnih za donošenja zaključka da su ispunjeni svi kriteriji utvrđeni u presudi u predmetu Altmark [27].
On the basis of the information provided by the Irish authorities, the Commission could not exclude the possibility that the measures constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Na temelju informacija koje su irske vlasti dostavile, Komisija nije mogla isključiti mogućnost da ta mjera predstavlja državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora.
Compatibility of aid
Spojivost potpora
As Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus operate scheduled and other bus services, they are undertakings which operate road transport services.
Budući da Bus Éireann i Dublin Bus provode linijske i druge usluge autobusnog prijevoza, oni su poduzetnici za pružanje usluga cestovnog prijevoza.
Therefore, the Commission considered in the Opening Decision that Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus fell within the scope of the now repealed Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council [28].
Zbog toga je Komisija u Odluci o pokretanju postupka ocijenila da su Bus Éireann i Dublin Bus obuhvaćeni područjem primjene Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1191/69 [28], koja je sada stavljena izvan snage.
According to the Irish authorities, a PSO had been imposed upon CIÉ and its subsidiaries by the Transport Act, 1950, the Transport Act, 1958, and the Transport (Re-organisation of CIÉ) Act, 1986 (the ‘Transport Acts’) [29].
Prema irskim vlastima obveza pružanja javne usluge je CIÉ-u i njegovim trgovačkim društvima kćerima nametnut Zakonom o prijevozu iz 1950., Zakonom o prijevozu iz 1958. i Zakonom o prijevozu (reorganizacija CIÉ-a) iz 1986. („zakoni o prijevozu”) [29].
As from 2003, the conditions and the amount of the annual compensation by the Irish authorities to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann had been the subject of Memoranda of Understanding.
Od 2003. uvjeti i iznos godišnje naknade koju irske vlasti isplaćuju prijevoznicima Dublin Bus i Bus Éireann podlijegali su odredbama memoranduma o razumijevanju.
The Irish authorities had declared that they did not consider the Memoranda of Understanding with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to be public service contracts.
Irske su vlasti izjavile kako memorandume o razumijevanju s prijevoznicima Dublin Bus i Bus Éireann nisu smatrale ugovorima o javnim uslugama.
On the basis of the information at its disposal at the time the Opening Decision was adopted, the Commission could not exclude the possibility that the Memoranda of Understanding should be considered as public service contracts.
Na temelju te informacije, prilikom njezina iznošenja u vrijeme donošenja Odluke o pokretanju postupka, Komisija nije mogla isključiti mogućnost da se memorandumi o razumijevanju moraju smatrati ugovorima o javnim uslugama.
According to Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 the amount of the compensation for the unilateral imposition of a PSO needs to be limited to the difference between the costs for discharging the obligation and the revenues generated through the obligation.
U skladu s člankom 10. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 iznos naknade za jednostrano uvođenje obveze pružanja javne usluge mora se ograničiti na razliku između troškova vršenja te obveze i time stvorenih prihoda.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission thus considered that for an assessment of compatibility under that regulation it had to verify whether the compensation paid by the Irish authorities was limited to the difference between the costs incurred for discharging the PSOs and the revenues generated through the sale of bus tickets.
Stoga je u Odluci o pokretanju postupka Komisija ocijenila da za ocjenu spojivosti u skladu s tom Uredbom ona mora provjeriti je li naknada koju su irske vlasti isplatile bila ograničena na razliku između troškova nastalih prilikom vršenja obveze pružanja javne usluge i prihoda ostvarenih prodajom autobusnih karata.
On the basis of the information available at that stage, the Commission had doubts whether Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus had been overcompensated.
Na temelju u toj fazi dostupnih informacija Komisija je imala sumnje oko toga je li prijevoznicima Bus Éireann i Dublin Bus isplaćen prevelik iznos naknada.
Both CIÉ subsidiaries also operate services that do not fall under what could be interpreted as a PSO (so-called ‘commercial services’) and may use publicly funded buses to operate those bus services.
Oba su ova trgovačka društva kćeri CIÉ-a ujedno pružala usluge koje nisu pokrivene tumačenjem obveze pružanja javne usluge (takozvane „komercijalne usluge”), a za pružanje takvih usluga autobusnog prijevoza mogle su upotrijebiti autobuse koje je financirao javni sektor.
Therefore, the Commission was not able to conclude that the compensation was limited to expenditure for discharging PSOs.
