natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The position of Air Catalunya or other potential competitors on the route in question will not be damaged in future since payment of the aid was suspended on initiation of the procedure, and the Autonomous Government and the Gerona Regional Council have undertaken to revoke formally the contract concluded with Intermed.
Položaj Air Catalunye ali drugih možnih konkurentov na zadevni liniji v prihodnosti ne bo utrpel nikakršne škode, saj je bilo z uvedbo postopka izplačevanje pomoči ukinjeno, avtonomna vlada in Diputación de Gérone pa sta se obvezala, da bosta uradno razveljavila pogodbo, sklenjeno z Intermedom.
Any negative impact of the grant of aid to Intermed on competition and trade between the Member States is therefore minimised.
Vsi ti elementi vplivajo na to, da so negativne posledice na konkurenco in trgovinsko menjavo med državami članicami, ki bi jih lahko povzročila dodelitev pomoči Intermedu, zreducirane na najnižjo možno stopnjo.
Application of the Altmark case law
Uporaba sodne prakse Altmark
The Spanish authorities consider that the case law which emerges in the Altmark case (pending before the ECJ at the date on which the Spanish authorities sent their comments) would not be applicable to the case at issue since this case is concerned with the application of Article 73 of the Treaty to impose public service obligations outside the framework provided for by the applicable regulations on inland transport.
Španske oblasti menijo, da sodne prakse, ki je bila uporabljena v sodnem primeru Altmark (nerešena pred SES na dan predložitve pripomb španskih oblasti), v tem primeru ne bi bilo; mogoče uporabiti, ker se je obravnavani dosje pri tej zadevi nanašal na uporabo člena 73 Pogodbe za naložitev obveznosti javne službe zunaj okvira, ki ga predvidevajo predpisi, veljavni na področju kopenskega prometa.
Non-recovery of the aid
Nevračilo pomoči
The Spanish authorities consider that the procedure initiated following the subsidies granted to Intermed can be concluded by adopting a Commission Decision that declares the aid to be unlawful and requires it to be suspended, but does not order the aid paid to be recovered and regards it as compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 86(2).
Španske oblasti menijo, da se postopek, ki je bil sprožen zaradi subvencij, dodeljenih družbi Intermed, lahko zaključi s sprejetjem odločbe Komisije, ki kljub temu, da razglasi pomoč za nezakonito in jo ukine, ne odreja vračila izplačane pomoči, ampak jo šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom v skladu z odstavkom 2 člena 86.
Evaluation of this aid in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Treaty
Vrednotenje pomoči v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe
Article 87(1) of the Treaty indicates that any aid granted by the States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or certain production is incompatible with the common market insofar as it affects trade between Member States.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe določa, da je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Financial advantage
Finančna prednost
Paragraph 18 of the Commission Communication on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aid in the aviation sector establishes the presumption that no aid is involved provided that a public service obligation was imposed and the relevant compensation calculated in conformity with the procedures provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.
Sporočilo Komisije o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES in člena 61 Sporazuma EGP o državni pomoči v letalskem sektorju v točki 18 navaja domnevo o odsotnosti pomoči ob dodelitvi obveznosti javne službe in ustreznem izračunu povračila stroškov v skladu s postopkom iz člena 4 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2408/92 o dostopu letalskih prevoznikov Skupnosti do letalskih prog znotraj Skupnosti.
The criteria for assessing whether aid is involved in compensation for public services were subsequently clarified by the judgment of 24 July 2003 in the Altmark case [9].
Merila, ki omogočajo ocenjevanje prisotnosti pomoči v povračilih stroškov za javne službe, so bila pozneje razjasnjena s sodbo sodnega primera Altmark z dne 24. julija 2003 [9].
As explained in recitals 9 to 23 to this Decision, the authorities of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia selected the company without fulfilling the obligations established in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, which are essential to guarantee the principle of equal treatment and proper functioning of the procedure.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 9 do 23 te odločbe, oblasti Avtonomne vlade Katalonije pri izboru prevoznika, opisanega v točki 2.3 te odločbe, niso upoštevale obveznosti iz člena 4 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2408/92, ki so bistvene za zagotovitev načela enake obravnave in pravilnega poteka postopka.
