natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, contrary to what appeared to be implied in recital 43 of the Commission's opening decision, the PSOs were not confined to the costs of operating public transport services: their purpose might include an improvement in the quality of the service, the infrastructure or the rolling stock.
Konačno, suprotno od onoga što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 43. odluke Komisije o pokretanju postupka, obveze obavljanja javne usluge nisu ograničene na troškove obavljanja usluga prijevoza: troškovi mogu služiti poboljšanju kvalitete usluge, infrastrukture i voznog parka.
The measures could be deemed compatible with the internal market if they fulfilled the conditions of the Regulations applicable, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 or Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Mjere mogu biti spojive s unutarnjim tržištem ako ispunjavaju uvjete primjenjivih zakona, odnosno Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 ili Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
Additional comments by RATP Dev, Transdev, OPTILE and Keolis submitted on 21 June 2016
Dodatne primjedbe grupacije RATP Dev, poduzeća Transdev, OPTILE-a i Keolisa podnesene 21. lipnja 2016.
Firstly, the four interested third parties who wished to make additional comments drew the Commission's attention to a decision it had taken when examining the compatibility of a State aid scheme set up by the Czech Republic (the ‘Autobus pořízení decision’) [22].
Kao prvo, četiri zainteresirane strane koje su željele dopuniti primjedbe upozorile su Komisiju na njezinu odluku donesenu u okviru procjene spojivosti programa državnih potpora koje je uvela Republika Češka („odluka Autobus Porizeni”) [22].
The circumstances underlying that decision were, according to the third parties, very similar to those associated with the mechanism set up by the Region (taken over by the CT1).
Zainteresirane strane smatraju da su činjenice na kojima se ova odluka temeljila srodne mehanizmu regije (upotrijebljenom u ugovorima CT1).
The Commission had examined the Czech system of investment subsidies taking into account the repercussions of the subsidies on operating compensation granted under the operating agreements, and had declared it compatible on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
No, Komisija je razmotrila češki sustav subvencija za ulaganja uzimajući u obzir utjecaj subvencija na naknade za obavljanje usluga dodijeljene u okviru ugovora o obavljanju usluga te ga je proglasila spojivim na temelju Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
The interested parties went on to argue that the Jørgen Andersen judgment settled the question of which Regulation relating to public passenger transport applied in the present case: it was Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 as amended in 1991, not Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Nadalje, zainteresirane strane smatraju da je presudom u predmetu Jorgen Andersen zaključeno pitanje o uredbi koja se odnosi na javne usluge putničkog prijevoza koja se primjenjuje u ovom predmetu: radi se o Uredbi (EEZ) br. 1191/69, odnosno njezinoj izmijenjenoj verziji iz 1991., a ne o Uredbi (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
The interested parties argued primarily that the regional subsidies paid under the system set up by the Region did not constitute State aid.
Prije svega, zainteresirane strane tvrde da regionalne subvencije isplaćene u okviru mehanizma koji je uvela regija nisu državna potpora.
They arrived at this conclusion by taking into account the fact that the mechanism included an annual interest rate which applied to subsidies for the purchase of rolling stock.
Do tog su zaključka došli uzevši u obzir godišnju kamatnu stopu koja se u okviru ovog mehanizma primjenjivala na subvenciju za kupnju vozila.
As far as the question of the applicable Regulation was concerned, the interested parties pointed out that the Jørgen Andersen judgment laid down temporal rules for applying Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EC) No 1370/2007.
U pogledu pitanja primjenjive uredbe zainteresirane strane tvrde da su presudom u predmetu Jorgen Andersen utvrđena pravila primjene u vrijeme Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 i Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
By that judgment, the Court ruled that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 applied when assessing:
Tom je presudom Sud presudio da se Uredba (EEZ) br. 1191/69 primjenjuje za provjeru:
the lawfulness of the aid payments made before 3 December 2009, since Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 was an exemption regulation which exempted compensation paid in compliance with those provisions from the notification requirement;
zakonitosti potpora isplaćenih prije 3. prosinca 2009. jer je Uredba (EEZ) br. 1191/69 uredba o izuzeću kojom se isplaćene naknade izuzimaju iz obveze obavještavanja u skladu s njezinom odredbama;
the lawfulness and compatibility of aid paid in performance of the contracts in force at 3 December 2009 and extended for varying periods laid down under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
zakonitost i spojivost naknada isplaćenih tijekom izvršavanja ugovora 3. prosinca 2009. koji su bili u tijeku i trajali u različitim razdobljima određenima člankom 8. stavkom 3. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
In accordance with the Jørgen Andersen judgment, which was binding on the Commission in the case in point, it would have to assess the aid paid before 3 December 2009 under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, including compensation paid in the form of prices under the public-service contract system.