Stoga Komisija nije mogla donijeti zaključak da je naknada bila ograničena na rashode nastale zbog vršenja obveze pružanja javne usluge.
At that stage, the Commission did not have sufficient information at its disposal to determine whether the Irish authorities had calculated the compensation for discharging the ‘tariff obligations’ defined in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 in accordance with Articles 11, 12 and 13 of that regulation.
U toj fazi Komisija nije imala na raspolaganju dovoljno informacija za utvrđivanje jesu li irske vlasti izračunale naknadu za vršenje „tarifnih obveza” definiranih člankom 2. stavkom 5. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 u skladu s člancima 11., 12. i 13. te Uredbe.
The Commission also had doubts as to whether the measures in question would comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, if they were to be considered compensation for discharging PSOs.
Komisija također ima sumnje oko toga bi li dotične mjere bile u skladu s Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1191/69 ako bi ih se smatralo naknadom za vršenje obveze pružanja javne usluge.
Similarly, as regards school transport, the Commission had doubts as to whether the agreements between the Irish authorities and Bus Éireann would comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, if they were to be considered compensation for discharging PSOs.
Slično tome, kada je riječ o školskom prijevozu, Komisija ima sumnje oko toga bi li sporazumi između irskih vlasti i prijevoznika Bus Éireann bili u skladu s Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1191/69 ako bi ih se smatralo naknadom za vršenje obveze pružanja javne usluge.
At the time the Opening Decision was adopted, the Commission had incomplete information concerning the terms of the contractual arrangements, the revenues generated by and the costs of the school transport services provided.
U vrijeme donošenja Odluke o pokretanju postupka Komisija je imala nepotpune informacije o uvjetima ugovornih aranžmana, ostvarenim prihodima i troškovima pruženih usluga školskog prijevoza.
With regard to the existence of State aid, the Commission considered in the Opening Decision that the condition that aid was granted by a Member State or through State resources was satisfied.
S obzirom na postojanje državne potpore Komisija je u Odluci o pokretanju postupka ocijenila da je zadovoljen uvjet da potporu dodjeljuje država članica ili da se ona dodjeljuje putem državnih sredstava.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that the use of the infrastructure seemed to be exclusively confined to Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus and that the measure could constitute a selective economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Nadalje, Komisija je navela da se činilo kako je upotreba infrastrukture ograničena isključivo na prijevoznike Bus Éireann i Dublin Bus te da predmetna mjera može biti selektivna ekonomska prednost u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora.
Accordingly, the Commission could not exclude the possibility that the infrastructure investment grants constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
U skladu s time, Komisija nije mogla isključiti mogućnost da financiranje infrastrukture u obliku bespovratnih sredstava predstavlja državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the bus stations, bus stops, garages and maintenance facilities constituted a unilaterally imposed PSO, or whether the infrastructure investment grants were subject to public service contracts.
U Odluci o pokretanju postupka Komisija je izrazila sumnje o tome jesu li autobusni terminali, kolodvori, stajališta, spremišta i prostori za održavanje vozila jednostrano nametnuta obveza pružanja javne usluge ili su infrastrukturna ulaganja putem bespovratnih sredstava predmet ugovora o javnim uslugama.
The Irish authorities claimed that the infrastructure investment grants were covered by the exemption in Article 93 of the Treaty relating to the needs of coordination of transport and obligations of public service.
Irske su vlasti tvrdile da su infrastrukturna ulaganja putem bespovratnih sredstava pokrivena izuzećem prema članku 93. Ugovora u vezi s potrebom koordinacije prijevoza i obveza javne usluge.
The Commission considered that the compatibility of the grants needed to be assessed directly on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Komisija je smatrala da se spojivost tih bespovratnih sredstava mora ocijeniti izravno na temelju članka 107. stavka 3. točke (c) Ugovora.
However, the Commission expressed doubts in the Opening Decision as to whether the measures in question were prejudicial to the common interest and as to whether the criteria for compatibility under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty had been satisfied in this case.
Međutim, Komisija je u Odluci o pokretanju postupka izrazila sumnje oko toga jesu li predmetne mjere u suprotnosti sa zajedničkim interesom te jesu li u tom slučaju zadovoljeni kriteriji spojivosti u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 3. točke (c) Ugovora.
At the time that the Opening Decision was adopted, the Irish authorities had not provided the Commission with the necessary information concerning the duration, budget, intensity and further conditions relating to the financing of disability awareness training to allow it to take a position on that measure.