In particular,
Zlasti,
the Commission was not informed of the imposition of a public service obligation on the Gerona–Madrid–Gerona route,
Komisija ni bila obveščena o naložitvi obveznosti javne službe na progi Gerona–Madrid–Gerona,
these obligations were not published in the Official Journal of the European Union,
te obveznosti niso bile objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije,
the other Member States were not consulted,
druge države članice niso bile naprošene, da izrazijo svoje mnenje,
the invitation to tender was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union and
javni razpis ni bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in
the tenders submitted by the air carriers were not communicated to the other Member States concerned or to the Commission.
o ponudbah, ki so jih predložili letalski prevozniki, niso bile obveščene niti druge države članice niti Komisija.
The Spanish authorities consider that the measure in question is, nonetheless, compensation for public service obligations imposed on Intermed.
Španske oblasti menijo, da je zadevni ukrep kljub temu povračilo stroškov za obveznosti javne službe, ki so bile naložene družbi Intermed.
The Commission considers that the only way of establishing public service obligations in the aviation sector is by applying Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92.
Komisija meni, da je edino sredstvo za vzpostavitev obveznosti javne službe v letalskem prevozništvu uporaba člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2408/92.
In this Regulation, the Council has established uniform, non-discriminatory rules for the granting of air traffic rights on routes on which public service obligations have been imposed.
V tej uredbi je Svet uvedel enotna in nediskriminacijska pravila za podeljevanje pravic do letalskega prometa na progah, na katerih so bile naložene obveznosti javne službe.
The criteria for calculating the compensation are clearly defined.
Merila za izračun povračila stroškov so bila jasno določena.
In the absence of any information to the contrary, reimbursement calculated in accordance with Article 4(1)(h) of the Regulation would have made it possible to presume that there was no financial advantage for the air carrier concerned [10].
Povračilo, izračunano v skladu s členom 4(1)(h) te uredbe, bi omogočilo, v odsotnosti navedb, ki bi govorile drugače, domnevati o odsotnosti finančne prednosti v korist letalskega prevoznika [10].
Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 provides that ‘a Member State may reimburse an air carrier, which has been selected under subparagraph (f), for satisfying standards required by a public service obligation imposed under this paragraph; such reimbursement shall take account of the costs and revenue generated by the service’. The Commission considers that the measure envisaged by the Spanish authorities in regard to the company Intermed does not comply with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation.
Člen 4(1)(h) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2408/92 predvideva, da „Država članica lahko letalskemu prevozniku, ki je bil izbran glede na pododstavek (f), povrne stroške, nastale zaradi izpolnjevanja standardov, ki jih zahtevajo obveznosti javne službe iz tega odstavka; pri takem povračilu so upoštevani stroški in prihodki, ustvarjeni s prevozom.“ Komisija meni, da ukrep, ki so ga španske oblasti načrtovale v korist družbe Intermed, ne ustreza določbam iz člena 4 te uredbe.
It follows that the said presumption of the non-existence of aid does not apply in this case.
Iz tega sledi, da domneva o odsotnosti pomoči v tem primeru ne igra nobene vloge.
Paragraph 23 of the guidelines on State aid in the aviation sector states that ‘compensation of losses incurred by a carrier which has not been selected according to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 will continue to be assessed under the general State aid rules.
Točka 23 smernic o državni pomoči v letalskem sektorju opozarja, da „se bo povračilo stroškov za izgube, ki jih je utrpel prevoznik, ki ni bil izbran v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2408/92, še nadalje vrednotilo po splošnih pravilih, ki se uporabljajo za državne pomoči.
The same rule applies to compensations which are not calculated on the basis of the criteria of Article 4(1)(h) of the Regulation’. Similarly, paragraph 17 establishes that ‘the acceptability of the reimbursement shall be considered in the light of the State aid principles as interpreted in the Court of Justice's case law’.
