natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Commission considers that even if RAS's argument that CIN was under no obligation to maintain affordable fares in the summer season were to be accepted, this would mean that PSOs on affordable fares would be justified in the summer season, rather than during January — May 2012.
Osim toga, Komisija smatra da čak i ako bi argument RAS-a da CIN nije bio obvezan zadržati pristupačne cijene karata u ljetnoj sezoni bio prihvatljiv, to bi značilo da bi obveza javne usluge u pogledu pristupačnih cijena bila opravdana u ljetnoj sezoni, a ne tijekom razdoblja od lipnja do svibnja 2012.
This argument would not therefore justify the imposition of PSOs in the winter season.
Taj argument, prema tome, ne bi opravdao nametanje obveze javne usluge u zimskoj sezoni.
Passenger fares (deck passage) on the Golfo Aranci (Olbia) – Civitavecchia route
Cijene putničkih karata (prijevoz na palubi) na liniji Golfo Aranci (Olbia) – Civitavecchia
EUR 21 from 15 June to 15 July and 1-15 September;
21 EUR od 15. lipnja do 15. srpnja i od 1. do 15. rujna;
EUR 35 from 16 July 2011 to 31 August 2011.
35 EUR od 16. srpnja 2011. do 31. kolovoza 2011.
EUR 21,68 (EUR 21,46) for residents).
21,68 EUR (21,46 EUR) za stanovnike).
EUR 21, in June and July weekdays and 3-15 September;
21 EUR za radne dane u lipnju i srpnju i od 3. do 15. rujna;
EUR 25, in June and July weekends and 30, 31 July and 1, 2 September
25 EUR za vikende u lipnju i srpnju i za 30. i 31. srpnja te 1. i 2. rujna
EUR 35 in August.
35 EUR u kolovozu.
EUR 21,68 (EUR 21,46).
21,68 EUR (21,46 EUR).
Passenger fares (deck passage) on the Genova (Vado Ligure) – Porto Torres
Cijene putničkih karata (prijevoz na palubi) na liniji Genova (Vado Ligure) – Porto Torres
EUR 35 (EUR 29,75) from 22 May to 15 July and 1-15 September;
35 EUR (29,75 EUR) od 22. svibnja do 15. srpnja i od 1. do 15. rujna;
EUR 40 (EUR 36) from 16 July 2011 to 31 August 2011
40 EUR (36 EUR) od 16. srpnja 2011. do 31. kolovoza 2011.
EUR 53,63 (EUR 37,18)
53,63 EUR (37,18 EUR)
EUR 35 (EUR 30) 1 - 14 June and 3-15 September;
35 EUR (30 EUR) od 1. do 14. lipnja i od 3. do 15. rujna;
EUR 38 (EUR 33) from 15 June to 13 July;
38 EUR (33 EUR) od 15. lipnja do 13. srpnja;
EUR 44 (EUR 38) from 14 July to 2 September
44 EUR (38 EUR) od 14. srpnja do 2. rujna.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the Italian authorities did not demonstrate the existence of a genuine public service need as regards the imposition upon Saremar of an obligation to apply affordable fares in the summer season of 2011 and 2012.
Prema tome, Komisija smatra da talijanska tijela nisu dokazala postojanje istinske potrebe za javnom uslugom u vezi s nametanjem Saremaru obveze da primijeni pristupačne cijene vožnje u ljetnim sezonama 2011. i 2012.
In any case, the fares applied by Saremar on the Olbia — Civitavecchia route were comparable and at times higher to those already offered by Tirrenia and Tirrenia/CIN in the absence of public service requirements relating to fares level.
U svakom slučaju, cijene vožnje koje je Saremar primjenjivao na liniji Olbia – Civitavecchia bile su usporedive, a povremeno i više od onih koje su već nudile Tirrenia i Tirrenia/CIN dok nije bilo zahtjeva javne usluga u pogledu cjenovnih razina.
Winter season
Zimska sezona
In 2011 the service on Olbia — Civitavecchia route was discontinued by Saremar from October to December 2011.
