natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the mechanism set up by the Region, the Commission, concurring with the Paris Administrative Court [31], finds that ‘undertakings operating in the scheduled passenger transport sector also operate in the occasional passenger transport sector […] hence, scheduled passenger transport undertakings which have received the above-mentioned subsidies may find themselves in competition with occasional passenger transport undertakings which have not been able to benefit from those subsidies, which are, as has been stated, reserved for undertakings operating scheduled routes’.
Komisija je u pogledu mehanizma regije u dogovoru s Upravnim sudom u Parizu [31] utvrdila da „poduzeća koja posluju u sektoru redovnog putničkog prijevoza posluju i u sektoru povremenog putničkog prijevoza […] zbog toga se poduzeća redovnog putničkog prijevoza koja su dobila prethodno navedene subvencije mogu tržišno natjecati s poduzećima povremenog putničkog prijevoza koja nisu dobila subvencije jer su one bile namijenjene poduzećima koja posluju na redovnim linijama”.
Thus, during the first five years, the equipment concerned could be assigned, outside the normal periods of utilisation, to other uses, including uses in the occasional transport market.
Na taj je način ta oprema tijekom prvih pet godina izvan redovnog vremena upotrebe mogla biti upotrijebljena u druge svrhe, uključujući i tržište povremenog prijevoza.
Beyond the fifth year, the Region no longer imposed any obligation on the use of the above-mentioned assets.
Nakon isteka petogodišnjeg razdoblja regija je ukinula obvezu o upotrebi subvencioniranih dobara.
Furthermore, there was no provision or stipulation prohibiting subsidised undertakings which operated the scheduled passenger transport routes in Île-de-France from bidding for the award of other scheduled or occasional passenger transport contracts that were put out to tender in France or in Europe.
Nadalje, nijednom se odredbom i uvjetom subvencioniranim poduzećima koja su poslovala na redovnim linijama javnog cestovnog prijevoza u regiji Île-de-France nije zabranilo da se prijave za dodjelu ugovora na drugim otvorenim tržištima redovnog ili povremenog putničkog prijevoza u Francuskoj ili u Europi.
The national court which ruled in the administrative dispute described in recitals 27 to 32 arrived at the same finding, which led it to conclude that the subsidised undertakings were ‘likely, owing to the savings made when acquiring subsidised vehicles and equipment, to enjoy a competitive advantage over undertakings which did not receive aid’ and that, as a consequence, the mechanism in question was ‘such as to affect trade between the Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition’ [32].
Nacionalni sud primijetio je isto, što je i naveo u uvodnim izjavama 27. i 32., po čemu zaključuje da su subvencionirana poduzeća „mogla imati tržišnu prednost u odnosu na poduzeća koja nisu dobivala potporu zbog povlastica ostvarenih pri kupnji subvencioniranih vozila i opreme” te da je prema tome predmetni mehanizam „mogao utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama i naštetiti tržišnom natjecanju” [32].
The Commission endorses this conclusion and confirms that, from the point at which the regional mechanism was set up, and particularly during the whole of the period under consideration, the investment subsidies from the Region were likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Komisija podržava ovaj zaključak te potvrđuje da su, nakon stvaranja regionalnog mehanizma i a fortiori tijekom cijelog promatranog razdoblja, subvencije regije za ulaganja mogle naštetiti tržišnom natjecanju i utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
In the ensuing period, the assets for which a subsidy had been awarded by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1 had to be used exclusively for the purpose of carrying out the public-service activities included in the STIF transport plan for a minimum of eight years [33].
U narednom razdoblju dobra financirana subvencijom STIF-a na temelju Dopune br. 3 ugovora CT1 morala su se upotrebljavati isključivo za obavljanje aktivnosti javne usluge predviđenih prometnim planom STIF-a tijekom razdoblja od minimalno osam godina [33].
The Commission notes, however, that the argument set out in recital 226 remains valid after the eighth year of service.
Međutim, Komisija naglašava da mišljenje izraženo u uvodnoj izjavi 226. vrijedi i nakon osme godine usluge.
What is more, even supposing that the buses and coaches subsidised by STIF had only been used to perform public-service tasks on the market in scheduled passenger transport by road in Île-de-France, that would not be enough to rule out any possibility that competition had been distorted and trade between Member States had been affected by the measure in question.
