natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, a legitimate expectation that aid granted is lawful cannot, barring exceptional circumstances, be entertained unless that aid was notified to the Commission.
Španjolska nadležna tijela predlažu drugačije pristupe izračunu prekomjerne naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge (vidjeti odjeljak 5.3.1.).
Spain has never notified the USO compensations to the Commission despite the publicity made by the Commission on its State aid decisional practice in the postal sector.
Komisija nije u ovoj fazi zauzela stav o tim alternativnim pristupima i napominje da i oni dovode do zaključka da je društvu Correos isplaćena prekomjerna naknada za pružanje nerezerviranih usluga u okviru obveze pružanja univerzalne usluge.
In particular, several State aid decisions of the Commission in the postal sector publicly available assess the compliance with the Altmark conditions and none of them has accepted the NAC methodology as an appropriate mean to verify the 3rd Altmark criterion.
Na temelju toga ne bi bio ispunjen 3. kriterij iz predmeta Altmark.
Moreover, several decisions provide guidance on the approach of the Commission regarding the NAC methodology and it is clear on that basis that the Spanish methodology does not correspond to the NAC methodology as implemented by the Commission (as explained in recitals 177 to 183).
Četvrti kriterij iz predmeta Altmark
The Commission considers that the NERA report issued in 1998 (which had no binding effect) cannot generate legitimate expectations as regards the assessment of the presence of aid in public service compensations which has been clearly framed by the 2003 Altmark judgment and by the decisional practice of the Commission since this judgment.
Kada je riječ o četvrtom kriteriju iz predmeta Altmark, neosporivo je da obveza pružanja univerzalne usluge nije dodijeljena u otvorenom postupku javne nabave već su ju španjolska nadležna tijela izravno povjerila društvu Correos.
The Spanish authorities suggest different approaches to calculate the overcompensation of the USO (see section 5.3.1).
Međutim, španjolska nadležna tijela tvrdila su da je društvu Correos isplaćena naknada u skladu s troškovima tipičnog poduzetnika kojim se dobro upravlja.
Without taking a position at this stage on these alternative approaches, the Commission notes that they also lead to the conclusion that Correos has been overcompensated for the delivery of the USO Non reserved services.
Španjolska nadležna tijela potkrijepila su tu tvrdnju studijom Frontier Economicsa koju su dostavila Komisiji.
On that basis, the 3rd Altmark criterion would not be fulfilled.
U studiji se nastoji prikazati usporedna analiza troškova društva Correos i troškova drugih europskih poštanskih operatora koji su odgovorni za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge kako bi se dokazalo da su naknade odobrene društvu Correos za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge u skladu s četvrtim kriterijem iz predmeta Altmark.
The fourth Altmark criterion
U studiji se upotrebljava ekonometrijski model za procjenu troškova hipotetskog tipičnog poduzetnika kojim se dobro upravlja na temelju informacija nekoliko europskih pružatelja poštanskih usluga s obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge.
Concerning the fourth Altmark criterion, it is undisputed that the USO was not awarded as a result of an open public procurement procedure, but was directly entrusted to Correos by the Spanish authorities.
Stvarni troškovi društva Correos uspoređuju se s troškovima koji bi nastali tom hipotetskom tipičnom poduzetniku kojim se dobro upravlja kada bi se našao u sličnoj situaciji (npr. u pogledu gustoće mreže) kao društvo Correos.
However, the Spanish authorities argued that Correos is compensated according to the costs of a typical well-run undertaking.
U studiji se navodi da su troškovi društva Correos u razdoblju od 2005. do 2010. bili niži od troškova hipotetskog tipičnog poduzetnika kojim se dobro upravlja koji su procijenjeni primjenom ekonometrijskog modela.
In support of that claim, the Spanish authorities have provided a study by Frontier Economics to the Commission.
Komisija je u odluci o pokretanju postupka iz 2016. izrazila sumnje da bi hipotetski tipični poduzetnik kojim se dobro upravlja definiran u studiji zapravo bio učinkoviti poštanski operator.
The study aims to present a comparative analysis of Correos' costs with the costs of other European postal operators responsible for providing the USO in order to prove that the USO compensations granted to Correos fulfil the fourth Altmark criterion.
