natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, Article 1 paragraph 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, in its version applicable as of 1 July 1992, provided that: ‘Where a transport undertaking not only operates services subject to public service obligations but also engages in other activities, the public services must be operated as separate divisions meeting at least the following conditions:
Nadalje, u članku 1. stavku 5. verzije Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 koja se primjenjivala od 1. srpnja 1992. propisano je da: „Ako prijevoznik, osim pružanja javnih usluga, obavlja i druge poslove, tada on mora pružati javne usluge kao odvojene djelatnosti koje ispunjavaju najmanje sljedeće uvjete:
the operating accounts corresponding to each of these activities shall be separate and the proportion of the assets pertaining to each shall be used in accordance with the accounting rules in force;
poslovni računi za svaku od djelatnosti moraju biti odvojeni, a dio imovine za svaku od tih djelatnosti mora se koristiti u skladu s važećim računovodstvenim pravilima;
Second, the Commission recalls that Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 requires that the administration fixes the amount of the compensation in advance.
Drugo, Komisija podsjeća da je člankom 13. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69 propisano da uprava unaprijed utvrđuje iznos naknade.
In the present instance, the Commission considers that the compensations awarded to Arfea do not comply with these requirements.
U ovom slučaju Komisija smatra da naknade dodijeljene trgovačkom društvu Arfea nisu u skladu s tim zahtjevima.
First, the Commission notes that, as indicated in recital 59 above, it has not been shown that Arfea implemented a proper separation of accounts between its activities allegedly subject to PSOs and its other activities, as required by Article 1 paragraph 5 (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Komisija prvo napominje, kako je navedeno u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi 59., da nije dokazano da je društvo Arfea pravilno provelo odvajanje računa između svojih djelatnosti koje navodno podliježu obvezi obavljanja javnih usluga i svojih ostalih djelatnosti, kako je propisano člankom 1. stavkom 5. točkom (a) Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
On the contrary, the extracts of Arfea's accounts for the years 1997 and 1998, which the expert mandated by the court used to determine the amount of the compensations, rather show that costs were not separated per activity.
S druge strane, na temelju izvadaka iz financijskih izvještaja društva Arfea za 1997. i 1998. koje je stručnjak kojeg je odredio sud upotrijebio za utvrđivanje iznosa naknada nije razvidno da su troškovi odvojeni prema djelatnostima.
Second, the Commission notes that, contrary to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the compensation awarded to Arfea has not been set in advance but has been determined on the basis of an ex post assessment, as prescribed by the Regional Administrative Court.
Nadalje, Komisija napominje da, protivno članku 13. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, naknada dodijeljena društvu Arfea nije utvrđena unaprijed već na temelju ex post procjene, kako je propisao Regionalni upravni sud.
In light of these observations, the Commission concludes that the additional compensations awarded by the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont to Arfea was not exempted from compulsory prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
U svjetlu tih opažanja, Komisija zaključuje da dodatne naknade koje je Regionalni upravni sud regije Pijemont dodijelio društvu Arfea nisu bile izuzete od obveze prethodne prijave u skladu s člankom 17. stavkom 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
Since it has not been shown that the measure under review was exempted from prior notification pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the compatibility of those payments with the internal market will need to be examined, as they are considered to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, as explained in section 6.1.
Budući da nije dokazano da je predmetna mjera izuzeta od obveze prethodne prijave u skladu s člankom 17. stavkom 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, trebat će ispitati sukladnost plaćanja s unutarnjim tržištem jer se smatra da ona čine državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora, kako je objašnjeno u odjeljku 6.1.
In that regard, Article 93 of the Treaty contains rules for the compatibility of State aid in the area of coordination of transport and PSOs in the field of transport and constitutes a lex specialis with respect to Article 107(3), as well as Article 106(2), as it contains special rules for the compatibility of State aid.
U tom pogledu u članku 93. Ugovora propisana su pravila za spojivost državne potpore u području koordinacije prometa i obveze obavljanja javnih usluga u području prometa i on je lex specialis u odnosu na članak 107. stavak 3. i članak 106. stavak 2. jer sadržava posebna pravila o spojivosti državne potpore.