Osim toga, čak i ako su gradski i međugradski autobusi koje je subvencionirao STIF služili samo za obavljanje javne usluge redovnog cestovnog prijevoza u regiji Île-de-France, to ne bi isključivalo mogućnost da predmetna mjera našteti tržišnom natjecanju i trgovini među državama članicama.
The assumption of responsibility by a public authority for costs normally borne by an undertaking gives it an advantage over its direct competitors in the various markets in which it is likely to operate, and therefore distorts competition.
Naime, ako javno tijelo na sebe preuzme troškove koje inače snosi poduzeće, to je poduzeće u povlaštenom položaju u odnosu na druge izravne konkurente na različitim tržištima na kojima to poduzeće može poslovati, a time šteti tržišnoj konkurenciji.
As observed in the Altmark judgment, since 1995 several Member States have started opening certain transport markets up to competition by undertakings established in other Member States.
Kako je navedeno u presudi iz presude Altmark, nakon 1995. nekoliko je država članica počelo otvarati svoja tržišta prijevoza poduzetnicima iz drugih država članica.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the subsidy mechanism brought in by Rider No 3 to the CT1 was likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
U svjetlu svega navedenoga Komisija zaključuje da je mehanizam subvencija uveden Dopunom br. 3 ugovora CT1 mogao naštetiti tržišnoj konkurenciji i utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
The argument put forward in recital 228 also applies to the CT2 period, so that aid awarded through the C2 contribution in CT2 is also likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Argument naveden u uvodnoj izjavi 228. primjenjuje se i na razdoblje ugovora CT2 jer je pomoć dodijeljena putem doprinosa C2 i ugovora CT2 jednako tako mogla naštetiti tržišnoj konkurenciji i utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
The Commission concludes that the investment subsidies and public-service compensation awarded successively by the Region, then under Rider No 3 to the CT1, and finally through contribution C2 in CT2, are State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija zaključuje da su subvencije za ulaganja i dodijeljene naknade za obavljanje javne usluge koje je dodjeljivala regija na temelju Dopune br. 3 ugovora CT1, a zatim i kroz doprinose C2 na temelju ugovora CT2 zapravo državne potpore u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a.
To start with, the Commission wishes to respond to the arguments put forward by the Region and certain other interested third parties regarding the potential classification of the Region's contentious mechanism as existing State aid.
Komisija za početak želi odgovoriti na argumente koje su podnijele regija i druge zainteresirane strane o kvalifikaciji spornog mehanizma regije kao postojećeg programa potpora.
The Commission would make clear that the question of existing aid arises only with respect to the scheme set up by the Region, as the date when the scheme was set up is not as clear as in the case of the later schemes implemented by STIF.
Komisija navodi da se pitanje postojećih potpora odnosi samo na program regije jer datum pokretanja programa regije nije jasan kao datumi pokretanja narednih programa koje je provodio STIF.
In the case of the latter, it is clear, in particular, that the subsidy scheme brought in by Rider No 3 to the CT1 was set up in 2008 and cannot be seen as merely a continuation of the Region's scheme, despite similarities in the spirit of both of these schemes, if only because the authority which awards the subsidies in these two schemes is not the same.
U pogledu programa koje je provodio STIF, jasno je da je program subvencija uveden 2008. Dopunom br. 3 ugovora CT1 i da se ne može smatrati nastavkom programa regije unatoč sličnostima obaju programa jer nadležno tijelo koje dodjeljuje subvencije nije isto u oba slučaja.
In the case of the Region's scheme, the parties to the procedure, having highlighted its alleged character as an existing aid scheme, have claimed principally that the legal basis which established the Region's subsidy mechanism was Decree No 49-1473 of 14 November 1949 on the coordination and harmonisation of rail and road transport.
U pogledu programa potpora regije strane u postupku koje su izjavile da se radi o postojećem programu potpora naglasile su da je pravna osnova na temelju koje je uveden mehanizam subvencija regije bio dekret br. 49-1473 od 14. studenoga 1949. o koordinaciji i harmonizaciji željezničkog i cestovnog prijevoza.
This decree, which was repealed in September 2012, laid down that ‘a local authority may subsidise a road service by signing a contract with an undertaking laying down the obligations imposed on the latter over and above those to which it is subject under its operating rules’ (Article 19, first subparagraph).