Uistinu, nije dokazano da su pružatelji s obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge na temelju kojih je utvrđena ta referentna vrijednost sami po sebi učinkoviti operatori.
The study uses an econometric model to estimate the costs of a hypothetical typical well-run undertaking on the basis of information from several European postal USO providers.
U studiji se samo spominje da se smatra da se tim poštanskim operatorima „dobro upravlja i da su prikladno opremljeni jer nema dokaza da su neučinkoviti ili da imaju poticaje neučinkovito raditi”.
Correos' actual costs are compared to the costs that this hypothetical typical well-run undertaking would have incurred should it have been in a situation (e.g. with regard to the network density) similar to that of Correos.
Međutim, taj argument još je teže prihvatiti jer skup uključuje pružatelje s obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge koji su primili naknadu za pružanje univerzalne usluge i za koje je Komisija već donijela odluke da se njihovi troškovi ne mogu smatrati učinkovitim troškovima.
The study's results suggest that Correos' costs in the period 2005-2010 were lower than those of the hypothetical typical well-run undertaking as estimated by the econometric model.
Španjolska nadležna tijela i/ili Correos tvrde da Komisija u odlukama o naknadama za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge koje su odobrene društvima Hellenic Post i Poste Italiane nije formalno izjavila da operatori nisu bili učinkoviti (vidjeti uvodne izjave 62. i 95.).
The Commission expressed doubts in the 2016 Opening Decision that the hypothetical typical well-run undertaking defined in the study would actually be an efficient postal operator.
Može se napomenuti da je Komisija odbacila sličan pristup u odluci o društvu Poste Italiane iz 2012. utemeljenoj na usporedbi s nizom poštanskih operatora na osnovu toga što se na temelju dostupnih informacija nije moglo zaključiti da su ti operatori bili učinkoviti.
Indeed, it has not been demonstrated that the USO providers used to establish this benchmark are themselves efficient operators.
Komisija zadržava svoj stav da se ne može jednostavno pretpostaviti da su poštanski operatori u prosjeku troškovno učinkoviti, posebno u svjetlu trajnog restrukturiranja u tom sektoru.
Instead, the study simply mentions that these postal operators are considered ‘well-run and adequately provided, because there is no evidence of any kind that would show them to be inefficient, or that would indicate that they have incentives to operate inefficiently’.
Nadalje, naknada za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge društva Correos utvrđena je na temelju španjolske metodologije za koju španjolska nadležna tijela smatraju da se njome provodi metodologija NAC.
This argument is however all the more difficult to accept that the set includes USO providers which have received USO compensation, and for which the Commission has already adopted decisions concluding that their costs could not be considered efficient costs.
Čini se da je to u suprotnosti s tekstom četvrtog kriterija iz predmeta Altmark u kojem se upućuje na nastale troškove poduzetnika kojim se dobro upravlja.
The Spanish authorities and/or Correos argue that the Commission has not formally stated in the decisions on the USO compensations granted to Hellenic Post and Poste Italiane that the operator were not efficient (see recitals 62 and 95).
Naposljetku, kako je objašnjeno u uvodnim izjavama od 167. do 168., Komisija smatra da 3. kriterij iz predmeta Altmark nije ispunjen jer se čini da su metodologijom koju su upotrebljavala španjolska nadležna tijela dobiveni iznosi naknade koji su prekoračivali neto troškove obveze pružanja univerzalne usluge društva Correos (uključujući razumnu dobit).
It can be noted that the Commission has rejected a similar approach in the 2012 Poste Italiane decision based on a comparison with a set of postal operators on the ground that it could not be inferred from available information that these operators were efficient.
To znači da se, čak i kada bi se prihvatilo da su troškovi društva Correos troškovi poduzetnika kojim se dobro upravlja, svejedno ne može smatrati da je naknada odobrena društvu Correos utvrđena na temelju tih troškova.
The Commission maintains its views that it is not possible to simply assume that in average postal operators are cost-efficient in particular in light of the continuous restructuring which is impacting this sector.
Stoga se ne može zaključiti da je razina naknade koja je odobrena društvu Correos utvrđena na temelju analize troškova koji bi nastali tipičnom poduzetniku u istom sektoru kojim se dobro upravlja i koji je prikladno opremljen, uzimajući u obzir primitke i razumnu dobit ostvarenu izvršavanjem obveze.