The CJEU has ruled that this provision ‘acknowledges that aid to transport is compatible with the internal market only in well-defined cases which do not jeopardise the general interests of the [Union]’ [17].
Sud EU-a presudio je da se tom odredbom „potvrđuje da je potpora u području prometa spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem samo u strogo definiranim slučajevima kojima se ne ugrožavaju opći interesi [Unije]” [17].
On 3 December 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force and repealed Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of the Council [18].
Uredba (EZ) br. 1370/2007 stupila je na snagu 3. prosinca 2009. i njome su stavljene izvan snage Uredba (EEZ) br. 1191/69 i Uredba Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1107/70 [18].
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 applies to the compensation of PSOs concerning public passenger transport services by rail and by road.
Uredba (EZ) br. 1370/2007 primjenjuje se na naknadu za obveze obavljanja javnih usluga u području javnog željezničkog i cestovnog prijevoza putnika.
The Commission considers that the examination of the compatibility of the non-notified measure should be conducted under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, since that is the legislation in force at the time the present Decision is adopted.
Komisija smatra da ispitivanje spojivosti neprijavljene mjere treba provoditi u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1370/2007, jer je ona bila na snazi u trenutku donošenja ove Odluke.
The Commission also notes that the additional compensation awarded to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court was paid on 7 February 2014 [19].
Komisija napominje i da je dodatna naknada koju je društvu Arfea dodijelio Regionalni upravni sud plaćena 7. veljače 2014. [19].
Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 states ‘[p]ublic service compensation for the operation of public passenger transport services or for complying with tariff obligations established through general rules paid in accordance with this Regulation shall be compatible with the [internal] market. Such compensation shall be exempt from the prior notification requirement laid down in Article [108(3)] of the Treaty’.
U članku 9. stavku 1. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 propisano je da „naknada za javnu uslugu obavljanja javnog prijevoza putnika ili za poštovanje tarifnih obveza ustanovljenih općim pravilima, koja je plaćena u skladu s ovom Uredbom, sukladna je sa [zajedničkim] tržištem. Takva je naknada izuzeta od obveze prethodne prijave utvrđene u članku [108. stavku 3.] Ugovora.”
For the reasons set out below, the Commission considers that the non-notified compensation does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, so that it cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under Article 9(1) of that Regulation.
Zbog razloga navedenih u nastavku Komisija smatra da neprijavljena naknada nije u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1370/2007 pa se stoga ne može proglasiti spojivom sa zajedničkim tržištem u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 1. te Uredbe.
First, the Commission notes that the concessions agreements do not meet the requirements of Article 4 of this Regulation, which establishes the mandatory content of general rules and public service contracts establishing public service obligations:
Prvo, Komisija napominje da ugovori o koncesijama ne zadovoljavaju zahtjeve iz članka 4. te Uredbe kojom je propisan obvezni sadržaj općih pravila i ugovora o javnim uslugama kojima se utvrđuju obveze obavljanja javnih usluga:
Article 4(1)(b) requires the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated to be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner in a way that prevents overcompensation.
Člankom 4. stavkom 1. točkom (b) propisano je da se parametri na temelju kojih se izračunava naknada utvrđuju unaprijed na objektivan i transparentan način na način kojim se onemogućuje naplaćivanje prekomjerne naknade.
However, as explained above in recitals 54 to 57 concerning the fulfilment of the second Altmark condition, the additional compensations granted to Arfea were not calculated on the basis parameters established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Međutim, kako je objašnjeno u prethodnim uvodnim izjavama 54. do 57. o ispunjavanju drugog uvjeta iz presude Altmark, dodatne naknade odobrene društvu Arfea nisu izračunane na temelju parametara koji su utvrđeni unaprijed na objektivan i transparentan način.
Article 4(1)(c) and Article 4(2) require that the public service contract provides the arrangements for the allocation of costs and revenues connected with the provision of the services.
Člankom 4. stavkom 1. točkom (c) i člankom 4. stavkom 2. propisano je da u ugovoru o obavljanju javnih usluga moraju biti predviđeni mehanizmi za raspodjelu troškova i prihoda povezanih s pružanjem usluga.