To velja tudi za povračila stroškov, ki niso izračunana na podlagi meril iz člena 4(1)(h) te uredbe.“ Točka 17 prav tako določa, da „mora biti dovoljenje za povračilo ovrednoteno v skladu z načeli o državni pomoči, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse Sodišča“.
The Commission takes the view that where, in a specific sector, Community regulations stipulate that public service obligations must be awarded by a tender procedure, failure to comply with these regulations means that the compensation granted normally constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija meni, da kadar predpisi Skupnosti določenemu sektorju nalagajo dodelitev obveznosti javne službe pri izvajanju konkurence, neupoštevanje teh predpisov pomeni, da je dodeljeno povračilo stroškov pomoč v smislu člena 87.1 Pogodbe.
Nonetheless, the Commission assesses whether the measure in question grants a financial advantage to Intermed, and in particular, whether the compensation in question complies with the criteria established by the Court’s case law, in particular the judgment of 24 July 2003 in the Altmark case.
Komisija kljub temu preuči, ali zadevni ukrep družbi Intermed omogoča finančno prednost in zlasti, ali povračilo stroškov zadostuje merilom, ki jih določa sodna praksa Sodišča, zlasti sodba sodnega primera Altmark z dne 24. julija 2003.
This judgment confirms that amounts granted as compensation for public service obligations are not State aid provided several conditions are met.
Ta sodba potrjuje, da dodeljeni zneski za povrnitev stroškov obveznosti javne službe niso državna pomoč, če so izpolnjeni določeni pogoji.
According to the Court, it follows from those judgments [11]‘that, where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 92(1) of the Treaty.
Iz sodne prakse, po mnenju Sodišča, izhaja [11], da „če državno posredovanje razumemo kot povračilo stroškov za opravljene storitve podjetij, ki prejemajo pomoč za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe, pri čemer ta podjetja v resnici ne uživajo finančne prednosti in posredovanje torej ne omogoča podjetju ugodnejšega konkurenčnega položaja v odnosu do konkurenčnih podjetij, tako posredovanje ne sodi pod člen 92(1) Pogodbe.
However, for such compensation to escape classification as State aid in a particular case, a number of conditions must be satisfied’ [12].
Kljub temu pa je potrebno izpolnjevati določeno število pogojev, da se v nekem konkretnem primeru povrnitev stroškov izogne označbi državne pomoči.“ [12]
The Court has established four conditions.
Sodišče je določilo štiri pogoje.
The first three conditions apply in all cases.
Prvi trije pogoji se uporabljajo v vseh primerih.
The fourth condition provides for two alternatives in order to eliminate any financial advantage whatsoever from the compensation.
Četrti pogoj predvideva 2 možnosti in s tem izključuje vsako najmanjšo finančno prednost, ki bi lahko nastala s povračilom stroškov.
According to the first condition established by the Court, the recipient undertaking must actually have been required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations must have been clearly defined.
Glede na prvi pogoj, ki ga določa Sodišče, mora biti podjetje, ki prejema denarna sredstva, dejansko pooblaščeno za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe in te obveznosti morajo biti jasno določene.
According to the second condition, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.
Glede na drugi pogoj, pa morajo biti parametri za izračun povračila stroškov predhodno določeni na objektiven in jasen način.
In the case at issue, the recipient undertaking has been required to discharge certain obligations which are defined in the contract.
V tem primeru je bilo podjetje, ki prejema pomoč, pooblaščeno za izvajanje nekaterih obveznosti, ki so določene v pogodbi.
These obligations as well as the parameters for calculation of the compensation, as established in Annexes III, IV and V to the contract, are the result of negotiations conducted between the competent regional authorities and the company which had already been selected to provide the air transport service.
Te obveznosti, kot tudi parametri za izračun povračila stroškov, določeni v prilogah III, IV in V k pogodbi, so rezultat pogajanj med pristojnimi regionalnimi oblastmi in družbo, ki je že bila izbrana za izvajanje letalskega prevoza.
