natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice has consistently defined undertakings as any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity or the way in which it is financed [120].
Sud dosljedno definira poduzetnike kao subjekte koji obavljaju gospodarsku djelatnost, neovisno o pravnom statusu tih subjekata ili njihovu načinu financiranja [120].
Moreover, the Court has consistently held that an economic activity is any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market. [121].
Usto, Sud je dosljedno presuđivao da je gospodarska djelatnost svaka djelatnost koja se sastoji od ponude robe ili usluga na danom tržištu [121].
In its ADP judgment, the Court of First Instance concluded that the operation of an airport, which consists in providing airport facilities to airlines, is an economic activity.
U svojoj presudi „Aéroports de Paris” Opći sud je zaključio da je upravljanje zračnom lukom, koje obuhvaća pružanje usluga zračne luke zračnim prijevoznicima, gospodarska djelatnost.
In its Leipzig-Halle Airport judgment [122], the Court confirmed that the operation of an airport in return for payment constitutes an economic activity, from which the activity consisting in the construction of airport infrastructure cannot be dissociated [123].
U svojoj presudi „Zračna luka Leipzig-Halle” [122] Opći sud je potvrdio da je upravljanje zračnom lukom u zamjenu za naknadu gospodarska djelatnost čiji je neodvojivi dio izgradnja infrastrukture zračne luke [123].
Where an airport operator engages in economic activities, regardless of its legal status or the way in which it is financed, it constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and therefore falls within the scope of the TFEU rules on State aid [124].
Kada upravitelj zračne luke obavlja gospodarske djelatnosti, neovisno o njegovu pravnom statusu ili načinu financiranja, on predstavlja poduzetnika u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a te je stoga obuhvaćen područjem primjene pravila UFEU-a o državnim potporama [124].
The Court also confirmed that, unlike their effects, the regional, economic or transport policy objectives pursued by the construction or extension of airport infrastructure were not relevant when determining whether an economic activity existed.
Opći sud jednako tako potvrdio je da, za razliku od njihovih učinaka, ciljevi regionalne, gospodarske politike ili politike prijevoza koji se ostvaruju izgradnjom ili proširenjem infrastrukture zračne luke nisu relevantni za utvrđivanje je li riječ o gospodarskoj djelatnosti.
The question of whether there is a market for given services can depend on how those services are organised in the Member State concerned [125].
Pitanje postoji li tržište utvrđenih usluga može ovisiti o načinu na koji su te usluge organizirane u predmetnoj državi članici [125].
The State aid rules apply only where a given activity is carried out in a commercial environment.
Pravila o državnim potporama primjenjuju se samo kada se određena djelatnost obavlja u tržišnom okružju.
The economic nature of given services can therefore vary from one Member State to another.
Stoga gospodarska priroda utvrđenih usluga može ovisiti od jedne države članice o druge.
In addition, the qualification of a given service can alter over time depending on policy choices or economic developments.
Osim toga, zbog političkih odluka ili gospodarskih kretanja klasifikacija određene usluge može se promijeniti tijekom vremena.
As a result, prior to the ADP judgment, the Commission's consistent practice was to consider that the activity of developing and managing airport infrastructure did not constitute an economic activity falling within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU [126].
Stoga se do donošenja presude ADP prema ustaljenoj praksi Komisije smatralo da djelatnost razvoja i upravljanja infrastrukturom zračne luke ne predstavlja gospodarsku djelatnost koja bi mogla biti obuhvaćena područjem primjene članka 107. stavka 1.
Following the ADP judgment, the Commission decided that, due to the gradual liberalisation of the market, this activity had become an economic activity.
UFEU-a [126]. Nakon donošenja presude ADP Komisija je utvrdila da je ta djelatnost zbog postupne liberalizacije tržišta postala gospodarska djelatnost.
This is also clarified by the aviation guidelines [127] in points 28 and 29: ‘from the date of the judgment in ‘Aéroports de Paris’ (12 December 2000), the operation and construction of airport infrastructure must be considered as falling within the ambit of State aid control. Conversely, due to the uncertainty that existed prior to the judgment in ‘Aéroports de Paris’, public authorities could legitimately consider that the financing of airport infrastructure did not constitute State aid and, accordingly, that such measures did not need to be notified to the Commission. It follows that the Commission cannot now bring into question, on the basis of State aid rules, financing measures granted before the ‘Aéroports de Paris’ judgment’.