Tim dekretom, ukinutim u rujnu 2012., bilo je predviđeno da „teritorijalna jedinica uprave može subvencionirati uslugu cestovnog prijevoza ako zaključi ugovor s poduzećem kojim će se odrediti obveze koje će morati ispunjavati poduzeće uz obveze koje proizlaze iz njegova pravilnika o poslovanju (članak 19. stavak 1.)”.
In this case, it would have to be found that the legal basis for the scheme dated from before the Treaty of Rome, which would mean that the mechanism set up by the Region would have to be regarded as an existing aid scheme.
U tom bi slučaju trebalo zaključiti da je pravna osnova programa prethodila Rimskim ugovorima po čemu bi se mehanizam koji je uvela regija trebao smatrati postojećim programom potpora.
In the alternative, the same parties argue that, if the Commission were to consider that the fact that the mechanism set up by the Region fell within the general framework laid down by the 1949 decree was not sufficient grounds for classifying it as an existing aid scheme, the date on which the mechanism concerned was officially established by the Regional Council would have to be taken into account.
Nadalje, ako Komisija smatra da nije dovoljna činjenica da je mehanizam koji je uvela regija proveden u općem okviru predviđenom dekretom iz 1949. po kojem se smatra postojećim programom potpora, te iste strane naglašavaju da bi trebalo uzeti u obzir datum na koji je Regionalno vijeće službeno uvelo mehanizam.
The consequence of this would be that the scheme was not aid at the time it was established.
To bi značilo da program potpora nije bio financijska potpora u vrijeme kada je uspostavljen.
The Commission cannot accept these two arguments.
Komisija ove argumente smatra neutemeljenima.
As regards the principal argument, the Commission points out that the 1949 decree did not precisely define any of the key parameters of the scheme: duration, budget, definition of the beneficiaries, type of asset eligible for the subsidy, subsidy rates.
U pogledu glavnog argumenta Komisija primjećuje da dekretom iz 1949. nije precizno određen nijedan ključni parametar programa: trajanje, proračun, definicija korisnika, vrsta dobara za koje se može dodijeliti subvencija te stopa subvencije.
On its own, that enactment did not establish any entitlement to receive subsidies.
Na temelju samog tog teksta ne nastaje nikakvo pravo na dodjelu subvencija.
Therefore, the 1949 decree cannot be regarded as the legal basis for the aid mechanism set up by the Region, as described in this Decision.
Prema tome, dekret iz 1949. ne može se smatrati pravnom osnovom onakvog mehanizma potpora koji je uvela regija, kakav proizlazi iz opisa sadržanog u ovoj odluci.
As regards the argument in the alternative, it is clear that the case made by the interested parties is vitiated by error.
Mišljenje koje su zainteresirane strane iznijele u pomoćnom argumentu pogrešno je.
Even if the 1984 decision were to be taken as the legal basis on which the Region's mechanism was established, the Commission points out that the criterion regarding an effect on competition and trade between Member States was already met by that date, for the reasons stated in recital 226.
Naime, čak i kad bi se odluka iz 1984. smatrala pravnom osnovom na temelju koje je uveden mehanizam regije, Komisija podsjeća da je kriterij utjecaja na tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu među državama članicama na taj datum već bio ispunjen prema mišljenju izraženom u uvodnoj izjavi 226.
It should not, therefore, be considered that the mechanism set up by the Region did not constitute aid at the time of its establishment, whatever date is taken as that on which the scheme was established between 1979 and 2008.
Bez obzira na to koji se datum između 1979. i 2008. smatra datumom uvođenja programa potpora, ne može se smatrati da program nije bila financijska potpora.
If, however, it were to be considered that the establishment of the Region's mechanism dated back to one of the decisions prior to 1994, the question of whether the measures at issue were barred by limitation could arise, since the legal basis for them would date back to more than 10 years prior to the suspension of the limitation, which took effect in May 2004.
Ako se smatra da je program potpora uveden jednom od odluka donesenih prije 1994., postavlja se pitanje propisivanja spornih mjera jer bi u tom slučaju njihova pravna osnova bila donesena više od deset godina prije no što je u svibnju 2004. prekinuto propisivanje mjera.
On this question, the Commission would reply that, even supposing the scheme had been set up before 1994 (for example, by the 1984 decision), the rules on limitation applying with respect to State aid would not jeopardise the conclusion that the aid paid by the Region since 1984 was new aid.