In fact, the Autonomous Government of Catalonia had contacted several carriers individually by letter during the period July to November 2001 in order to inform them of its initiative to encourage the establishment of this air route and to invite them to submit tenders or to state that they were prepared to operate this air service.
Avtonomna vlada Katalonije je v obdobju julij–november 2001 z osebnim pismom navezala stike z več prevozniki, da bi jih seznanila s svojo pobudo za pospeševanje vzpostavitve te letalske povezave in jih povabila, da predložijo svoje ponudbe ali izrazijo svojo pripravljenost za izvajanje tega leta.
During this process, the regional authorities invited only the airlines contacted to submit a tender.
V tej navezavi stikov so regionalne oblasti kontaktirane letalske družbe prosile, da predložijo svoje ponudbe.
These letters contain no details about the obligations imposed on the companies or the parameters regarding compensation.
V teh pismih se ne pojavlja nikakršna podrobnost glede obveznosti družb niti glede parametrov povračila stroškov.
It cannot be ruled out that the airlines which did not respond to the request from the regional authorities might have been interested in concluding the contract if more specific details about these obligations and the parameters for calculating the compensation had been available when the request was sent out by the regional authorities.
Ni izključeno, da bi bile letalske družbe, ki so zavrnile prošnjo regionalnih oblasti, zainteresirane za sklenitev pogodbe, če bi imele na voljo podrobnejše informacije glede njihovih obveznosti in parametrov za izračun povračila stroškov že ob prejemu prošnje regionalnih oblasti.
The Commission considers that, in the case at issue, the public service obligations were not defined in a clear and transparent manner and that, consequently, the first condition laid down in the Altmark judgment was not satisfied.
Komisija meni, da v tem primeru obveznosti javne službe niso bile določene na jasen in pregleden način, zato prvi pogoj iz sodbe Altmark torej ni izpolnjen.
Furthermore, the contract concluded on 26 March 2002 between the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, the Gerona Regional Council, the Chamber of Trade and Industry of Gerona and the representative of Intermediación Aérea SL (Intermed) was simply announced by a press release but was not officially published and, according to the Commission’s information, was not accessible to interested third parties.
Poleg tega je bila pogodba, sklenjena 26. marca 2002 med Generalitat de Cataluna, Diputación de Gerona, Trgovinsko in industrijsko zbornico Gerone in predstavnikom družbe Intermediación Aérea SL (INTERMED), sicer predmet sporočila za javnost, a ni bila uradno objavljena in, po podatkih Komisije, ni bila dosegljiva zainteresiranim tretjim osebam.
In addition, in the air transport sector the parameters for calculating compensation in advance in an objective and transparent manner are established by the method laid down by the Community legislator in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, which has not been complied with.
Vrh tega so v sektorju letalskega prevozništva parametri za izračun povračila stroškov na predhoden, objektiven in pregleden način določeni s pravnimi sredstvi zakonodajalca Skupnosti v členu 4 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2408/92, ki ni bil upoštevan.
In addition, the Commission considers that the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated in the case at hand were not established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da parametri za izračun povračila stroškov v tem primeru niso bili določeni na objektiven in pregleden način.
The second condition of the Altmark judgment has therefore not been satisfied.
Drugi pogoj sodbe Altmark torej ni izpolnjen.
According to the third condition laid down by the Court, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations.
Tretji pogoj Sodišča določa, da povračilo stroškov ne sme presegati zneska, ki je potreben za kritje celotnih ali delnih stroškov, povzročenih z izvajanjem obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju nanje nanašajočih se prihodkov, kot tudi razumnih ugodnosti za izvajanje teh obveznosti.
Compliance with such a condition is essential to ensure that the recipient undertaking is not given any advantage which distorts or threatens to distort competition by strengthening that undertaking’s competitive position.