2011. Saremar je obustavio uslugu na liniji Olbia – Civitavecchia od listopada do prosinca 2011.
The service was then resumed in winter 2012, from 16 January 2012 to 31 May 2012.
Usluga je potom ponovno pokrenuta u zimi 2012. od 16. siječnja 2012. do 31. svibnja 2012.
At the same time Tirrenia was operating this route under the PSOs imposed by the initial Convention, which notably also concerned the fares that Tirrenia had to offer.
Istodobno, Tirrenia je prometovala na toj liniji u skladu s obvezom pružanja javne usluge koja je bila nametnuta inicijalnom Konvencijom, a koja se osobito odnosila na cijene karata koje je Tirrenia morala nuditi.
No clear justification has been put forward by RAS to justify the necessity of public service obligations relating to the fares to be applied on the route in question by Saremar in the winter season.
RAS nije dostavio jasno opravdanje kojim bi se opravdala nužnost obveza javnih usluga vezanih uz cijene karata koje bi Saremar trebao primjenjivati na predmetnoj liniji u zimskoj sezoni.
Moreover, a comparison between Saremar's fares and those offered by Tirrenia shows that Saremar's fares were not lower.
Štoviše, usporedba cijena karata koje je nudio Saremar i onih koje je nudila Tirrenia pokazuje da cijene Saremara nisu bile niže.
Therefore, the fares obligations imposed on Saremar cannot be considered as having been catered to the satisfaction of public service needs that were not met by the obligations already imposed on Tirrenia.
Prema tome, ne može se smatrati da su obveze glede cijena karata koje su bile nametnute Saremaru ispunjene u korist potreba javnih usluga koje nisu bile ispunjene obvezama koje su već bile nametnute Tirreniji.
EUR 21.
21 EUR.
EUR 19,79 (EUR 18,16) low season;
19,79 EUR (EUR 18,16 EUR) niska sezona;
EUR 20,61 (EUR 19,98) medium season;
20,61 EUR (19,98 EUR) srednja sezona;
EUR 21,68 (EUR 21,46) high season.
21,68 EUR (21,46 EUR) visoka sezona.
Freight transport
Prijevoz tereta
As regards fares for freight transport, the Commission notes that Tirrenia and Tirrenia/CIN were entrusted with an obligation to provide mixed services on the two routes in question.
U pogledu cijena vožnje za prijevoz tereta, Komisija primjećuje da je Tirreniji/CIN-u povjerena obaveza da na dvjema predmetnim linijama pružaju miješane usluge.
Moreover, in 2011 five operators (including Saremar) were offering freight transport services on the Olbia — Civitavecchia route and three on the Vado Ligure — Porto Torres route.
Štoviše, 2011. pet operatora (uključujući Saremar) pružalo je usluge prijevoza tereta na liniji Olbia – Civitavecchia, a tri na liniji Vado Ligure - Porto Torres.
RAS provided neither any explanation as to why the fares for freight transport offered by Tirrenia and other operators on the routes in question were inadequate to satisfy the transport needs of Sardinia, nor did it give the Commission any comparative information on freight fares applied by Saremar and its competitors on the routes in question.
RAS nije dostavio nikakvo objašnjenje zašto cijene za prijevoz tereta koje su nudili Tirrenia i ostali operatori na predmetnim linijama nisu bile takve da zadovolje potrebe Sardinije za prijevozom tereta, niti je Komisiji dao bilo kakvu usporednu informaciju o cijenama teretnog prijevoza koje su primjenjivali Saremar i njegovu konkurenti na predmetnim linijama.
Moreover, the increase in prices charged by private operators on the routes in question as sanctioned by the NCA only refers to 2011 and is limited to passenger fares.
Štoviše, rast cijena koje su naplaćivali privatni operatori na predmetnim linijama i koje je NCA odobrila odnosi se samo na 2011. i ograničen je na cijene u putničkom prijevozu.
As a consequence, the Commission considers that the Italian authorities did not demonstrate the existence of a real public service need relating to the imposition of public service obligations on Saremar as regards freight transport.
