natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In these circumstances, it would be contradictory to maintain, on the one hand, that the service is necessary within the framework of Article 86(2) of the Treaty and, on the other, to consider that the service in question is not necessary in order to apply the normal legal framework applicable to public service obligations in the aviation sector.
V teh okoliščinah bi bilo protislovno na eni strani vztrajati pri tem, da je storitev na podlagi člena 86(2) Pogodbe nujna, in na drugi strani meniti, da zadevna storitev ni nujna za uporabo običajnega pravnega okvira, ki se uporablja za obveznosti javne službe v letalskem sektorju.
In the absence of compliance with the procedure established in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, the proportionality of the aid also cannot be confirmed.
Če ni bil upoštevan postopek iz člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2408/92, tudi sorazmernost pomoči ne more biti potrjena.
The Spanish authorities consider that the amount of the subsidy granted is less than the deficit run up in the months during which the service was operated and that there has therefore not been any overcompensation.
Španske oblasti menijo, da je znesek dodeljene subvencije nižji od primanjkljaja, doseženega v mesecih opravljanja prevoza, in zato dodatno povračilo stroškov ni mogoče.
The Commission does not dispute that the amount of aid is less than the deficit for the service, but it does consider that, in the absence of objective means for establishing the level of compensation pursuant to the mandatory rules laid down by the Council, it cannot be ruled out that other companies would have been able to offer the service in question with a lower level of subsidy.
Komisija ne zanika, da je znesek pomoči nižji od primanjkljaja zaradi storitve, a meni, da v odsotnosti objektivnih sredstev za določitev stopnje povračila stroškov z uporabo obveznih pravil Sveta ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da bi lahko druge družbe nudile zadevno storitev z nižjo stopnjo subvencije.
As is clear from the Court’s case law [21], a joint assessment of compatibility must be carried out where certain arrangements of the aid contravene specific provisions of the EC Treaty other than Articles 87 and 88, and are inextricably linked to the object of the aid in such a manner that it is impossible to evaluate them separately.
Glede na sodno prakso Sodišča [21], je potrebno pripraviti skupno oceno o združljivosti, za primere, ko določene modalitete pomoči kršijo posebne določbe Pogodbe, ki se razlikujejo od členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES, in so neločljivo povezane s predmetom pomoči, tako da jih ni mogoče ocenjevati ločeno.
In such a situation, the conditions of these other provisions would be added to the compatibility requirements arising from Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty.
V takem primeru se pogoji teh drugih določb dodajo pogojem za združljivost iz člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES.
In addition, it is clear that a State aid procedure must never lead to a result which is contrary to the specific provisions of the Treaty [22], or to Community regulations adopted on the basis of such provisions.
Poleg tega je očitno, da postopek za dodelitev državne pomoči ne sme nikoli privesti do rezultata, ki je v nasprotju s posebnimi določbami Pogodbe [22] ali s predpisi Skupnosti, ki izhajajo iz teh določb.
In the case at issue, the procedure in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 is inextricably linked to the aid.
V tem primeru je postopek iz člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2408/92 neločljivo povezan s pomočjo.
In accordance with this case law, it is not possible to declare aid compatible if the arrangements for granting it have not complied with Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92.
V skladu s to sodno prakso pomoč ni združljiva, če modalitete dodelitve niso upoštevale člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2408/92.
Furthermore, the last sentence of Article 86(2) of the Treaty also contains an additional requirement: ‘the development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community’.
Sicer pa zadnji stavek člena 86(2) Pogodbe vsebuje tudi dodatno zahtevo: „razvoj trgovine ne sme biti prizadet v takšnem obsegu, da bi bil v nasprotju z interesi Skupnosti“.
The Commission considers that, in a case such as this, it would be contrary to the Community interest to authorise aid which has been granted in breach of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92.
Komisija meni, da bi bilo v takem primeru, kot je ta, v nasprotju z interesi Skupnosti odobriti pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena v nasprotju z Uredbo (EGS) št. 2408/92.
Consequently, the aid in question cannot be declared to be compatible with Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Zato zadevna pomoč ni združljiva s členom 86(2) Pogodbe.
Start-up aid
Pomoč za zagon
In recital 278 of Commission Decision 2004/393/EC of 12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi [23], the Commission considers that aid measures that allow the development and better operation of regional airport infrastructures that are currently under-used and represent a cost to the local community may be of interest at European Community level and form part of the objectives of the common transport policy.