Furthermore, the USO compensation of Correos has been defined on the basis of the Spanish methodology which according to the Spanish authorities is an implementation of the NAC methodology.
Zaključak
Finally, as explained in recitals 167-168, the Commission considers that the 3rd Altmark criterion is not fulfilled because the methodology used by the Spanish authorities appears to have resulted in compensation amounts that exceeded Correos USO net cost (including a reasonable profit).
Narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja i utjecaj na trgovinu
This means that even if it were accepted that Correos' costs are those of a well-run undertaking, it could still not be considered that the compensation granted to Correos were set on the basis of these costs.
Javna potpora poduzetnicima čini državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
Consequentely, it cannot be concluded that the level of compensation granted to Correos was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs, which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations.
Ugovora samo ako se „njome narušava ili prijeti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje” i samo ako „utječe na trgovinu među državama članicama”.
Conclusion
Kada je riječ o načelu narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja, smatra se da se mjerom koju je dodijelila država narušava ili prijeti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje ako se njome poboljšava konkurentan položaj poduzetnika u odnosu na poduzetnike s kojima se natječe.
The Commission concludes that two of the four cumulative Altmark conditions are not fulfilled in the present case, so that the compensations must be considered as conferring an advantage to Correos.
U praktične svrhe, pretpostavlja se da je tržišno natjecanje narušeno čim država dodijeli financijsku prednost poduzetniku u liberaliziranom sektoru u kojem postoji, ili bi moglo postojati, tržišno natjecanje.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade
Kada je riječ o učinku na trgovinu, prema ustaljenoj praksi Suda dodjeljivanjem potpore poduzetniku koji djeluje na unutarnjem tržištu može se utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
Public support to undertakings only amounts to State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty if it ‘distorts or threatens to distort competition’ and only insofar as it ‘affects trade between Member States’.
U području pravila o državnim potporama, lokalni ili regionalni karakter pružene potpore ne isključuje a priori utjecaj na trgovinu.
Concerning the principle of distortion of competition, a measure granted by a State is considered to distort or to threaten to distort competition when it is liable to improve the competitive position of the recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes.
Ako ne postoji strogi prag ili postotak ispod kojeg se može smatrati da nema utjecaja na trgovinu među državama članicama, zbog ograničenog opsega gospodarske djelatnosti, što pokazuje vrlo nizak promet, manje je vjerojatan utjecaj na trgovinu.
For all practical purposes, a distortion of competition is thus assumed as soon as a State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition.
U pogledu ovog predmeta, Komisija primjećuje da je društvo Correos aktivno djelovalo na tržištima poštanskih pošiljaka i paketa na kojima postoji intenzivno tržišno natjecanje s drugim pružateljima iz različitih država članica (npr.
Concerning the principle of effect on trade, the case law of the Court of Justice has established that any grant of aid to an undertaking exercising its activities in the internal market can be liable to affect trade between Member States.
Deutsche Post, TNT, La Poste, UPS, CTT Correios Portugal i Royal Mail).
In the field of State aid rules, an effect on trade is not a priori precluded by the local or regional character of the service provided.
Stoga nema sumnje da bi se bilo kakvom mjerom u korist društva Correos moglo utjecati na tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu među državama članicama.
While there is no strict threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected, the limited scope of the economic activity, as may be evidenced by a very low turnover, renders the presence of an effect on trade less likely.
Na temelju prethodno navedenih razmatranja, Komisija smatra da naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge odobrene društvu Correos u skladu sa Zakonom o pošti iz 1998. ispunjavaju kumulativne kriterije iz članka 107. stavka 1.
As regards the present case, the Commission observes that Correos has been active on the markets for postal items and parcels which are characterized by intense competition with other providers from different Member States (i.e. Deutsche Post, TNT, La Poste, UPS, CTT Correios Portugal and Royal Mail).
Ugovora i stoga mjera čini državnu potporu u smislu te odredbe.
As a consequence, there are no doubts that any measure benefiting Correos is liable to affect competition and trade between Member States.