Jednako tako, kao što je navedeno točkama 28. i 29. Smjernica o državnim potporama zračnim lukama i zračnim prijevoznicima [127] (dalje u tekstu: „Smjernice o zrakoplovstvu”) „od datuma presude [ADP] (12. prosinca 2000.) upravljanje i izgradnja infrastrukture zračne luke moraju se smatrati pripadajućima djelokrugu državnih potpora. Suprotno tome, zbog nesigurnosti koja je postojala prije presude u predmetu [ADP] javne vlasti mogle su zakonito smatrati da financiranje infrastrukture zračne luke ne predstavlja državne potpore te da se u skladu s tim te mjere nisu trebale prijavljivati Komisiji. Slijedi da Komisija ne može na osnovi pravila o državnim potporama dovesti u pitanje financijske mjere dodijeljene prije presude u predmetu [ADP].”
It should therefore be determined whether the measures granted to BSCA for the operation and construction of airport infrastructure were granted before or after 12 December 2000, which was the date of the ADP judgment.
Stoga je potrebno utvrditi jesu li mjere u korist BSCA-a za upravljanje i izgradnju infrastrukture zračne luke dodijeljene prije ili nakon 12. prosinca 2000. kada je donesena presuda ADP.
In addition, even after the ADP judgment, as highlighted by points 34 and 35 of the aviation guidelines, not all the activities of an airport operator are necessarily regarded as economic in nature.
Osim toga, čak i nakon presude ADP, kao što je navedeno u točkama 34. i 35. Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu, ne smatraju se nužno sve djelatnosti upravitelja zračne luke gospodarskima.
The Court of Justice has therefore confirmed that activities that normally fall under State responsibility in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority are not economic in nature [128].
Sud je tako potvrdio da djelatnosti za koje je uobičajeno odgovorna država u okviru izvršavanja svojih ovlasti javne vlasti nisu gospodarske [128].
At an airport, activities such as air traffic control, police, customs, firefighting, measures designed to protect civil aviation from acts of unlawful interference, and investment in the infrastructure and equipment needed for such activities are regarded, as a general rule, as not being economic in nature.
Djelatnosti u zračnoj luci poput kontrole zračnog prometa, policije, carine, gašenja požara, mjera namijenjenih zaštiti civilnog zrakoplovstva od nezakonitih radnji i ulaganja povezanih s infrastrukturom i opremom potrebnom za provođenje tih djelatnosti općenito se smatraju negospodarskim djelatnostima.
In conclusion, the measures granted to BSCA after 12 December 2000 must be identified and those measures granted for activities normally falling under State responsibility in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority must be excluded.
Zaključno, potrebno je utvrditi mjere koje su BSCA-u dodijeljene nakon 12. prosinca 2000. te isključiti mjere za djelatnosti za koje je uobičajeno odgovorna država u okviru izvršavanja svojih ovlasti javne vlasti.
In this section, the Commission examines:
U ovom će odjeljku Komisija ispitati sljedeće:
whether the measure, including new infrastructure constructed under the investment programme being placed at the disposal of BSCA, was granted before the ADP judgment,
je li mjera, uključujući stavljanje na raspolaganje nove infrastrukture izgrađene u skladu s planom ulaganja, dodijeljena prije presude ADP,
which investments and which services provided by SOWAER must be excluded from the examination due to being non-economic in nature.
koja je ulaganja i usluge SOWAER-a potrebno isključiti iz ispitivanja jer nisu gospodarski.
Was the measure, including new infrastructure constructed under the investment programme being placed at the disposal of BSCA, granted before the ADP judgment?
Je li mjera, uključujući stavljanje na raspolaganje nove infrastrukture izgrađene u skladu s planom ulaganja, dodijeljena prije presude ADP?
As highlighted in recital 344 et seq., the construction of airport infrastructure cannot in principle be dissociated from the economic activity of operating the airport platform.
Kao što je prethodno navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 344. i sljedećima, izgradnja infrastrukture zračne luke u načelu je neodvojiva od gospodarske djelatnosti upravljanja čvorištem zračne luke.
With regard to the construction of infrastructure at Charleroi airport, which was included in the multiannual investment programme, the Belgian authorities consider, however, that this investment programme was decided prior to 12 December 2000, which was the date of the ADP judgment.
Kada je riječ o izgradnji infrastrukture Zračne luke Charleroi koja je predmet višegodišnjeg plana ulaganja, belgijska tijela ipak smatraju da je o tom planu ulaganja odlučeno prije 12. prosinca 2000. kada je donesena presuda ADP.
Belgium's arguments, set out in Section 5.1.1.1(a)(i), essentially aim to refute the scope and accuracy of the preliminary arguments given by the Commission in the 2012 extension decision, according to which the framework agreement of 20 July 2000 and the decision of the Walloon Government of 8 November 2000 (hereinafter the ‘2000 decisions’) do not impose any commitment on the Region with regard to a third party and are not irrevocable, firm and definitive in nature.