Komisija po tom pitanju odgovara da, čak i u slučaju da je program uveden prije 1994. (npr. odlukom iz 1984.), na temelju primjenjivih pravila propisivanja mjera državnih potpora ne osporava se zaključak prema kojem su financijske potpore koje je regija dodijelila nakon 1994. zapravo nove financijske potpore.
Limitation, in fact, attaches only to the payments made before the date of the limitation, and not to the scheme in its entirety.
Naime, propisivanje mjera odnosi se samo na isplate provedene prije datuma propisivanja mjera, a ne na program u cijelosti.
The limitation was suspended, however, by the appeal lodged with the national court in May 2004.
Propisivanje mjera prekinuto je žalbom podnesenom nacionalnom sudu u svibnju 2004.
This suspension of limitation before the national court also applies to the Commission, as the purpose of the powers of the national court is to safeguard the prerogatives granted to the Commission by Article 108(3) TFEU.
Ovaj prekid propisivanja mjera vrijedi i za Komisiju jer je nacionalni sud dužan očuvati povlastice dodijeljene Komisiji člankom 108. stavkom 3. UFEU-a.
Any aid paid by the Region after May 1994, even if the legal basis authorising the award of such aid were to be deemed to be prior to that date, must therefore be considered as being new aid in the current proceedings.
Svaka potpora koju je regija isplatila nakon svibnja 1994. u okviru ovog postupka smatra se novom potporom, čak i ako je pravna osnova na temelju koje se dopušta dodjela tih potpora prethodila tom datumu.
Now that the questions relating to existing aid and the possibility of time-barring of the measures at issue have been clarified, the question of the lawfulness of the aid must be addressed.
Budući da je razjašnjeno pitanje postojećih potpora i eventualnog propisivanja spornih mjera, sada se nameće pitanje zakonitosti predmetnih potpora.
The investment subsidies awarded by the Region and then by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1 were not notified to the Commission.
Komisija nije obaviještena o subvencijama za ulaganja koje je dodjeljivala regija, a potom i STIF na temelju Dopune br. 3 ugovoru CT1.
They therefore constitute unlawful aid.
Stoga se te potpore smatraju nezakonitima.
In the case of the C2 contribution under CT2, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that compensation awarded in accordance with its principles is exempt from the prior notification requirement referred to in Article 108(3) TFEU.
U pogledu doprinosa C2 ugovora CT2 u članku 9. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 navodi se da se naknade dodijeljene u skladu s načelima Uredbe izuzimaju od obveze obavještavanja Komisije u skladu s člankom 108. stavkom 3. UFEU-a.
In its judgment in Dilly's Wellnesshotel [35], the Court of Justice made clear that all the conditions of an exemption regulation, including formal conditions, had to be met in order for exemption from the notification requirement to apply.
U okviru predmeta Dilly's Wellnesshotel [35] Sud Europske unije objasnio je da svi uvjeti uredbe o izuzeću, uključujući i one službene, moraju biti ispunjeni da bi se izuzeće od obavještavanja moglo primijeniti.
In the case in point, it will be shown in Section 6.3.2 of this Decision that contribution C2 under CT2 meets the substantive criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
U tom slučaju u odjeljku 6.3.2. ove odluke bit će dokazano da doprinos C2 ugovora 2.tipa ispunjava samostalne kriterije navedene u Uredbi (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
The Commission notes, however, that the publication requirements laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 were not complied with by STIF.
S druge strane, Komisija zaključuje da STIF nije ispunio obvezu obavještavanja navedenu u članku 7. stavku 2. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
The French authorities in fact acknowledged that, as regards the OPTILE undertakings, it was not possible to publish the award notices, despite the requirement to do so in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Naime, francuska nadležna tijela priznala su da obavijesti u slučaju dodjele potpora poduzećima organizacije OPTILE nisu mogle biti objavljene unatoč obvezi navedenoj u Uredbi (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
As regards the contracts with RATP and SNCF Mobilités, the Commission observes that the award notices were published in the Bulletin officiel des annonces de marché public (Official Bulletin of Public Procurement Notices) and in the Official Journal of the European Union after the award of the contracts and not, as required, at least one year before the direct award date.