Z upoštevanjem tega pogoja se zagotovi, da podjetje, prejemnik sredstev, ne uživa prednosti, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco s krepitvijo konkurenčnega položaja tega podjetja.
The purpose of this condition is to avoid overcompensation being paid to undertakings and to avoid the situation where the type and amount of compensation granted means that the undertaking has surplus cash which it could devote to activities which might distort competition.
Namen tega pogoja je, da se izognemu dodelitvi dodatnih povračil stroškov podjetjem in dodelitvam povračil stroškov v obliki ali znesku, ki bi podjetja spodbudilo, da razpolagala s presežno plačilno sposobnostjo, ki bi jo lahko namenila za dejavnosti izkrivljanja konkurence.
In the aviation sector, the method used by the legislator to avoid such overcompensation and to minimise any harmful effects of limiting market access is strict compliance with the tender procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92.
Da se izogne takim dodatnim povračilom stroškov in da zmanjša škodljive vplive omejitve dostopa do trga, uporablja zakonodajalec v letalskem sektorju metodo strogega upoštevanja postopka javnega razpisa iz člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2408/92.
The Commission considers that such a tender procedure prior to a purchase by a Member State is normally regarded as sufficient to rule out the possibility that the Member State concerned is seeking to grant an advantage to a particular undertaking.
Komisija meni, da se tak postopek javnega razpisa, pred nakupom države članice, običajno upošteva kot zadosten razlog za izključitev možnosti, da skuša ta država članica dati prednost določenemu podjetju.
The Court of First Instance has confirmed this approach [13].
Sodišče prve stopnje je potrdilo ta pristop [13].
In the absence of an invitation to tender, it believes that it is difficult to determine precisely whether the amount received by Intermed corresponds to the costs arising from discharging the public service obligations, or whether it represents overcompensation and an advantage in its favour.
Komisija meni, da je v odsotnosti javnega razpisa težko točno določiti, ali znesek, ki ga je prejela družba Intermed, ustreza stroškom, povzročenim z izvajanjem obveznosti javne službe, ali pa predstavlja dodatno povračilo stroškov in prednost v njeno korist.
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, consequently, there has been no overcompensation.
Španske oblasti menijo, da je znesek dodeljene subvencije nižji od primanjkljaja, ustvarjenega v mesecih opravljanja storitve, in zato ne gre za dodatno povračilo stroškov.
The Commission considers that, in the absence of objective means of establishing the level of compensation pursuant to the compulsory rules laid down by the Council, it cannot be ruled out that other companies may have been able to offer the services in question with a lower level of subsidy.
Komisija meni, da v odsotnosti objektivnih sredstev za določitev stopnje povračila stroškov z uporabo obveznih pravil Sveta, ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da bi druge družbe lahko nudile zadevno storitev z nižjo stopnjo subvencije.
The Commission considers that the third condition of the Altmark judgment is not satisfied in the case at issue.
Komisija meni, da tretji pogoj iz sodbe Altmark v tem primeru ni izpolnjen.
The fourth condition contains two alternatives:
Četrti pogoj vsebuje dve možni modaliteti:
either ‘the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community’,
ali „je izbor podjetja, ki se ga pooblasti za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe, v konkretnem primeru izveden na podlagi postopka javnega naročila, ki omogoča izbor kandidata, sposobnega nuditi svoje storitve z najmanjšimi družbenimi stroški“;
or ‘the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations’.
ali „mora biti stopnja nujnega povračila stroškov določena na osnovi analize stroškov, ki bi jih srednje veliko podjetje z dobrim vodenjem in primerno opremljenostjo s prevoznimi sredstvi za zadovoljitev potreb zahtevane javne službe, ustvarilo z izvajanjem teh obveznosti, ob upoštevanju prihodkov, ki se nanašajo na te obveznosti, kot tudi razumnih ugodnosti za izvajanje teh obveznosti.“
The first alternative of the fourth condition is not satisfied in the case at issue.
Prva modaliteta četrtega pogoja v tem primeru ni izpolnjena.