Prema tome, Komisija smatra da talijanske vlasti nisu dokazale postojanje stvarne potrebe za javnom uslugom vezano uz nametanje obveza javnih usluga Saremaru u pogledu prijevoza tereta.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that RAS did not demonstrate clearly the need to impose public service obligations relating to the application of affordable fares on the two routes in question and to what extent those obligations were required.
U svjetlu gore navedenog, Komisija zaključuje da RAS nije jasno dokazao potrebu da se nametnu obveze javne usluge vezane uz primjenu prihvatljivih cijena na predmetnim linijama niti do koje mjere su te obveze bile potrebne.
Second, in order for the first Altmark condition to be met, the service provider must be entrusted with clearly defined PSOs.
Drugo, da bi se ispunio prvi Altmark-kriterij, pružatelju usluge moraju se povjeriti jasno definirane obveze javnih usluga.
As concerns the definition of the public mission in the entrustment acts in the present case, the Commission notes the following:
U pogledu definicije javne misije u aktima o povjeravanju, Komisija primjećuje sljedeće:
Decision 20/57/EC instructed Saremar to verify the viability of providing mixed passenger and freight services on two of three proposed links to the mainland.
Odlukom 20/57 Saremaru je dana uputa da provjeri održivost pružanja miješane usluge prijevoza putnika i tereta na dvije od tri predložene linije do kopna.
The precise routes to be operated were not chosen by RAS but rather left at the discretion of the operator.
RAS nije odabrao konkretne linije na kojima bi se obavljala usluga već je to prepušteno operatoru.
Although RAS claims that the imposition of PSOs in this case was justified by the increase in fares of competing operators, no specific obligation to charge reduced fares on the routes to be operated was imposed on Saremar;
Iako RAS tvrdi da je u ovom slučaju nametanje obveza pružanja javnih usluga opravdano rastom cijena konkurentnih operatora, Saremaru nije nametnuta konkretna obveza da naplaćuje niže cijene karata na linijama na kojima će prometovati;
By Decision 12/28/EC concerning operation of the route in the 2012 summer season, RAS merely took act of Saremar's proposal on the application of different fares in the low, week-end and high season and of the three alternatives proposed by Saremar as concerns the fare applicable in the high season, without however specifying the precise fares which had been proposed by the operator.
Odlukom 12/28 o prometovanju na toj liniji u ljetnoj sezoni 2012. RAS je tek primio na znanje prijedlog Saremara o primjeni različitih cijena karata za vikende i u razdobljima niske i visoke sezone te tri alternative koje je Saremar predložio u pogledu cijena karata u razdoblju visoke sezone, a da pri tome nije jasno utvrdio točne cijene karata koje je predložio operator.
fares applicable on the Genova (Vado Ligure) – Porto Torres route in 2011 were set by Decision 27/4/EC.
cijene karata za liniju Genova (Vado Ligure) – Porto Torres u 2011. utvrđene su Odlukom 27/4.
The Commission therefore notes that even if some of the entrustment acts regulate the fares to be charged to a certain extent, it is clear that these provisions relate to only a fraction of Saremar's activity.
Komisija stoga primjećuje da čak i ako se u nekim aktima o povjeravanju do određene mjere uređuju cijene karata koje će se naplaćivati, jasno je da se te odredbe odnose tek na dio Saremarovih aktivnosti.
Late in the investigation procedure, RAS has submitted to the Commission the actual fares which had been proposed by Saremar and implicitly approved by Decision 25/69/EC and Decision 27/4/EC.
Kasnije u postupku istrage, RAS je Komisiji podnio stvarne cijene karata koje je predložio Saremar i koje su bile implicitno odobrene Odlukom 25/69 i Odlukom 27/4.
Nonetheless, the Commission notes that a large discretion has been left to Saremar to adapt fares.
Usprkos tome, Komisija primjećuje da je Saremaru ostavljeno široko diskrecijsko pravo da prilagodi cijene karata.
Saremar retained the faculty to adjust fares so as to ensure economic viability of the activity and customer satisfaction, subject to prior notice to RAS.