U pogledu ugovora zaključenih s RATP-om i SNCF Mobilités Komisija primjećuje da su obavijesti o dodjeli potpora objavljene u francuskom biltenu javne nabave Bulletin officiel des annonces de marché public i Službenom listu Europske unije tek nakon dodjele ugovora, a ne kako je uvjetovano najmanje godinu dana prije izravne dodjele ugovora.
Consequently, the provisions of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 were not complied with and the aid awarded by STIF under CT2 was not covered by the exemption from the notification requirement provided for in Article 9 of the Regulation.
Prema tome, odredbe članka 7. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 nisu poštovane, a financijske potpore STIF-a dodijeljene u okviru ugovora CT2 nisu izuzete od obveze obavještavanja Komisije predviđene člankom 9. te Uredbe.
As it was not notified, the Commission concludes that it is unlawful aid.
Budući da nije bila obaviještena o tim potporama, Komisija zaključuje da su te potpore nezakonite.
The Commission points out that it is for the national authorities to draw all the necessary conclusions that flow from the unlawfulness of the aid, particularly as regards the recovery of interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness as defined in the CELF judgment [36].
Komisija podsjeća da nacionalna nadležna tijela snose sve posljedice nezakonitosti potpora, posebno one koje se odnose na naknade nezakonitih kamata koje su određene u presudi CELF [36].
Assessment of the compatibility of the measures with the applicable State aid rules
Procjena spojivosti mjera s primjenjivim pravilima o državnim potporama
The investment subsidies awarded by the Region and then by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1
Subvencije za ulaganja koje je dodjeljivala regija, a potom i STIF na temelju Dopune br. 3 ugovoru CT1
Having regard to the great similarity between the subsidies awarded by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1 and those awarded by the Region during the preceding period, the same reasoning regarding compatibility with the internal market applies to both mechanisms.
Uzimajući u obzir veliku sličnost između subvencija koje je STIF dodjeljivao na temelju Dopune br. 3 ugovoru CT1 i onih koje je u prethodnom razdoblju dodjeljivala regija, isto se mišljenje o spojivosti s unutarnjim tržištem primjenjuje na oba mehanizma.
These investment subsidies did not meet the needs of coordination of transport or represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service, as was concluded in recitals 206 and 213.
Te subvencije za ulaganja nisu odgovarale ni potrebama koordinacije prijevoza ni odšteti za obveze koje se mogu pripisati obavljanju javne usluge, kako je zaključeno u uvodnim izjavama 206. i 213.
The Commission cannot, therefore, take Article 93 TFEU (or the secondary legislation deriving from it) as a basis for assessing compatibility with the internal market.
Stoga, pri procjeni spojivosti s unutarnjim tržištem Komisija odluku ne može temeljiti na članku 93. UFEU-a (ili pravu koje iz njega proizlazi).
However, under Article 107(3) TFEU, aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market if it is granted to promote the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
S druge strane, u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 3. UFEU-a mogu se smatrati spojive s unutarnjim tržištem potpore namijenjene olakšavanju razvoja određenih gospodarskih djelatnosti ili određenih gospodarskih regija ako takve potpore ne utječu negativno na trgovinske uvjete u mjeri u kojoj bi to bilo suprotno gospodarskom interesu.
This can be the case, in particular, with aid for investment which improves the way in which the economic activity in question is carried on.
To može biti slučaj jer se radi o potporama za ulaganja kojima se poboljšava način na koji se predmetna gospodarska aktivnost obavlja.
The French authorities cite the applicability of this provision to the investment aid mechanism put in place by the Île-de-France Region.
Francuska nadležna tijela pozivaju se na primjenjivost te odredbe na mehanizam potpora za ulaganja koji je provodila regija Île-de-France.
The implementation of an investment aid mechanism for equipment to enable quantitative or qualitative improvements to be made to the supply of scheduled public transport by bus, in excess of the level of obligations which the recipients were required to discharge in providing their services before the subsidies were awarded, was such as to enhance the attractiveness of the services supplied as compared to alternative methods involving travelling by private vehicle.
Provedba mehanizma potpore za ulaganja u opremu koja omogućuje kvantitativno i kvalitativno poboljšanje ponude redovnog javnog cestovnog prijevoza, koja premašuje razinu obveza na kojoj su prijevoznici morali pružati svoje usluge prije dodjele subvencija, povećala je privlačnost ponude u odnosu na alternativne načine individualnog prijevoza.