U vrijeme donošenja Odluke o pokretanju postupka irske vlasti nisu pružile Komisiji informacije o trajanju, proračunu, intenzitetu i ostalim uvjetima koji se tiču financiranja osposobljavanja u pogledu osviještenosti, a koje su joj potrebne za zauzimanje stajališta o toj mjeri.
On the basis of the information in its possession at the time that it adopted the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Na temelju informacija koje je imala na raspolaganju u vrijeme kada je donijela Odluku o pokretanju postupka, Komisija je izrazila sumnje oko postojanja državne potpore u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora.
The Commission also considered that, were it to come to the conclusion that the training measure constituted State aid, the appropriate legal framework to assess compatibility would be Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 [30].
Također, Komisija je smatrala da bi, u slučaju da bi donijela zaključak da te mjere osposobljavanja predstavljaju državnu potporu, nadležni pravni okvir za ocjenjivanje spojivosti bila Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 68/2001 [30].
At the time of adopting the Opening Decision, the Commission could not conclude that all the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 were complied with, and thus whether the exemption from the notification requirement laid down by Article 108(3) of the Treaty applied.
U vrijeme donošenja Odluke o pokretanju postupka Komisija nije mogla donijeti zaključak da su sve odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 68/2001 zadovoljene pa tako ni o tome primjenjuje li se izuzeće od obveze prijave utvrđene člankom 108. stavkom 3. Ugovora.
COMMENTS OF IRELAND
PRIMJEDBE IRSKE
Ireland states that the last 15 to 20 years have seen unprecedented social and economic change in Ireland.
Irska navodi da se u Irskoj u posljednjih 15 do 20 godina odvijaju društvene i gospodarske promjene bez presedana.
Increased traffic volumes, population growth, industry, workforce travel, changes in settlement patterns and longer commuter times, have all highlighted the major deficiencies in transport infrastructure and services.
Povećanje protoka prometa, rast broja stanovnika, industrije, putovanja radnika, zatim promjene u načinima naseljavanja prostora i sve duže trajanje putovanja na radno mjesto i s njega – sve je to dovelo do isticanja velikih nedostataka u infrastrukturi i uslugama prijevoza.
In response to the urgent challenges, National Development Plans for economic and social development have, since the early 1990s, provided investment priorities for transport infrastructure and services to quickly expand the capacity of the transport system, through the upgrading and provision of new vehicles, plants and equipment.
U svojoj reakciji na hitne izazove, nacionalnim razvojnim planovima gospodarskog i društvenog razvoja zadavali su se, od ranih 1990-ih, prioriteti ulaganja u infrastrukturu i usluge prijevoza kako bi se brzo povećao kapacitet sustava prijevoza, i to poboljšanjima i nabavom novih vozila, objekata i opreme.
As the only body with a statutory obligation to provide integrated public transport, including loss-making social and economic services, CIÉ and its wholly owned subsidiaries became the focus of government investment in the public transport sector.
Kao jedino tijelo sa zakonskom obvezom pružanja integriranog javnoga prijevoza, uključujući i socijalne i ekonomski prihvatljive usluge koje donose gubitke, CIÉ i trgovačka društva kćeri u njegovom potpunom vlasništvu postali su glavno vladino investicijsko područje u sektoru javnoga prijevoza.
In particular, because of their comprehensive and integrated network services, those operators were well placed to rapidly increase (loss-making) peak hour capacity.
Osobitost tih prijevoznika je u tome što su, zahvaljujući svojim sveobuhvatnim i integriranim umreženim uslugama imali dobro polazište za brzo povećanje kapaciteta u satima vršnog opterećenja (koji stvaraju gubitak).
It is against this background that increased capital and current funding was provided.
Ta je pozadina temelj za povećano dodjeljivanje sredstava kapitalnog i tekućeg financiranja.
Existing aid
Postojeće potpore
Ireland considers that all the aid measures covered by the Opening Decision are existing aid.
Irska smatra kako sve mjere potpore koje su pokrivene predmetnom Odlukom o pokretanju postupka predstavljaju postojeće potpore.
However, Ireland responded separately to the Commission's arguments in relation to operating compensation and financing of infrastructure, without prejudice to Ireland's position that all of the aid measures in question are existing aid.
Međutim, Irska je zasebno odgovorila na argumente Komisije povezane s naknadom za poslovanje te financiranjem infrastrukture, ne dovodeći u pitanje irsko stajalište da sve dotične mjere potpore predstavljaju postojeće potpore.