U skladu s presudom u predmetu Jorgen Andersen, koja je u ovom slučaju obvezujuća za Komisiju, Komisija bi trebala provjeriti naknade isplaćene prije 3. prosinca 2009. u okviru Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 uključujući i naknade isplaćene u obliku cijene u okviru programa ugovora o obavljanju javne usluge.
Furthermore, the procedures for calculating compensation paid in the form of prices had been laid down in case law in the Danske Busvognmænd ruling [23], which required such compensation to be ‘directly and exclusively necessary for the performance of the public transport service per se’ [24].
Nadalje, metode izračuna naknada isplaćenih u obliku cijene određene su prema presudi u predmetu Danske Bus [23], u skladu s kojom se zahtijeva da te naknade „kao takve budu izravno i isključivo potrebne za obavljanje javne usluge prijevoza” [24].
In the extraordinary event that the Commission were to refuse to regard Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 as an exemption regulation, it would, in conformity with its decision-making practice, have to conclude that the regional subsidies deriving from the mechanism set up by the Region were compatible.
Ako Komisija zbog nekog razloga Uredbu (EEZ) br. 1191/69 ne smatra uredbom o izuzeću, trebala bi u skladu sa svojom praksom donošenja odluka zaključiti da su regionalne subvencije dodijeljene u okviru mehanizma regije bile spojive s tržištem.
If the Commission were to refuse to apply the principles handed down in the Jørgen Andersen judgment by applying Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, it would have to find that the conditions for considering the compatibility of compensation paid in the form of prices were identical to those set out in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Ako Komisija odbije primijeniti načela izrečena u presudi u predmetu Jorgen Andersen primjenjujući Uredbu (EZ) br. 1370/2007, trebala bi zaključiti da su uvjeti primjene o provjeri spojivosti naknada jednaki onima navedenima u Uredbi (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
Lastly, the interested third parties also added to their submissions on the implementation of the existing aid scheme following the Commission decision on Dublin Bus/Irish Bus of 15 October 2014 [25].
Konačno, zainteresirane strane završavaju svoj dopis o primjeni postojećeg programa potpora odlukom Komisije Dublin Bus/Irish Bus od 15. listopada 2014.
By that decision, the Commission considered that an investment subsidy system set up in 1985 and very similar to the mechanism put in place by the Region constituted an existing aid scheme.
Naime, tom je odlukom Komisija utvrdila da je sustav subvencija za ulaganja, uveden 1985. i sličan mehanizmu koji je uvela regija zapravo postojeći program potpora.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES IN QUESTION BY THE COMMISSION
PROCJENA KOMISIJE U POGLEDU PREDMETNIH MJERA
The Commission's assessment covers the three investment support mechanisms referred to in the opening decision, namely: (i) the Region's investment subsidy mechanism defined in successive decisions CR 34-94, CR 44-98 and CR 47-01; (ii) the mechanism which succeeded it with the introduction of Rider No 3 to the CT1; and, lastly, (iii) the C2 contribution under the CT2.
Analizom Komisije obuhvaćena su tri mehanizma potpora za ulaganja navedenih u odluci o pokretanju postupka, a to su: i. mehanizam subvencija regije za ulaganja definiran u sukcesivnim odlukama CR 34-94, CR 44-98 i CR 47-01, ii. mehanizam koji je uslijedio uvođenjem Dopune br. 3 ugovoru CT1 te iii. doprinos C2 ugovoru CT2.
As regards the CT2, the Commission would point out that its scrutiny is limited to contribution C2 relating to investment problems.
Komisija navodi da je provjera ugovora CT2 ograničena na doprinos C2 povezan s problematikom ulaganja.