Saremar je zadržao pravo da prilagodi cijene karata kako bi osigurao ekonomsku održivost i zadovoljstvo korisnika, uz obvezu prethodnog prijavljivanja novih cijena RAS-u.
The Commission notes that SGEIs are by nature services which address market failures as the market does not autonomously provide them to the standard required by the public authority.
Komisija napominje da su usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa po svojoj prirodi usluge koje su odgovor na tržišni neuspjeh s obzirom da ih tržište samo po sebi ne pruža na razini kakvu zahtijeva javno tijelo.
Whilst the Commission considers that some flexibility with regard to prices may be left in some cases to public service providers, when the alleged public service obligation relates precisely to the necessity to offer affordable fares, the public authorities must define the maximum fares that the operator can apply or link that flexibility either to objective criteria, which allow to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty what fare level is to be considered as affordable, or to a prior authorisation procedure by the entrusting authority.
I dok Komisija smatra da se u nekim slučajevima pružateljima javne usluge može omogućiti određena razina fleksibilnosti glede određivanja cijena, kada se navodna obveza pružanja javne usluge odnosi upravo na potrebu da se ponudi pristupačna cijena karata, javna tijela moraju utvrditi maksimalne cijene karata koje operator može primijeniti ili tu fleksibilnost mora vezati uz objektivne kriterije koji omogućuju da se s razumnim stupnjem sigurnosti može odrediti koja se razina cijene karata može smatrati pristupačnom ili pak uz prethodni postupak odobravanja od strane tijela koje je operatoru povjerilo pružanje predmetne usluge.
In the present case, however, the provisions concerning applicable fares in the entrustment acts are not sufficiently precise so as to qualify as clearly defined PSOs (with the exception of Decision 25/69/EC and Decision 27/4/EC).
U ovom slučaju, međutim, odredbe o primjenjivim cijenama karata u aktima o povjeravanju nisu dovoljno precizne da bi ih se moglo smatrati jasno definiranim obvezama javne usluge (izuzev Odluke 25/69 i Odluke 27/4).
Saremar's margin of manoeuvre was not linked to objective criteria or at least to criteria that were applied in an objective way.
Manevarski prostor Saremara nije bio vezan uz objektivne kriterije ili barem uz kriterije koji su se primjenjivali na objektivan način.
The requirement to exploit the routes on economic balance was manifestly not met and customer satisfaction was not measured (to the knowledge of the Commission).
Zahtjev da se usluga na linijama obavlja tako da se postigne ekonomska ravnoteža očito nije ispunjen, a zadovoljstvo korisnika (prema saznanjima Komisije) nije mjereno.
Likewise, it is true that Saremar had to inform RAS of changes in the level of fares, but there is no indication that RAS's agreement was a condition for the application of the amended fare.
Isto tako, točno je da je Saremar morao obavijestiti RAS o promjenama glede razina cijena karata, ali nigdje ne stoji da je suglasnost RAS-a bila uvjet za primjenu izmijenjenih cijena karata.
Saremar has claimed in the course of the civil proceedings before the Genoa Court that, in order to offset losses on the two routes, the company would have had to increase fares.
Saremar je u postupku građanske parnice na sudu u Genovi tvrdio da je morao podići cijene karata kako bi se nadoknadili gubici na dvije predmetne linije.
However, there is no evidence in the case file that, in trying to keep with the viability objective, the company has at any time proposed an increase in fares which was rejected by RAS.
Međutim, u spisu predmeta nema dokaza da je poduzeće, pokušavajući ostvariti cilj održivosti, u bilo kojem trenutku predložilo rast cijena karata koji je RAS odbio.
On the contrary, documents in the case file show that Saremar had indeed, at least as concerns the operation of the Porto Torres – Vado Ligure route, increased fares to ensure that the company could break even.
Upravo suprotno, dokumenti u spisu predmeta pokazuju da je Saremar doista, barem što se tiče prometovanja na liniji Porto Torres – Vado Ligure, povisio cijene karata kako bi osigurao da poduzeće pokrije troškove.