However, the concession agreements did not contain any arrangements regarding the allocation of costs and revenues and, as explained in recital 59 above, Arfea did not apply a proper separation of accounts between its different activities.
Međutim, ugovori o koncesijama nisu sadržavali mehanizme o raspodjeli troškova i prihoda i, kako je objašnjeno u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi 59., društvo Arfea nije primijenilo pravilno odvajanje računa između svojih različitih djelatnosti.
Second, the Commission notes that the measure at stake does not meet the relevant requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the calculation of the amount of compensation.
Drugo, Komisija napominje da predmetna mjera ne ispunjava relevantne zahtjeve iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 o izračunu iznosa naknade.
Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that, in the case of directly awarded public service contracts, compensation must comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and with the provisions laid down in the Annex to ensure that the compensation does not go beyond what is necessary to carry out the public service obligation.
U članku 6. stavku 1. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 propisano je da u slučaju izravno dodijeljenih ugovora o javnim uslugama naknada mora biti u skladu s odredbama Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 i s odredbama utvrđenima u Prilogu kako bi se osiguralo da naknada ne premašuje iznos nužan za izvršavanje obveze obavljanja javnih usluga.
Point 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that the compensation may not exceed an amount corresponding to the financial amount composed of the following factors: costs incurred in relation to the PSO minus ticket revenue, minus any positive financial effects generated within the network operated under the public service obligation, plus a reasonable profit.
U točki 2. Priloga Uredbi (EZ) br. 1370/2007 predviđeno je da naknada ne smije premašivati iznos koji odgovara financijskom iznosu sastavljenom od sljedećih čimbenika: troškova povezanih s obvezom obavljanja javnih usluga umanjenih za pozitivne financijske učinke nastale u mreži kojom se upravlja u okviru obveze obavljanja javne usluge plus razumna dobit.
Point 4 of that Annex requires that costs and revenues be calculated in accordance with the accounting and tax rules in force.
U točki 4. tog Priloga propisano da se troškovi i prihodi izračunavaju u skladu s važećim računovodstvenim i poreznim pravilima.
Point 5 of the annex provides that: ‘where a public service operator not only operates compensated services subject to public transport service obligations, but also engages in other activities, the accounts of the said public services must be separated so as to meet at least the following conditions:
U točki 5. priloga propisano je sljedeće: „ako operater javne usluge ne obavlja samo usluge za koje prima naknadu i koje su dio obveze obavljanja javnih usluga, nego se bavi i drugim djelatnostima, računi tih javnih usluga moraju biti odvojeni tako da barem sljedeći uvjeti budu zadovoljeni:
the operating accounts corresponding to each of these activities must be separate and the proportion of the corresponding assets and the fixed costs must be allocated in accordance with the accounting and tax rules in force,
operativni računi svake od ovih djelatnosti moraju biti odvojeni i raspodjela odgovarajuće imovine i fiksnih troškova mora biti utvrđena u skladu s važećim računovodstvenim i poreznim pravilima,
all variable costs, an appropriate contribution to the fixed costs and a reasonable profit connected with any other activity of the public service operator may under no circumstances be charged to the public service in question,
predmetna javna usluga ne smije se ni u kakvim okolnostima teretiti za ikakve varijabilne troškove, odgovarajući dio fiksnih troškova i razumnu dobit vezanu uz ostale djelatnosti operatera javne usluge,
the costs of the public service must be balanced by operating revenue and payments from public authorities, without any possibility of transfer of revenue to another sector of the public service operator's activity.’
troškovi javne usluge moraju biti u ravnoteži s prihodima od poslovanja i plaćanjima od strane tijela javne vlasti, bez mogućnosti prijenosa prihoda drugom sektoru djelatnosti operatera javne usluge.”
However, as already noted in recital 59, Arfea did not apply a proper separation of account between its activities allegedly subject to PSOs and its other activities, as required by point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Međutim, kako je već navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 59., društvo Arfea nije primijenilo pravilno odvajanje računa svojih djelatnosti koje navodno podliježu obvezi obavljanja javnih usluga i svojih ostalih djelatnosti, kako je propisano točkom 5. Priloga Uredbi (EZ) br. 1370/2007.