Cilj je argumenata Belgije, koji su navedeni u odjeljku 5.1.1.1.(a)i., uglavnom osporiti doseg i točnost prethodnih argumenata koje je Komisija iznijela u odluci o proširenju postupka iz 2012., prema kojima Okvirni ugovor od 20. srpnja 2000. i Odluka valonske vlade od 8. studenoga 2000. (dalje u tekstu: „Odluka iz 2000.”) ne obvezuju Regiju prema trećim osobama te nisu neopozivi, postojani i konačni.
However, the Commission takes the view, for the reasons given below, that the decision to place the infrastructure at BSCA's disposal, including new infrastructure decided and constructed under the investment programme, and to provide certain services in return for a fee did not stem from the 2000 decisions, but from the 2002 agreement between SOWAER and BSCA.
Komisija ipak smatra da odluka o stavljanju infrastrukture na raspolaganje BSCA-u, uključujući novu infrastrukturu o kojoj je odlučeno i koja je izgrađena na temelju programa ulaganja, te o pružanju određenih usluga u zamjenu za naknadu nije donesena Odlukama iz 2000., nego Ugovorom između SOWAER-a i BSCA-a iz 2002. i to iz sljedećih razloga.
The relevant criterion for the date at which a possible aid measure is deemed to have been granted is the date of the legally binding act by which public authorities undertake to award the measure at stake to its beneficiary [129].
Relevantni kriterij za datum od kojega se moguće mjere potpora smatraju dodijeljenima jest datum zakonski obvezujućeg akta kojim javna tijela dodjeljuju tu mjeru korisniku [129].
In the present case, the Commission takes the view that:
U ovom slučaju Komisija smatra sljedeće:
the beneficiary of the possible aid measure is BSCA,
da je korisnik eventualne potpore BSCA,
the public authorities having granted the aid measure are the Region and/or SOWAER.
da su javna tijela koja su dodijelila potporu Regija i/ili SOWAER.
As indicated in recital 39 of this decision and acknowledged by Belgium [130], SOWAER is the vehicle created by the Region and placed under its exclusive control to develop Wallonia's airport infrastructure and place this infrastructure at the disposal of the airport management companies in question.
Naime, kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 39. ove Odluke i kao što je potvrdila Belgija [130], SOWAER je društvo koje je osnovala i koje u potpunosti kontrolira Regija u svrhu razvoja infrastruktura zračnih luka u Valoniji i radi stavljanja tih infrastruktura na raspolaganje društvima upraviteljima predmetnih zračnih luka.
SOWAER, like the Region, is capable of granting State aid.
SOWAER i Regija mogu dodjeljivati državne potpore.
Prior to the 2002 SOWAER/BSCA agreement, BSCA did not benefit from any commitment on the part of the Region or SOWAER with regard to implementing the investment programme.
Prije sklapanja Ugovora između SOWAER-a i BSCA-a iz 2002., BSCA nije imao nikakvu obvezu prema Regiji ili SOWAER-u u pogledu provedbe programa ulaganja.
Belgium in fact recognises that no formal letter granting the aid was sent to BSCA.
Belgija naime potvrđuje da nikakav službeni dopis o dodjeli potpore nije dostavljen BSCA-u.
However, according to Belgium, although the Region was itself the beneficiary of the 2000 decisions, these created a commitment on the part of the Walloon Government.
Ipak, Belgija smatra da, iako su Odluke iz 2000. upućene samoj Regiji, iz tih su Odluka proizašle obveze vlade.
Belgium takes the view that the fact that this commitment was unilateral was not peculiar to this case.
Belgija smatra da ovom slučaju nije svojstvena okolnost da je ta obveza jednostrana.
In its opinion, any financial measure, regardless of its beneficiaries, is always decided through a unilateral administrative act of the granting authority, which controls the application, amendment or withdrawal of said act.
Prema njezinu mišljenju, sve se financijske mjere, neovisno o njihovim adresatima, uvijek donose jednostranim upravnim aktom tijela koje ih odobrava, a to tijelo ostaje nadležno za provedbu, izmjenu ili ukidanje tog akta.
The Commission notes that the 2000 decisions were not published or notified to BSCA.
Komisija napominje da Odluke iz 2000. nisu bile objavljene niti priopćene BSCA-u.
At any time before the 2002 SOWAER/BSCA agreement was signed, the Region could have altered the investment programme, by adopting a new unilateral decision or even totally abandoning this programme, without such a decision infringing BSCA's rights.