Komisija v Odločbi 2004/393/ES z dne 12. februarja 2004 o ugodnostih, ki jih dodeljujeta Valonska regija in letališče Charleroi Bruxelles Sud družbi Ryanair pri njeni namestitvi v Charleroiju [23], pod točko 278, meni, da je pomoč, ki omogoča razvoj in zagotovitev boljšega izkoriščanja regionalnih letaliških infrastruktur, ki so trenutno premalo izkoriščene in predstavljajo stroške za skupnost, v nespornem interesu Skupnosti in spada med cilje skupne prevozne politike.
In this Decision, the Commission considered that certain operational aid intended to help the launch of new airlines or strengthen certain frequencies may be a necessary tool for the development of small regional airports.
V tej odločbi Komisija meni, da so nekatere operativne pomoči za pospeševanje vzpostavitve novih letalskih linij ali krepitve nekaterih izkoriščenosti lahko nujen pripomoček za razvoj malih regionalnih letališč.
The measures may indeed persuade the interested companies to take the risk of investing in new routes.
Te pomoči lahko prepričajo zainteresirana podjetja, da tvegajo investicije v nove linije.
However, in order to declare such aid compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, it should be determined whether this aid is necessary and in proportion to the objectives sought, and whether it affects trade to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.
Kljub temu pa je za razglasitev združljivosti takih pomoči na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe potrebno za vsak primer ugotoviti, ali so te pomoči nujne in sorazmerne v odnosu do zastavljenega cilja in ali ne vplivajo na trgovino v takšnem obsegu, da bi bile v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Operating aid is rarely likely to be declared compatible with the common market as it usually distorts conditions of competition in the areas where it is granted, without however being capable, because of its very nature, of achieving any of the aims laid down by the exemption provisions in the Treaty.
Pomoč za delovanje je redko združljiva s skupnim trgom, ker običajno izkrivlja pogoje konkurence v sektorjih, za katere je dodeljena, pri čemer, glede na svojo naravo, ni sposobna doseči nekaterih ciljev, določenih s posebnimi pravili Pogodbe.
In fact, as it does not involve any technical or structural alteration to the business and favours only its commercial development, it only allows the business to offer artificially favourable conditions to its clients and to increase its profit margin without justification.
S tem ko ne vključuje nikakršne tehnične ali strukturne spremembe podjetja in pospešuje zgolj njegov komercialni razvoj, mu omogoča, da svojim strankam nudi umetno ugodne pogoje in brez kakršne koli utemeljitve povečuje svojo maržo dobička.
There are, however, a number of exceptions to this principle and the Commission has in the past declared this type of aid compatible, provided certain conditions are met [24].
To načelo kljub temu priznava določene izjeme in Komisija ta tip pomoči včasih pojmuje kot združljiv, če so izpolnjeni določeni pogoji [24].
In order to declare such aid compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(c), it is therefore necessary to determine whether the aid paid in the case at issue is necessary and proportionate to the objective sought and whether it does not affect trade to a degree which is contrary to the common interest.
Za razglasitev združljivosti take pomoči na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe je potrebno torej ugotoviti, ali je pomoč, izplačana v tem primeru, nujna in sorazmerna z zastavljenim ciljem in ali ne vpliva na trgovino v takšnem obsegu, da bi bila v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Aim of the measure and presence of Community interest
Cilj ukrepa in prisotnost skupnega interesa
The first condition for granting start-up aid is that it forms part of a coherent airport development project and reflects a willingness to develop the profitability of infrastructures that are not always profitable.
Prvi pogoj za dodelitev pomoči za zagon je, da je le-ta v skladu z letališkim razvojnim projektom in izraža pripravljenost za razvoj donosnosti infrastruktur, ki niso vedno donosne.
The promotion of regional development, tourism, the local economy or the regional image will therefore be no more than a spin-off of this coherent policy intended first and foremost to develop airport activities on a long-term basis.
Promocija regionalnega razvoja, turizma, lokalnega gospodarstva ali podobe območja bo samo posledica te skladne politike, ki je namenjena predvsem trajnostnemu razvoju letališke dejavnosti.
Regional airports could also provide a solution to one problem of transport policy: that of capacity saturation at major airports [25].
Regionalna letališča bi lahko predstavljala tudi rešitev problema prevozne politike: nasičenosti pomembnejših letaliških zmogljivosti [25].