Consequently, it is impossible to demonstrate that whatever compensation is ultimately awarded does not exceed an amount corresponding to the net financial effect equivalent to the total of the effects, positive or negative, of compliance with the public service obligation on the costs and revenue of the public service operator (Point 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007).
Zato nije moguće pokazati da iznos naknade, bez obzira na to koliki je iznos u konačnici dodijeljen, ne premašuje iznos koji odgovara neto financijskom učinku jednakom ukupnom zbroju pozitivnih ili negativnih učinaka poštovanja obveza obavljanja javnih usluga na troškove i prihode operatera javnih usluga (točka 2. Priloga Uredbi (EZ) br. 1370/2007).
Moreover, in the absence of compensation parameters laid down in advance, any calculation of compensation must necessarily be conducted ex-post on the basis of arbitrary assumptions, as was done by Arfea's consultants and the expert mandated by the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont.
Nadalje, ako parametri za naknade nisu utvrđeni unaprijed, izračun naknade mora se nužno izvršavati ex post na temelju arbitrarnih pretpostavki, kako su učinili konzultanti društva Arfea i stručnjak kojeg je imenovao Regionalni upravni sud regije Pijemont.
Finally, as explained in recitals 60 to 63 the profit levels taken into account by the expert for the calculation of the amounts of compensation are higher than what can be considered as a reasonable profit.
Naposljetku, kako je objašnjeno u uvodnim izjavama 60. do 63., iznosi dobiti koje je stručnjak uzeo u obzir za izračun iznosa naknade viši su od iznosa koji se mogu smatrati razumnom dobiti.
Third, the Commission notes that Arfea itself has recognised that the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 were not met in the present case, by arguing that such compliance would be legally and logically impossible, as the situation at stake predates by many years the entry into force of the said Regulation.
Treće, Komisija napominje da je sâmo društvo Arfea potvrdilo da u ovom slučaju nisu ispunjeni zahtjevi iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 1370/2007 tvrdeći da bi takva usklađenost bila zakonski i logično nemoguća, jer se predmetna situacija dogodila mnogo godina prije stupanja na snagu predmetne Uredbe.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the additional compensation ordered by the Regional Administrative Court has not been paid in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and therefore that the additional compensation is incompatible with the internal market.
U skladu s time, Komisija smatra da dodatna naknada koju je odredio Regionalni upravni sud nije isplaćena u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1370/2007 i da stoga dodatna naknada nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
The compensation awarded by the Regional Administrative Court does not constitute damages
Naknada koju je dodijelio Regionalni upravni sud nije odšteta
In the opening decision, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the question whether the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court concern an award for damages for alleged breach of law as opposed to an award of public service compensation based on the applicable Council Regulations.
Komisija je u odluci o pokretanju postupka pozvala sve zainteresirane strane da dostave primjedbe na pitanje odnose li se presude Regionalnog upravnog suda na dodjelu odštete za navodnu povredu zakona, a ne na određivanje obveze obavljanja javne usluge na temelju primjenjivih uredbi Vijeća.
Only the Italian authorities submitted comments in that regard, arguing that the measure at stake constituted an award of compensation for the discharge of PSOs, not an award of damages.
Primjedbe o tome dostavila su samo talijanska nadležna tijela tvrdeći da predmetna mjera čini dodjelu naknade za obvezu obavljanja javnih usluga, a ne odštetu.
The Commission notes in this respect that, under certain circumstances, compensation for damages due to the wrongful act or other conduct of the national authorities [20] does not constitute an advantage and is therefore not to be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [21].
Komisija napominje u tom pogledu da se, u određenim okolnostima, odštetom zbog štetnog postupanja ili drugih postupaka nacionalnih nadležnih tijela [20] ne osigurava prednost i stoga se ona ne može smatrati državnom potporom u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora [21].
The purpose of compensation for damage suffered is different from that of State aid since it aims to bring the damaged party back to the situation in which he found itself prior to the damaging act, as if the latter had not occurred (restitutio in integrum).
Svrha naknade za pretrpljenu štetu drugačija je od svrhe državne potpore jer joj je cilj vratiti oštećenu stranku u situaciju u kojoj se nalazila prije štetnog čina, kao da se taj čin nije dogodio (restitutio in integrum).