The opening decision concerns only measures that could constitute a form of investment support, which de facto excludes the C1 contribution under the CT2.
Odluka o pokretanju postupka odnosi se samo na mjere koje mogu biti neki oblik potpore za ulaganja, što isključuje doprinose C1 i C2.
Aid scheme or individual aid
Program potpora ili pojedinačne potpore
More than 100 undertakings or state-owned companies have, over the years, benefited from subsidies paid successively by the Region and then by STIF.
Tijekom godina više od stotinu privatnih ili javnih poduzeća koristilo je potpore koje je isprva isplaćivala regija, a potom i STIF.
Before assessing whether there has been aid and whether it is compatible with the internal market, the question which arises is whether the subsidies in question were granted individually, in which case they must be examined individually by the Commission, or in the context of schemes, in which case the Commission may confine itself to studying the key parameters of the schemes concerned.
Prije procjene postojanja potpora i njihove eventualne spojivosti s unutarnjim tržištem trebalo bi provjeriti jesu li potpore dodijeljene pojedinačno, pri čemu bi Komisija trebala pojedinačno provjeravati dodijeljene potpore ili u okviru programa potpora u kojem bi provjera Komisije bila ograničena na provjeru ključnih parametara predmetnih programa.
Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [26] (‘the Procedural Regulation’) defines as an aid scheme ‘any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount’.
Uredbom Vijeća (EU) 2015/1589 [26] („Poslovnik”) program potpora definira se kao „svaki akt na temelju kojega se, bez potrebe za donošenjem daljnjih provedbenih mjera, pojedinačne potpore mogu dodjeljivati poduzetnicima određenima u okviru tog akta u općem i apstraktnom smislu, kao i svaki akt na temelju kojega se potpora koja nije povezana s određenim projektom može dodjeljivati jednom ili više poduzetnika tijekom neodređenog vremenskog razdoblja i/ili u neodređenom iznosu”.
It follows from this definition that, in order to distinguish an aid scheme from a set of individual aid measures, the Commission must give particular attention to evaluating how much margin for discretion the authority providing the aid has on a case by case basis.
Iz ove definicije proizlazi da će Komisija, u cilju razlikovanja programa potpora od dodjele pojedinačnih potpora, procjenjivati diskrecijske ovlasti kojima, od slučaja do slučaja, raspolaže nadležno tijelo koje dodjeljuje potpore.
As regards the mechanism put in place by the Region, the Commission finds that the Regional Council decision of 1994 defined in a general and abstract manner the undertakings able to claim the subsidies, which in this case were the undertakings or state-owned companies that had signed a contract with a public authority in Île-de-France for the operation of scheduled transport routes by bus.
Komisija je u pogledu mehanizma koji je uvela regija utvrdila da se u odluci Regionalnog Vijeća iz 1994. općenito i apstraktno definiraju poduzeća koja mogu tražiti dodjelu subvencija, a to su u ovom slučaju privatna ili javna poduzeća koja su s nekom od jedinica uprave regije Île-de-France zaključila ugovor o upotrebi redovnih javnih autobusnih linija.
Furthermore, the same decision defined clearly and precisely the types of asset which could be subsidised, the price ceilings on the said assets and the rate of subsidy for each type of asset.
Nadalje, tom istom odlukom jasno i precizno definiraju se vrste dobara koja se mogu subvencionirati, najviše cijene tih dobara kao i stopa subvencije za svako od tih dobara.
The terms for awarding the aid were also set out, in particular, the obligation on the contracting authority and the undertaking to make proposals for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the transport services supplied.
Uvjeti dodjele potpora isto su jasno određeni, posebno obveze jedinice javne uprave nositeljice projekta i obveze poduzeća da ponude kvalitativno i kvantitativno poboljšanje usluge prijevoza.
As regards the subsidies paid under the CT1, the Commission notes that they fell within the scope of the model contract drawn up and validated by STIF in 2006.
Komisija primjećuje da su subvencije isplaćene u okviru ugovora CT1 obuhvaćene ugovornim modelom koji je STIF uspostavio i odobrio 2006. Pojedinačno zaključivanje tog ugovora ne smije odstupati od temeljnih načela i parametara tog modela, kako je navedeno u preambuli svakog ugovora CT1.