In this case, no information suggests that other companies wishing to start up routes between Gerona and other destinations have had access to similar aid.
V tem primeru nobeden podatek ne kaže na to, da bi imele druge družbe, ki so želele vzpostaviti linije med Gerono in drugimi namembnimi kraji, dostop do podobne pomoči.
The Commission has not been informed about the existence of any such project for the development of airport activities.
Komisija ni bila obveščena o obstoju takega razvojnega projekta letaliških dejavnosti.
The Spanish authorities merely state that Gerona airport did not have any scheduled flights until the establishment of the service between Gerona and Madrid.
Španske oblasti so se omejile na obvestilo, da geronsko letališče do vzpostavitve linije med Gerono in Madridom ni sprejemalo nobenega rednega leta.
The need for aid
Nujnost pomoči
The Commission defined the criterion of the need for aid in the Ryanair Decision [26].
Komisija je v Odločbi „Ryanair“ [26] opredelila kriterij nujnosti pomoči.
In this respect, start-up aid must be essential for the development of the airport.
V tem smislu mora biti pomoč za zagon nujna za razvoj letališča.
Certain conditions must be met.
Izpolnjeni morajo biti določeni pogoji.
Firstly, the aid granted to the airlines should apply only to the opening of new routes or new frequencies, generating an increase in the net volume of passengers departing from the regional airport, so that part of the risk borne by the company is taken on.
Prvič, pomoč, ki je izplačana letalski družbi, se sme uporabiti zgolj za odprtje novih poti ali novih izkoriščenosti, ki povzročijo čisto povečanje števila potnikov regionalnega letališča, tako da letališče prevzame nase del tveganja, ki ga nosi družba.
Secondly, the aid should not be paid where the route is already being operated: the risk being run by the company is less, maybe even zero, and the need for aid is not justified.
Drugič, pomoč ne sme biti izplačana, kadar je linija že izkoriščena: tveganje družbe je manjše, celo nično, in nujnost pomoči ni upravičena.
Thus, when a company already operates a route from an airport, it will not be able to benefit from public aid.
Torej, če družba že vzdržuje linijo iz nekega letališča, ne more uživati javne podpore.
Thirdly, aid must not be paid to an airline for any new route that it starts operating in substitution for, and following the abandonment of, an old route that had previously benefited from start-up aid.
Tretjič, pomoč na eni strani ne sme biti izplačana letalski družbi za novo linijo, ki jo je začela izkoriščati v zameno za staro linijo in zaradi opustitve stare linije, za katero je že prejemala pomoč za zagon.
All other things being equal, the airport would not have any net positive effect in terms of the number of passengers arriving at its site.
Če torej vse ostane enako, letališče ne doseže nobenega čistega pozitivnega učinka glede števila sprejetih potnikov.
Furthermore, the aid could not be granted for a route provided by the company in replacement for another route that it had previously served from another airport located in the same economic catchment area or population centre.
Na drugi strani pomoč ne sme biti dodeljena tudi za linijo, ki jo je družba začela nuditi v zameno za drugo linijo, ki jo je prej vzdrževala iz drugega letališča na istem gospodarsko ali populacijsko privlačnem območju.
The Commission in fact considers it essential that start-up aid does not create any spiral subsidy, for example through such relocations of routes once the maximum aid has been granted.
Komisija meni, da je bistvenega pomena, da pomoč za zagon ne povzroči naraščanja cene subvencij, na primer s pomočjo sprememb destinacije,, po tem, ko je bila že dodeljena najvišja pomoč.
Such a practice would in fact run contrary to the whole objective of start-up aid, which is development of the airport concerned in keeping with the common interest.
Taka praksa bi bila v nasprotju s samim ciljem pomoči za zagon, ki je razvoj danega letališča v skladu s skupnim interesom.
Fourthly, aid must not be intended to assist a new entrant to open links that are already open and enter into direct competition with an existing operator already working on that route from the airport.
Četrtič, pomoč prav tako ne sme biti namenjena pomoči novemu tekmecu pri odprtju že odprtih linij in vstopu v neposredno konkurenco z obstoječim prevoznikom, ki že izkorišča to linijo z letališča.
The new arrival must rely on its own strength alone, and not on public aid, to compete with an existing operator.
Novi tekmec se mora pri spopadanju z obstoječim prevoznikom zanašati na svoje lastne moči, in ne na javno pomoč.