U svakom trenutku prije potpisivanja Ugovora između SOWAER-a i BSCA-a, Regija je mogla donošenjem jednoglasne odluke izmijeniti program ulaganja ili od njega u potpunosti odustati, a da pritom ne povrijedi prava BSCA-a.
Furthermore, as indicated in the 2012 extension decision, this investment programme contained uncertainties about the financing mechanism and amounts.
Uostalom, kao što je navedeno u odluci o proširenju postupka iz 2012., taj je program ulaganja bio neizvjestan u pogledu financijskog mehanizma i iznosa.
The latter could have been altered in line with changing needs.
Naime, ti su se iznosi mogli prilagođavati ovisno o razvoju potreba.
Accordingly, the new North terminal needed to be modular and its construction ‘had to be gradual and tailored to the development of the airport's actual activities and resulting operational needs’.
Stoga je novi sjeverni terminal bio prilagodljiv te je njegova izgradnja bila „neizbježno postupna te se provodila u skladu s razvojem stvarne djelatnosti zračne luke i operativnih potreba koje su iz nje proizašle”.
In addition, the financing mechanism envisaged at the time — i.e. involving the Société Régionale Wallonne du Transport — was ultimately abandoned in favour of financing through SOWAER, a new instrument that received its financial resources only when it was created on 1 July 2001 and in the amount of EUR 75000000 only.
Usto, tako se od predviđenog oblika financiranja, odnosno intervencije društva Société Régionale Wallonne du Transport, konačno odustalo kako bi financiranje preuzeo SOWAER, koji je bio novi instrument kojem su sredstva dodijeljena tek nakon njegova osnivanja 1. srpnja 2001. i u iznosu od samo 75000000 EUR.
On the other hand, given that the investment programme was included in the 2002 SOWAER/BSCA agreement, SOWAER was under an obligation towards BSCA: it had to place the land and infrastructure at BSCA's disposal, including the infrastructure to be constructed in accordance with the investment programme, and to provide certain services, in return for a concession fee, otherwise it would fail to comply with its contractual obligations.
Naprotiv, budući da je program ulaganja uključen u Ugovor između SOWAER-a i BSCA-a, SOWAER se obvezao prema BSCA-u: mora staviti BSCA-u na raspolaganje zemljišta i infrastrukturu, uključujući infrastrukturu koju je potrebno izgraditi u skladu s programom ulaganja i pružiti određene usluge u zamjenu za naknadu za koncesiju jer u suprotnom ne bi poštovao svoje ugovorne obveze.
The Commission also takes the view that SOWAER's commitment to implement an investment programme and to provide certain services must be examined together with BSCA's commitment to pay a concession fee.
Komisija nadalje smatra da je obvezu SOWAER-a da provede program ulaganja i pruža određene usluge potrebno ispitati zajedno s obvezom BSCA-a da plaća naknadu za koncesiju.
It is impossible to determine whether the Region's plans to place the infrastructure at BSCA's disposal, including new infrastructure constructed in accordance with the investment programme, and to provide certain services constitute aid until the amount of the fee to be paid by BSCA in return is known.
Nije moguće utvrditi predstavljaju li projekti Regije kojima stavlja BSCA-u na raspolaganje infrastrukturu, uključujući novu infrastrukturu izgrađenu u skladu s programom ulaganja, i kojima pruža određene usluge, potporu ako nije poznat iznos naknade koju u zamjenu mora platiti BSCA.
Investments and services provided by SOWAER that must be excluded from the analysis due to being non-economic in nature
Ulaganja i usluge SOWAER-a koje je iz analize potrebno isključiti jer nisu gospodarski
As highlighted by points 34 and 35 of the aviation guidelines, not all the activities of an airport operator are necessarily economic in nature.
Kao što je navedeno u točkama 34. i 35. Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu, nisu nužno sve djelatnosti upravitelja zračne luke gospodarske.
The Court of Justice has therefore confirmed that activities that normally fall under State responsibility in the exercise of its official powers as a public authority are not economic in nature [132].
Sud je tako potvrdio da djelatnosti za koje je uobičajeno odgovorna država u okviru izvršavanja svojih ovlasti javne vlasti nisu gospodarske [132].
Such activities include, in particular, security, air traffic control, police and customs [133].
Takve djelatnosti posebno obuhvaćaju sigurnost, kontrolu zračnog prometa, policiju i carinu [133].
The Commission takes the view that investments and major repairs involving assets associated with air navigation (relating to the control tower, for example), aircraft firefighting, security (defined as combating acts of unlawful interference), police and customs may be non-economic in nature.