It would therefore rather appear that the company could freely set its fares.
Prema tome, čini se da je poduzeće moglo slobodno određivati cijene karata.
Finally, it results from the analysis of the entrustment acts that no obligation on fares has been imposed on Saremar for the operation of the Olbia – Civitavecchia route from 1 May to 30 May 2012: the rate approved by Decision 48/65/EC was applied until end April 2012, whereas the rate approved by Decision 12/28/EC applied as of June 2012.
Naposljetku, iz analize akata o povjeravanju proizlazi da Saremaru nisu nametnute nikakve obveze glede cijena karata za prometovanje na liniji Olbia – Civitavecchia od 1. svibnja do 30. svibnja 2012.: cijena koja je odobrena Odlukom 48/65 primjenjivala se do kraja travnja 2012., dok se cijena koja je odobrena Odlukom 12/28 primjenjivala od lipnja 2012.
Given that the operation of the route was not discontinued, it results that Saremar's prices were not subject to regulation at least during May 2012.
S obzirom da prometovanje na liniji nije obustavljeno, proizlazi da cijene Saremara nisu bile regulirane, barem tijekom svibnja 2012.
In view of the above, the Commission considers that Saremar was not entrusted with clear obligations as regards fare level, with the exception of the service offered in 2011 pursuant to Decision 25/69/EC and Decision 27/4/EC.
S obzirom na gore navedeno, Komisija smatra da Saremaru nisu povjerene jasne obveze glede razina cijena karata, osim u slučaju usluge koja je obavljana 2011. temeljem Odluke 25/69 i Odluke 27/4.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the Italian authorities have not demonstrated that the compensation meets the first Altmark condition.
Prema tome, Komisija smatra da talijanske vlasti nisu dokazale da naknada ispunjava prvi Altmark-kriterij.
In accordance with the third Altmark condition, the compensation received for the discharge of PSOs cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for their discharge.
U skladu s trećim Altmark-kriterijem naknada za izvršenje obveze javne usluge ne smije premašiti iznos neophodan za pokrivanje svih ili dijela troškova koji su nastali pri izvršenju tih obveza, uzimajući u obzir relevantne prihode i razumnu dobit za njihovo izvršavanje.
Inasmuch as the Commission already concluded that RAS did not demonstrate the existence of a real public service need on the two routes in question over the relevant period, the Commission considers that Saremar was not entitled to receive any compensation under the Altmark jurisprudence for the costs incurred in the operation of the two routes.
Budući da je Komisija već zaključila da RAS nije dokazao postojanje stvarne potrebe za javnom uslugom na dvjema predmetnim linijama tijekom relevantnog razdoblja, Komisija smatra da Saremar nije imao pravo na primitak bilo kakve naknade na temelju jurisprudencije Altmark za troškove pretrpljene u prometovanju dvjema linijama.
RAS has argued however, that the compensation is lower than the loss incurred by Saremar in serving these two routes in 2011 and 2012 and that since it has been calculated according to the separate accounts for those routes, it cannot benefit any other activity of Saremar.
Međutim, RAS tvrdi da je naknada niža od gubitaka koje je Saremar pretrpio u prometovanju tim dvjema linijama u 2011. i 2012. i da, s obzirom da je bila obračunata u skladu s odvojenim knjigama za te linije, ona ne može koristiti bilo kojoj drugoj djelatnosti Saremara.
It should therefore be considered as complying with the third Altmark condition.
Stoga treba smatrati da je ta naknada u skladu s trećim Altmark-kriterijem.
However, the Commission notes that in the absence of a clear definition of the obligations imposed on Saremar over the whole period of entrustment, it is impossible to calculate the costs ensuing from those obligations.
Međutim, Komisija napominje da, s obzirom da ne postoji jasna definicija obveza koje su Saremaru određene za cijelo razdoblje povjeravanja, nije moguće obračunati troškove koji proizlaze iz tih obveza.
Therefore, the Commission must conclude that the third Altmark condition is not met either.
Zbog toga Komisija mora zaključiti da treći Altmark-kriterij također nije ispunjen.