Operating compensation
Naknada za poslovanje
Ireland provided evidence of an Irish Supreme Court ruling on the lack of legal effect under Irish law of Memoranda of Understanding.
Irska je predočila dokaz o presudi irskog Vrhovnog suda o nepostojanju pravnog učinka memoranduma o razumijevanju u okviru irskoga prava.
Ireland states that the reliance on Irish law in this instance is justified as it is alleged that the conclusion of the Memoranda of Understanding amounts to an alteration to the Irish statutory regime, however that judgment confirms that this cannot occur under Irish law.
Irska navodi da je oslanjanje na irsko pravo u ovome slučaju opravdano zato što se tvrdi da sklapanje memoranduma o razumijevanju dovodi do izmjene u irskom pravnom sustavu, unatoč tome što ta presuda potvrđuje da se to u okviru irskoga prava ne može dogoditi.
In addition, Ireland pointed to the Memoranda themselves which contain wording saying that they have no legal effect and that the aid associated with those Memoranda is paid on the basis of the earlier legislative acts mentioned in recital 100.
Osim toga, Irska ukazuje na same memorandume u kojima se nalazi tekst koji govori da oni nemaju nikakav pravni učinak te da se potpore povezane s tim memorandumima isplaćuju na temelju ranijih zakonodavni akata navedenih u uvodnoj izjavi 100.
Ireland argues that this further demonstrates that the Memoranda of Understanding are based on the existing legislative regime, already in place since 1950.
Irska tvrdi da se time dodatno dokazuje utemeljenost memoranduma o razumijevanju na postojećem zakonodavnom sustavu koji postoji još od 1950.
In the alternative, Ireland submits that the payments in question meet the four Altmark conditions and an economic advantage does not accrue to Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus.
S druge strane Irska objašnjava da predmetne isplate ispunjavaju četiri uvjeta iz predmeta Altmark te da prijevoznici Bus Éireann i Dublin Bus ne ostvaruju ekonomske koristi.
In the further alternative, Ireland argues that the obligations laid down in Irish law since 1950 are PSOs which comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and are compatible with the Treaty.
Nadalje, Irska navodi da obveze utvrđene irskim pravom od 1950. predstavljaju obveze pružanja javne usluge koje ispunjavaju zahtjeve Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 i spojive su s Ugovorom.
Furthermore, due to the character of the compensation paid, Ireland claims it amounts to lawful operating aid falling within the exceptions set out in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Nadalje, Irska tvrdi kako priroda isplaćene naknade dovodi do toga da je zakonita potpora za poslovanje obuhvaćena izuzećem utvrđenim člankom 107. stavkom 3. točkom (c) Ugovora.
Finally, Ireland submits that Article 106(2) of the Treaty applies to undertakings like CIÉ, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus.
Konačno, Irska objašnjava da se na poduzetnike poput CIÉ-a te prijevoznika Bus Éireann i Dublin Bus primjenjuje članak 106. stavak 2. Ugovora.
Ireland states that the National Development Plan 2000-06 is not the correct comparator for the purposes of assessing the application of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [31] since the funding granted under the National Development Plan 1993-99 amounts to existing aid and no substantial alteration has been made to that aid by the conclusion of the National Development Plans 2000-06 and 2007-13.
Irska navodi da Nacionalni razvojni plan za razdoblje 2000.–2006. nije dobar za usporedbu u svrhe ocjenjivanja primjene članka 1. točke (c) Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 659/1999 [31] zato što sredstva dodijeljena u skladu s Nacionalnim razvojnim planom za razdoblje 1993.–1999. dovode do postojanja potpore i zato što sastavljanjem nacionalnih razvojnih planova za razdoblja 2000.–2006. i 2007.–2013. ta potpora nije doživjela nikakve bitne izmjene.
Ireland argues that the National Development Plan is a high-level policy document outlining the Government's investment strategies and priorities and that therefore the National Development Plans 2000-06 and 2007-13 have no legal effect constituting a substantial change under Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Irska navodi da je nacionalni razvojni plan dokument politike visoke razine u kojemu se iznose vladine investicijske strategije i prioriteti te da stoga nacionalni razvojni planovi za razdoblja 2000.–2006. i 2007.–2013. ne donose nikakav pravni učinak koji bi bio bitna promjena iz članka 1. točke (c) Uredbe (EZ) br. 659/1999.