POSTOJEĆA ILI NOVA POTPORA
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Commission considers that the USO compensations granted to Correos under the 1998 Postal Law fulfil the cumulative criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and hence that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of that provision.
U članku 1. stavku (b) Uredbe Vijeća (EU) 2015/1589 propisano je da postojeća potpora znači „svaka potpora koja je postojala prije stupanja na snagu UFEU-a u odgovarajućim državama članicama”.
EXISTING OR NEW AID
Stoga slijedi da bi se svaki program potpora koji je postojao u Španjolskoj prije njezina pristupanja Uniji 1. siječnja 1986. trebao smatrati postojećom potporom.
Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 provides that existing aid means ‘all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the TFEU in the respective Member States.’
U skladu s člankom 1. točkom (c) iste Uredbe: „„nova potpora” znači svaka potpora, to jest programi potpora i pojedinačna potpora koje ne predstavljaju postojeću potporu, uključujući i izmjene postojećih potpora.”
It thus follows that any aid scheme that existed in Spain prior to its accession to the Union on 1 January 1986 should be considered to be existing aid.
Sud smatra da je, kako bi se moglo utvrditi je li potpora izmijenjena, od ključne važnosti ispitati jesu li izmijenjene odredbe o toj potpori.
According to Article 1(c) of the same regulation: ‘“new aid” shall mean all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid.’
U daljnjim presudama Sud Europske unije i Opći sud dodatno su razradili kakvim se izmjenama odredaba kojima se predviđa potpora postojeća potpora pretvara u novu potporu.
According to the Court of Justice, to establish whether an aid has been altered, it is decisive to examine whether the provisions providing for it have been altered..
Opći sud smatra da „[…] samo u slučaju kad izmjena utječe na samu bit početnog programa, taj program pretvara u novi program potpora.
In subsequent judgments, the Court of Justice and the General Court have further elaborated on what kind of alteration of the provisions providing for the aid converts existing aid into new aid.
Pitanje takve bitne izmjene ne javlja se ako se novi element može nedvojbeno odvojiti od početnog programa.”
According to the General Court, ‘[i]t is only where the alteration affects the actual substance of the original scheme that the latter is transformed into a new aid scheme.
U tom pogledu vrijedi napomenuti da su se prije stupanja na snagu Zakona o pošti iz 1998. neto globalni gubici društva Correos (neovisno o tome jesu li nastali zbog aktivnosti povezanih obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge ili zbog nepovezanih aktivnosti) izravno nadoknađivali iz španjolskog državnog proračuna.
There can be no question of such a substantive alteration where the new element is clearly severable from the initial scheme.’
Nakon donošenja Zakona o pošti iz 1998., država je ograničila javno financiranje društva Correos na naknadu za pružanje novo definirane i razgraničene aktivnosti obveze pružanja univerzalne usluge, a ne više na globalne neto gubitke društva.
In this respect, it is worth noting that, before the entry into force of the 1998 Postal Law, Correos' net global losses (regardless of whether these losses were caused by the USO or non-USO activities) were directly compensated from the Spanish State budget.
Komisija stoga smatra da je priroda naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge temeljno izmijenjena na dva načina.
After the adoption of the 1998 Postal Law, the State limited the public funding of Correos to the compensation for the provision of the newly defined and circumscribed USO activity and no longer to the global net losses of the company.
Prvo, Zakonom o pošti iz 1998. smanjeno je područje primjene naknade njezinim ograničavanjem na aktivnosti obuhvaćene obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge dok se prije toga naknada mogla dobiti za sve aktivnosti društva Correos (tj. uključujući one koje nisu obuhvaćene obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge).
The Commission thus considers that the nature of the USO compensation was fundamentally altered in two ways.
Treba napomenuti da se takvo smanjenje područja primjene smatra temeljnom izmjenom, a ne samo smanjenjem naknade.
First, the 1998 Postal Law reduced the scope of the compensation by limiting it to the USO activities, while before all of Correos' activities (i.e. including non-USO) were eligible for compensation.
Ovisno o financijskom stanju usluga obuhvaćenih obvezom pružanja univerzalne usluge i onih koje njome nisu obuhvaćene, izmjena bi mogla dovesti do povećanja ili smanjenja naknade.