With regard to the first, second and fourth conditions, it should be pointed out that the Gerona–Madrid–Gerona route was being operated by another company until 28 October 2001, but that the company abandoned the service as unprofitable.
Kar zadeva prvi, drugi in četrti pogoj, je potrebno spomniti, da je linijo Gerona–Madrid–Gerona izkoriščala druga družba do 28. oktobra 2001, a jo je opustila zaradi nedonosnosti prevoza.
The route was not being operated by another carrier at the time of conclusion of the contract between the public authorities concerned and Intermed on 26 March 2002.
V času sklenitve pogodbe med javnimi oblastmi in Intermedom dne 26. marca 2006 linije ni izkoriščal drug prevoznik.
However, another operator, Air Catalunya, started operating the same link a few days later, on 3 April 2002.
Kljub temu pa je drug prevoznik, Air Catalunya, začel izkoriščati isto linijo nekaj dni potem, 3. aprila 2002.
Intermed started operating on 15 April 2002.
Končno je Intermed začel s svojimi dejavnostmi 15. aprila 2002.
The fact that the two companies started operating the Gerona–Madrid–Gerona route 12 days apart makes it impossible to determine clearly and definitively whether the service provided by Intermed can be considered to be a new route.
Dejstvo, da sta obe družbi začeli izkoriščati linijo Gerona–Madrid–Gerona z dvanajstimi dnevi razlike, ne omogoča jasne in dokončne ugotovitve, ali je prevoz Intermeda mogoče pojmovati kot novo progo.
The third condition is met in the case at issue since the Madrid–Gerona–Madrid route was the first operated by Intermed.
Tretji pogoj je v tem primeru izpolnjen, saj je progo Madrid–Gerona–Madrid prvi začel izkoriščati Intermed.
The start-up expenditure on marketing and advertising to make the route known may be considered to be necessary in view of its aim, which is to inform the general public about the existence of such an air route.
Stroške za trženje in oglaševanje, ki jih je treba ob zagonu prevzeti za obveščanje o progi, se lahko pojmujejo kot nujni glede na cilj obvestiti širšo javnost o obstoju take letalske linije.
The incentive nature of the aid
Spodbujevalni značaj pomoči
Aid must have an incentive effect: it must allow a business to develop an activity that it would not have embarked upon without public support.
Pomoč mora imeti spodbujevalni učinek: podjetju mora omogočiti razvoj dejavnosti, ki se je brez javne podpore ne bi lotilo.
This activity, however, must prove itself to be profitable without aid in the long term.
Toda ta dejavnost se mora na koncu izkazati za donosno brez pomoči.
For this reason, aid intended for launching new connections or for increasing frequencies must be limited in time.
Zato mora biti pomoč za zagon novih linij ali krepitev izkoriščenosti časovno omejena.
Aid is used to launch a new route, but it cannot maintain the route artificially: routes must eventually be economically viable.
Pomoč je namenjena zagonu nove linije, ki pa je ni mogoče vzdrževati umetno: linije morajo biti na koncu gospodarsko upravičene.
The Commission has considered that, in the framework of start-up aid in the aviation sector [27], a maximum period of five years following the opening of each connection is reasonable, in particular for intra-European, point-to-point links.
Komisija meni, da je najdaljša razumna doba prejemanja pomoči za zagon v letalskem prevozništvu [27] pet let od odprtja vsake linije, zlasti za celotne vseevropske povezave.
In the case at issue, the part-funding of the Gerona–Madrid route and the publicity measures are limited in time (the contract was valid for three years), in particular until the route in question has been consolidated and achieves profitability itself or because another air operator, without public aid or any other State funding, establishes an air service between Gerona and Madrid which has the same characteristics as the service covered by the contract concerned as regards, in particular, the type of aircraft, frequency, fares and service period.
V tem primeru so delno financiranje linije Gerona–Madrid in ukrepi oglaševanja časovno omejeni (pogodba je veljala tri leta), zlasti dokler se zadevna linija ne utrdi in postane donosna ali dokler drugi letalski prevoznik ne poskrbi za let med Gerono in Madridom, brez javne pomoči ali kakršnega koli drugega državnega financiranja, in ponudi podobne karakteristike, kot jih ima let, ki je predmet te pogodbe, zlasti kar zadeva tip letala, izkoriščenost, pristojbine in čas storitve.
Proportionality of the aid
Sorazmernost pomoči
Proportionality must be established in the form of two links between the aid and its context.