Individual variations under that contract could not deviate from the principles and parameters laid down in the model, as was pointed out in the preamble to each CT1: ‘this contract is also concluded pursuant to and in compliance with the guidelines and principles described in the Regional Specification adopted by STIF's Board of Directors at its meeting of 13 December 2006 and conforms to the Type 1 model also adopted by the Board’.
„ovaj je ugovor dodijelilo i u skladu sa smjernicama i načelima navedenima u Regionalnim specifikacijama usvojilo Vijeće STIF-a na sjednici od 13. prosinca 2006. i u skladu je s modelom CT1 koji je također usvojilo Vijeće”.
Similar reasoning applies to the C2 contribution in the CT2.
Slično se mišljenje odnosi i na doprinos C2 ugovora CT2.
This is calculated by following procedures strictly regulated by the model CT2 ratified by STIF's Board of Directors.
Taj je doprinos izračunan metodama koje su strogo ograničene modelom ugovora CT2 koji je odobrilo vijeće STIF-a.
Any undertaking holding a CT2 may claim C2 compensation in respect of its investment costs, with no discretionary power left to STIF in the calculating of that compensation.
Svako poduzeće koje je potpisalo ugovor CT2 može zatražiti naknadu C2 za svoje troškova ulaganja, pri čemu STIF u izračunu te naknade nema nikakvo diskrecijsko pravo.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that individual scrutiny of each subsidy is not necessary for the purpose of assessing whether there has been aid and whether it is compatible.
U svjetlu prethodno navedenoga Komisija smatra da nije potrebno pojedinačno provjeravati svaku dodijeljenu potporu kako bi utvrdila je li riječ o državnim potporama i jesu li one spojive s unutarnjim tržištem.
In the remainder of this Decision, the Commission therefore argues on the basis of the general parameters laid down in the legal basis for each of the three schemes involved.
Komisija u nastavku odluke donosi mišljenje prema općim parametrima u okviru pravne osnove svakog od tri predmetna programa potpora.
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
U skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1. UFEU-a „svaka potpora koju dodijeli država članica ili koja se dodjeljuje putem državnih sredstava u bilo kojem obliku koja narušava ili prijeti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje stavljanjem određenih poduzetnika ili proizvodnje određene robe u povoljniji položaj, nespojiva je s unutarnjim tržištem u mjeri u kojoj utječe na trgovinu među državama članicama”.
Accordingly, to be classed as State aid, the measures under investigation must (i) be granted by the State, i.e. involve state resources and be imputable to the State; (ii) confer an economic advantage on their beneficiary; (iii) be selective, as opposed to a measure with general effect; and (iv) be likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Iz ove odredbe proizlazi da se predmetne mjere smatraju državnim potporama ako te mjere: i. dodjeljuje država, tj. ako poduzeća upotrebljavaju državne resurse ili resurse koji se mogu pripisati državi, ii. korisnicima donose gospodarsku korist, iii. nisu opće nego selektivne i iv. mogu narušiti tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu među državama članicama.
The subsidies from the Region were awarded on the basis of decisions by the Regional Council and from the budget of the Île-de-France Region.
regija je subvencije dodijelila na temelju odluka Regionalnog vijeća i iz proračuna regije Île-de-France.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures implemented by the Region involve State resources and are therefore imputable to the French State.
Komisija prema tome zaključuje da mjere koje je provodila regija uključuju državna sredstva te da su pripisive francuskoj državi.
As STIF is a public administrative institution, its decisions are attributable to a public authority and its resources are public.
Budući da je STIF javna institucija upravnog karaktera, njegove se odluke smatraju odlukama javnog tijela, a njegova se sredstva smatraju javnima.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures implemented by STIF involve State resources and are imputable to the French State.
Komisija prema tome zaključuje da mjere koje je provodio STIF uključuju državna sredstva te da su pripisive francuskoj državi.
As a preliminary remark, the Commission would point out that state-owned companies benefiting from the measures implemented by the Region and by STIF must be regarded as undertakings because, regardless of their legal status, in the case in point they are carrying on an economic activity, namely the supply of transport services by road.