It is worth noting that such scope reduction is considered to constitute a fundamental alteration and not a mere decrease of the compensation.
Drugo, način utvrđivanja iznosa naknade izmijenjen je i dokumentom Plan de Prestación iz 2000. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 26.).
Indeed, depending on the respective financial situations of the USO and non-USO services, the alteration could result in an increase or decrease of the compensation.
Doista, dok se izvorno naknada za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge temeljila na neto gubicima društva Correos, dokumentom Plan de Prestación zahtijevala se uporaba posebne metodologije (vidjeti uvodne izjave 27. i 28.) za utvrđivanje iznosa te naknade.
Second, the method to determine the amount of compensation was also altered by means of the Plan de Prestación of 2000 (see recital 26).
ZAKONITOST MJERE POTPORE
Indeed, while initially USO compensation was based on the net losses incurred by Correos, the Plan de Prestación required the use of a specific methodology (see recitals 27 and 28) to determine the amount of that compensation.
Komisija napominje da naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge obuhvaćene ovom Odlukom, u mjeri u kojoj čine državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
The Commission therefore considers the scheme to have been significantly altered since Spain's accession to the European Union in 1986.
Ugovora, nisu prijavljene u skladu s člankom 108. stavkom 3.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the USO compensations granted to Correos under the 1998 Postal Law cannot qualify as existing aid for State aid purposes and therefore must be considered as new aid, at least since the entry into force of the 1998 Postal Law in the year 1998.
Ugovora.
LAWFULNESS OF THE AID MEASURE
Stoga naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge čine nezakonitu potporu u smislu članka 1. točke (f) Uredbe 2015/1589.
The Commission notes that the USO compensations covered by this decision, to the extent that they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, have not been subject to notification under Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
SPOJIVOST S UNUTARNJIM TRŽIŠTEM
Therefore the USO compensations constitute unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
Pravna osnova
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET
A. Spojivost u skladu s člankom 106. stavkom 2.
Legal basis
Ugovora
A. Compatibility under Article 106(2) of the Treaty
U mjeri u kojoj naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge čine državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
Insofar as the USO compensations benefiting Correos amount to State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, their compatibility with the internal market needs to be assessed.
Ugovora, treba procijeniti njihovu spojivost s unutarnjim tržištem.
The grounds on which a State aid measure can or must be declared compatible with the internal market are listed in Articles 106(2), 107(2), and 107(3) of the Treaty.
Osnove na temelju kojih se mjera državne potpore može ili mora proglasiti spojivom s unutarnjem tržištem navedene su u članku 106. stavku 2., članku 107. stavku 2. i članku 107. stavku 3.
Considering that the Spanish authorities have consistently asserted that the USO compensations granted to Correos under the 1998 Postal Law constitute compensation for carrying out services of general economic interest (‘SGEI’), the compatibility of those compensations with the internal market will need to be assessed on the basis of Article 106(2) of the Treaty.
Ugovora.
That article provides that
Budući da su španjolska nadležna tijela uporno tvrdila da naknade za obvezu pružanja univerzalne usluge odobrene društvu Correos u skladu sa Zakonom o pošti iz 1998. čine naknadu za obavljanje usluga od općeg gospodarskog interesa („SGEI”), spojivost tih naknada s unutarnjim tržištem trebat će procijeniti na temelju članka 106. stavka 2.
‘undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.
Ugovora.
The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.’
U tom članku predviđeno je sljedeće:
B. Temporal application of the 2012 SGEI Package
„poduzeća kojima je povjereno obavljanje usluga od općega gospodarskog interesa ili koja su po svojoj naravi monopoli koji ostvaruju prihod, podliježu pravilima sadržanima u Ugovorima, a osobito pravilima o tržišnom natjecanju, i to u mjeri u kojoj primjena takvih pravila ne sprečava, de iure ili de facto, obavljanje posebnih zadaća koje su im povjerene.
The Commission has laid down the conditions according to which it applies Article 106(2) of the Treaty in a series of instruments, most recently, inter alia, the 2012 SGEI Framework and the 2012 SGEI Decision (hereinafter together: ‘the 2012 SGEI package’).
Na razvoj trgovine ne smije se utjecati u mjeri u kojoj bi to bilo suprotno interesima Unije.”