Komisija smatra da ulaganja i veliki popravci u pogledu imovine koja je povezana sa zračnim prometom (npr. kontrolni toranj), gašenjem požara u zrakoplovima, sigurnošću (koja je utvrđena kao suzbijanje djela nezakonitog ometanja), policijom i carinom, mogu biti negospodarske naravi.
Given that, in the present case, air navigation, aircraft firefighting, security, police and customs services are not organised according to a market logic, the Commission considers that the investments and major repairs involving assets associated with these services are not economic in nature.
Budući da u ovom slučaju usluge zračnog prometa, gašenja požara u zrakoplovima, sigurnosti, policije i carine nisu uređene u skladu s tržišnom logikom, Komisija smatra da ulaganja i veliki popravci koji se odnose na imovinu povezanu s tim uslugama nisu gospodarske naravi.
In particular, the fencing of the part of the airport site that is accessed through police checkpoints and the part of the site where the aircraft are located may be regarded as a non-economic activity insofar as it concerns security.
Konkretno, zatvaranje dijela područja zračne luke kojem se pristupa nakon policijske kontrole te dijela područja na kojem se nalaze zrakoplovi može se smatrati negospodarskom djelatnošću jer je povezano sa sigurnošću.
The Commission also considers as non-economic those costs associated with investments in and maintenance of buildings and equipment used for both economic activities and non-economic activities, in a proportion corresponding to their use for a non-economic activity.
Komisija negospodarskima smatra i troškove povezane s ulaganjem i održavanjem zgrada i opreme koje se istodobno upotrebljavaju za gospodarske i negospodarske djelatnosti u omjeru koji odgovara njihovoj upotrebi za negospodarske djelatnosti.
In particular, 7 % of the cost of investments made in the new terminal may be regarded as non-economic in nature, because 7 % of the terminal surface area is occupied by police and customs services, passenger and baggage search officials, and officials from the Walloon Public Service responsible for site safety.
Konkretno, 7 % troškova ulaganja u novi terminal mogu se smatrati negospodarskima jer 7 % površine terminala zauzimaju policijske i carinske službe, osoblje zaduženo za pregled putnika i prtljage te osoblje valonske uprave zaduženo za sigurnost područja.
However, the Commission regards as economic those investments and major repairs involving the Category III ILS [134] and runway lighting.
Suprotno tome, Komisija smatra da su ulaganja i veliki popravci povezani sa sustavom ILS kategorije III. [134] i s rasvjetom uzletno-sletne staze gospodarske naravi.
These costs are not associated with a public policy remit, but are inherent in the commercial operation of the infrastructure, which involves placing this infrastructure at the disposal of airlines under satisfactory safety conditions.
Naime, ti se troškovi ne pripisuju ovlastima javne vlasti, nego su svojstveni poslovnom upravljanju infrastrukturom, koje se sastoji od stavljanja infrastrukture na raspolaganje zračnim prijevoznicima u zadovoljavajućim sigurnosnim uvjetima.
In particular, ensuring ground traffic safety (including during landings and take-offs) forms an integral part of the airport's commercial operation and is therefore economic in nature.
Konkretno, pružanje sigurnosti kopnenog prometa (uključujući tijekom polijetanja i slijetanja) sastavni je dio poslovnog upravljanja zračnom lukom te je stoga gospodarske naravi.
In the recent Commission decision on Marseille airport [135], operational safety was also excluded from the scope of ‘non-economic activities’.
Uostalom, u nedavnoj Odluci Komisije o Zračnoj luci Marseille [135] operativna sigurnost isključena je iz opsega „negospodarskih” djelatnosti.
The Commission also takes the view that investments in fire detection in passenger car parks are economic in nature.
Komisija smatra i da su ulaganja povezana s vatrodojavom na parkiralištima za putnike gospodarske naravi.
These costs are not associated with a public policy remit, but are inherent in the commercial operation of the passenger car park.
Naime, ti se troškovi ne pripisuju ovlastima javne vlasti, nego su svojstveni poslovnom upravljanju parkiralištem za putnike.
Moreover, as highlighted by point 36 of the aviation guidelines, the Commission must check that the funding of non-economic activities is strictly limited to compensating the costs to which they give rise and may not be used for economic activities [136].
Usto, kao što je navedeno u točki 36. Smjernica o zrakoplovstvu, Komisija mora provjeriti služi li financiranje negospodarskih djelatnosti samo naknadi troškova koji proizlaze iz tih negospodarskih djelatnosti te se ne može namijeniti gospodarskim djelatnostima [136].