Komisija u uvodnoj napomeni ukazuje na to da se javna tijela koja upotrebljavaju mjere regije i STIF-a moraju smatrati poduzećima jer neovisno o njihovu pravnom statusu provode gospodarsku djelatnost, a to je u ovom slučaju obavljanje usluge cestovnog prijevoza.
Consequently, all beneficiaries of the measures — whether private undertakings or state-owned companies — are involved in an economic activity and must be regarded as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Prema tome svi korisnici tih mjera, neovisno o tome je li riječ o privatnim poduzećima ili javnim tijelima, provode gospodarsku djelatnost i moraju se smatrati poduzećima u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a.
In its opening decision, the Commission raised the question of the nature of the investment support measures implemented by the Region and then by STIF and whether they constituted investment subsidies or public-service compensation.
U svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka Komisija preispituje prirodu mjera financijske potpore za ulaganja koje su provodili prvo regija, a potom i STIF te radi li se ovdje o subvencijama za ulaganja ili naknadama za obavljanje javne usluge.
In commenting on this point, the French authorities and the interested third parties took the view that the measures implemented by the Region and by STIF were forms of compensation awarded to state-owned companies and private undertakings operating bus transport services in return for the discharge of PSOs and, since, moreover, they complied with the criteria set out in the Altmark ruling, they had not conferred an economic advantage on the recipients.
Francuska nadležna tijela i zainteresirane strane odgovorili su da smatraju da su mjere koje su provodili regija i STIF bile naknade dodijeljene javnim tijelima i privatnim autobusnim prijevoznicima za obavljanje javne usluge, a s obzirom na to da su bile u skladu s kriterijima navedenima u presudi Altmark, te mjere nisu svojim korisnicima donijele gospodarsku korist.
Compensation for costs incurred in supplying a service of general economic interest does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if four cumulative conditions are met [27].
Naime, naknada troškova nastalih pružanjem usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa ne predstavlja državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a, pod uvjetom da su istodobno ispunjena četiri uvjeta [27].
First, the undertaking receiving compensation must actually be responsible for discharging the PSOs and those obligations must be clearly defined.
Prvo, poduzetniku koji prima naknadu moraju zaista biti povjerene obveze pružanja javne usluge i te obveze moraju biti jasno određene.
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Drugo, parametri na temelju kojih se izračunava naknada moraju biti unaprijed određeni na objektivan i transparentan način.
Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the PSOs, taking the associated revenue and a reasonable profit into account.
Treće, naknada ne smije premašiti iznos neophodan za pokrivanje svih ili dijela troškova koji su nastali pri izvršenju obveze javne usluge, uzimajući u obzir relevantne prihode i razumnu dobit.
Fourth, where the undertaking that is to discharge PSOs is not chosen following a public procurement procedure to select a tenderer capable of providing these services at the lowest cost to the local authority, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided with means to meet the public-service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
Četvrto, ako poduzetnik kojem je povjereno izvršenje obveze pružanja javne usluge nije izabran na temelju postupka javnog natječaja kojim bi se omogućio izbor ponuditelja koji bi takve usluge mogao pružiti po najpovoljnijim uvjetima za jedinicu javne uprave, visina potrebne naknade mora se odrediti na temelju analize troškova koje bi imao tipičan poduzetnik, kojim se dobro upravlja i koji ima odgovarajuća potrebna sredstva za izvršenje obveze obavljanja usluge, uzimajući u obzir relevantne prihode i razumnu dobit od izvršenja tih obveza.
The Commission has further elaborated its understanding of these conditions in its Communication on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest [28].
Komisija je izjavila da su ti uvjeti navedeni u Komunikaciji o primjeni pravila o državnim potporama Europske unije na naknadu koja se dodjeljuje za obavljanje usluga od općeg gospodarskog interesa [28].
The Commission will therefore analyse the measures in question from the perspective of the Altmark precedent.
Komisija će predmetne mjere analizirati kroz prizmu predmeta Altmark.
The Region's investment subsidies
Subvencije regije za ulaganja
The aim of applying the first Altmark criterion is to establish that the payments constitute compensation awarded in exchange for the discharge of clearly defined PSOs.
Primjenom prvog kriterija iz presude Altmark utvrđuje se jesu li isplaćene potpore naknade dodijeljene za izvršenje jasno određenih obveza obavljanja javne usluge.