However, for compensation for damages to fall outside the State aid rules, it must be based on a general rule of compensation [22].
Međutim, da se na odštetu ne bi primjenjivala pravila o državnim potporama, ona se mora temeljiti na općem pravilu o naknadi.
Moreover, in its judgment in Lucchini, the CJEU held that a national court was prevented from applying national law where the application of that law would have the effect to ‘frustrate the application of Community law in so far as it would make it impossible to recover State aid that was granted in breach of Community law’ [23].
Nadalje, u svojoj presudi u predmetu Lucchini, Sud EU-a smatrao je da nacionalni sud nije mogao primijeniti nacionalno pravo ako bi se primjenom tog prava„ugrozila primjena prava Zajednice jer bi se onemogućio povrat državne potpore dodijeljene protivno pravu Zajednice” [23].
The principle underlying this pronouncement is that a rule of national law cannot be applied where such application would frustrate the proper application of Union law [24].
Ta se izjava temelji na načelu da se pravilo iz nacionalnog prava ne može primijeniti ako bi se njegovom primjenom ugrozila ispravna primjena prava Unije [24].
In that regard, the General Court has held in its judgment of 3 March 2016 in Simet case T-15/14 that an award of damages that would consist in the indemnification of a prejudice suffered as a result of the imposition of public service obligations could not escape to the qualification of State aid merely because it consisted in an award of damages, as this would allow the circumvention of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty [25].
U tom pogledu Opći sud smatrao je u svojoj presudi od 3. ožujka 2016. u predmetu Simet T-15/14 da se odšteta koja bi se sastojala od naknade za stavljanje u nepovoljni položaj uvođenjem obveze obavljanja javnih usluga ne može ne smatrati državnom potporom samo zato što se sastojala od dodjele odštete jer bi se time omogućilo zaobilaženje članaka 107. i 108. Ugovora [25].
As regards the additional compensations awarded to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court, the Commission notes, first of all, that the Regional Administrative Court's judgments refer to Arfea's right to receive amounts by way of compensation pursuant to Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which must be determined by the administration on the basis of reliable data.
U odnosu na dodatnu potporu koju je trgovačkom društvu Arfea dodijelio Regionalni upravni sud, Komisija prvo napominje da se u svim presudama Regionalnog upravnog suda upućuje na pravo društva Arfea da zaprimi iznose naknade u skladu s člancima 6., 10. i 11. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69, koju treba utvrditi uprava na temelju pouzdanih podataka.
This indicates that Arfea's right to additional compensation flows, according to the Regional Administrative Court, not from a general rule of compensation for damages as a result of a wrongful act or other conduct of the national authorities, but from rights allegedly derived from Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
To pokazuje da pravo trgovačkog društva Arfea na dodatnu naknadu ne proizlazi, prema mišljenju Regionalnog upravnog suda, iz općeg pravila o naknadi štete zbog štetnog postupanja ili nekog drugog postupka nacionalnih nadležnih tijela, već iz prava koja navodno proizlaze iz Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1191/69.
Second, the Commission notes that Arfea lodged on 6 June 2014 an application in front of the Italian Courts requesting the payment of damages by the Piedmont Region in addition to the compensations already granted to it by the Regional administrative Court.
Drugo, Komisija napominje da je društvo Arfea 6. lipnja 2014. podnijelo zahtjev talijanskim sudovima u kojem traži da mu regija Pijemont, povrh naknada koje mu je Regionalni upravni sud već dodijelio, plati i odštetu.
Arfea alleged in its application that it suffered damages as a result of the late recognition and payment of the compensations owed to it for the years 1997 and 1998 by the Region.
Društvo Arfea tvrdilo je u svojem zahtjevu da je pretrpjelo štetu zbog kasnog priznavanja i plaćanja naknada koje mu je Regija dugovala za 1997. i 1998.
This indicates that Arfea itself does not consider that the compensations already awarded to it by the Regional Administrative Court constitute an award of damages.
To pokazuje da sâmo društvo Arfea smatra da naknade koje mu je Regionalni upravni sud prethodno dodijelio ne čine odštetu.