Given that the first three Altmark conditions have not been met, the Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Saremar by Regional Law 15/2012 provides an economic advantage to Saremar.
S obzirom da nisu ispunjena prva tri Altmark-kriterija, Komisija donosi zaključak da naknada dodijeljena Saremaru temeljem Regionalnog zakona 15/2012 Saremaru pruža gospodarsku prednost.
The compensation granted to Saremar by virtue of Regional Law 15/2012 provides the beneficiary with an economic advantage.
Naknada koja je dodijeljena Saremaru temeljem Regionalnog zakona 15/2012 korisniku dodjeljuje gospodarsku prednost.
Promotional activities
Promidžbene aktivnosti
As concerns the promotional activities, the Commission first notes that the logos and advertising effectively carried on Saremar vessels did not refer to the reduction in prices of maritime transport services but were intended at promoting Sardinia as tourist destination.
Što se tiče promidžbenih aktivnosti, Komisija najprije napominje da se logotipovi i promidžbeni materijali koji su se u stvarnosti nalazili na plovilima Saremara nisu odnosili na sniženje cijena usluga pomorskoga prijevoza, već im je cilj bio promidžba Sardinije kao turističkog odredišta.
Therefore, the question that arises is whether Saremar received a remuneration for those promotional activities which was above market price.
Pitanje koje se stoga postavlja jest je li Saremar za te promidžbene aktivnosti primio naknadu iznad tržišne cijene.
As mentioned above, a study concluded by an expert appointed by RAS was submitted to the Commission in August 2013.
Kao što je ranije istaknuto, Komisiji je u kolovozu 2013. dostavljena studija koju je izradio stručnjak izabran od strane RAS-a.
The study concluded that the market value of the promotional activities carried out by Saremar in 2011 and 2012 would range between EUR 2458168 and EUR 2609631.
U toj je studiji zaključeno da bi se tržišna vrijednost promidžbenih aktivnosti Saremara provedenih u 2011. i 2012. kretala u rasponu od 2458168 EUR do 2609631 EUR.
Hence the EUR 2479000 price set by RAS would be justified.
Stoga bi cijena od 2479000 EUR koju je RAS odredio bila opravdana.
In the present case, there was neither an open and unconditional bidding procedure nor an ex-ante independent expert valuation prepared for the purposes of awarding the services in order to ensure that the price adequately reflects the market value of the services.
U ovom slučaju, nije proveden otvoren i bezuvjetan javni natječaj niti je pripremljeno nezavisno ex ante stručno vrednovanje za potrebe dodjele prava na obavljanje usluga ne bi li se osiguralo da cijena primjereno odražava tržišnu vrijednost tih usluga.
Since the activities in question were not tendered out, it cannot be assumed that the price paid by RAS is in line with market conditions, thus ruling out the possibility that it conferred an advantage on Saremar.
Budući da za dotične aktivnosti nije bio objavljen poziv na dostavu ponuda, ne može se pretpostaviti da je cijena koju je RAS platio u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima, čime bi se isključila mogućnost da je RAS Saremaru dodijelio prednost.
The mere fact that the amount was originally granted as compensation for promotional activities to be carried out exclusively in 2011, and that no advertising was supposed to be carried out by Saremar in 2012, suggests that the price was not based on a reliable ex-ante valuation of costs.
Sama činjenica da je iznos prvotno dodijeljen kao naknada za promidžbene aktivnosti koje su se trebale provesti isključivo u 2011. i da Saremar nije trebao provoditi promidžbu u 2012. upućuje na to da cijena nije bila utemeljena na pouzdanom ex ante vrednovanju troškova.
Nonetheless, it cannot be ruled out that other valuation methods may be applied in such instances, so long as it is ensured that the price actually paid by the purchaser on the basis of those methods reflects, as far as possible, the market value of the service.
Pa ipak, ne može se isključiti mogućnost primjene drugih metoda vrednovanja u takvim slučajevima ako se pritom osigura da cijena koju je na temelju tih metoda kupac stvarno platio odražava, u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće, tržišnu vrijednost usluge.