Med pomočjo in njenimi okoliščinami mora biti vzpostavljena dvojna vez sorazmernosti.
Firstly, there must be a strict link between the aim of the airport development, via the net growth of passenger traffic, and the level of aid paid to the airline.
Prvič, obstajati mora točna povezava med ciljem letališkega razvoja, ki se nanaša na jasen razvoj potniškega prometa, in stopnjo pomoči, izplačane letalski družbi.
The total aid must therefore be calculated per passenger.
Znesek pomoči bi moral biti torej izračunan glede na število potnikov.
An airline that cannot deliver to an airport the volume of passengers necessary for its development will not therefore be unduly favoured.
Letalske družbe, ki letališču ne morejo priskrbeti zadostnega števila potnikov, potrebnega za njegov razvoj, niso upravičene do podpore.
Conversely, a company that meets the targets that make development of the airport possible will reap the benefit.
Nasprotno pa bo družba, ki bo izpolnjevala cilje, ki omogočajo razvoj letališča, prejela ugodnosti.
The second link which must be assessed with regard to proportionality between the aid and the costs incurred by its beneficiary.
Med pomočjo in stroški, ki jih je ustvaril njen prejemnik, je treba ocenjevati tudi drugo vez sorazmernosti.
The Commission points out that the aid intensity, which the Commission limits to 50 % in the case of start-up aid, does not apply to all the operating costs, net of receipts, of the airline concerned.
Komisija opominja, da se intenzivnost pomoči, ki jo Komisija v primeru pomoči za zagon omejuje na 50 %, ne nanaša na celotne stroške delovanja, brez prejemkov, določene letalske linije.
The only costs eligible for start-up aid are the additional start-up costs that the air operator would not have to bear once ‘cruising speed’ is reached and that require a public contribution in order to share the risk of non-viability linked to the start-up period.
Tako so do pomoči za zagon upravičeni le dodatni zagonski stroški, ki jih letalski prevoznik ne bi imel pri običajnem ritmu dejavnosti in ki zahtevajo javni prispevek za porazdelitev tveganja nesposobnosti preživetja, povezanega z zagonskim obdobjem.
In the case of Intermed, they concern, for example, the marketing and advertising costs incurred at the outset for making the link known, and the start-up costs borne by Intermed at the Gerona site.
V primeru Intermeda se na primer nanašajo na stroške trženja in obveščanja, ki jih je ob zagonu treba prevzeti za obvestitev o liniji, kot tudi na stroške namestitve, ki jih mora Intermed kriti za svoje prostore v Geroni.
Conversely, aid cannot be granted in relation to Intermed’s standard operational costs such as hire or depreciation of aircraft, fuel, crew salaries or catering service costs.
Nasprotno pa se pomoč ne more nanašati na redne operativne stroške Intermeda, kot so lokacija ali amortizacija letal, gorivo, plače letališkega osebja, stroški za gostinske storitve (catering).
Transparency, equal treatment of operators and non-discrimination in granting of aid
Preglednost, enako obravnavanje prevoznikov in enaka obravnava pri dodelitvi pomoči
The amount of aid granted to an airline for the development of air services must be transparent. For example, it should be calculated per embarking passenger in order to be easily identified and identifiable.
Znesek pomoči, dodeljene letalski družbi za razvoj letalskih storitev, mora biti pregleden, na primer izračunan na vkrcanega potnika, da bi bil zlahka prepoznaven in prepoznan.
The fact that an airport is ready to grant aid in return for economic services such as the launch of new routes must be publicised in order to make it possible for the interested airlines to present themselves and stake their claim.
Dejstvo, da je letališče pripravljeno dodeliti pomoč v zameno za gospodarske storitve, kot je zagon novih prog, mora biti javno, tako da zainteresiranim letalskim družbam omogoči, da se pokažejo in s tem tudi kaj pridobijo.
The rules and principles relating to procurement contracts and concessions should therefore be observed where applicable.
Pravila in načela glede javnega naročanja in koncesij morajo biti torej, kadar je to primerno, upoštevana.
Objective criteria must be developed by any airport wishing to encourage development of air services in terms of maximum totals and periods for aid, in order to ensure equal treatment between airlines.
Letališče, ki želi spodbuditi razvoj letalskih storitev, mora za zagotovitev enakega obravnavanja letalskih družb razviti objektivna merila glede najvišjega zneska in trajanja pomoči.