natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First, the Finnish authorities recall that the annual expenditure rectifying procedure, which existed during the transitional period (cf. Section 2.4.3), ensured that differences in margins between negotiated contracts and contracts put out to tender were levelled out to a large extent.
Prvič, finski organi opozarjajo, da je letni postopek za izravnavo izdatkov v prehodnem obdobju (glej oddelek 2.4.3) omogočil, da so se razlike v maržah med naročili, oddanimi po postopku s pogajanji, in naročili, oddanimi po odprtem postopku, v velikem obsegu izravnale.
Expenditure adjustments during the transitional period totalled EUR 16,8 million.
Prilagoditev izdatkov v prehodnem obdobju je skupaj znašala 16,8 milijona EUR.
As to the remaining differences in margins, according to Finland, it is not appropriate to compare the margin of Tieliikelaitos’ negotiated contracts with the average margin Tieliikelaitos received on tendered contracts during the whole transitional period as it was done by the complainants.
V zvezi s preostalimi razlikami v maržah po mnenju Finske ni upravičeno primerjati marže podjetja Tieliikelaitos iz naročil, oddanimi po postopku s pogajanji, s povprečno maržo, ki jo je podjetje Tieliikelaitos dobilo pri naročilih, oddanih po odprtem postopku, v celotnem prehodnem obdobju, kot so to storili pritožniki.
In the Finnish authorities’ view, one should calculate differences in margins for contracts which are mutually comparable.
Po mnenju finskih organov je treba izračunati razlike v maržah za naročila, ki so med seboj primerljiva.
In this respect, the specificity of years 2001 and 2002 was that many of the tendered contracts during these years were new kind of plan-and-implement contracts (ST contracts).
Za leti 2001 in 2002 je bilo značilno, da je veliko naročil na podlagi javnega razpisa zajemalo nove vrste naročil, tj. naročila načrtovanja in izvajanja.
Initially Tieliikelaitos was not prepared for the significantly higher level of risk compared with traditional contracts.
Podjetje Tieliikelaitos na začetku ni bilo pripravljeno na znatno večje tveganje kot pri običajnih naročilih.
For this reason the margin level of plan-and-implement contracts turned out to be much lower than the expected margin.
Zato so bile marže pri naročilih načrtovanja in izvajanja veliko manjše od pričakovanih.
Negotiated contracts, in turn, did not include plan and implement contracts.
Naročila, oddana po postopku s pogajanji, niso vključevala naročil načrtovanja in izvajanja.
Therefore it is appropriate to exclude plan-and-implement contracts from the calculation.
Zato je primerno, da se naročila načrtovanja in izvajanja pri izračunu ne upoštevajo.
The specificity of years 2003 and 2004, in turn, was that the negotiated contracts received from the Road Administration in 2003 and 2004 were exclusively road maintenance and design contracts.
Za leti 2003 in 2004 je bilo značilno, da so bila naročila, ki jih je po postopku s pogajanji oddala cestna uprava v letih 2003 in 2004, izključno naročila za vzdrževanje in načrtovanje cest.
Therefore, the margin level has to be compared with the margin level of similar tendered contracts.
Zato je treba stopnje marž primerjati z maržami podobnih naročil na podlagi javnega razpisa.
Besides, the Finnish authorities point out that part of the contracts implemented as negotiated contracts could have been — even without the transitional provision contained in section 9 of the Act governing Tieliikelaitos — implemented in another way using direct negotiation in accordance with the procurement legislation in force.
Poleg tega finski organi poudarjajo, da bi se lahko del naročil, ki so se izvajala kot naročila, oddana po postopku s pogajanji, tudi izvajal drugače brez prehodne določbe iz 9. razdelka Zakona o upravljanju podjetja Tieliikelaitos, tj. z neposrednimi pogajanji v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo o javnih naročilih.
In accordance with the Expert statement, Tieliikelaitos has gained an advantage of at most EUR 8,5 million from the negotiated contracts, when the difference in margins between comparable negotiated and tendered contracts is calculated:
V skladu s strokovnim poročilom je podjetje Tieliikelaitos imelo korist v vrednosti največ 8,5 milijona EUR iz naročil, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, če se izračuna razlika v maržah med primerljivimi naročili, oddanimi po postopku s pogajanji ali odprtem postopku:
Negotiated contracts
Naročila, oddana po postopku s pogajanji
MEUR
vmilijonih EUR
margin
marža
Comparable tendered contracts
Primerljiva naročila, oddana po odprtem postopku
Difference in margins [24]
Razlike v maržah [24]
Even if Tieliikelaitos received an economic advantage of EUR 8,5 million, this advantage was justified compensation for the obligation to perform public services, and expenses caused by structural disadvantages (Cf. Section 2.3).
Tudi če je podjetje Tieliikelaitos imelo gospodarsko korist v višini 8,5 milijona EUR, je bila ta korist upravičeno nadomestilo za obveznost izvajanja javne službe in stroške, nastale zaradi strukturnih pomanjkljivosti (glej oddelek 2.3).
During the transitional period, the additional expenses resulting in particular from the excessive personnel costs had to be considered in the pricing of negotiated contracts to the extent that they had not been taken into account via other staff adjustment measures.
V prehodnem obdobju je bilo treba dodatne stroške, nastale zlasti zaradi previsokih stroškov dela, upoštevati pri oblikovanju cen pri naročilih, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, če ti niso bili upoštevani pri drugih prilagoditvenih ukrepih za osebje.
Although a big part of excess staff was engaged in special service projects, there were still on average 100 employees more in Tieliikelaitos than would have been the optimum number during the transitional period.
Čeprav je velik del odvečnega osebja sodeloval pri posebnih storitvenih projektih, je bilo v prehodnem obdobju v podjetju Tieliikelaitos povprečno še vedno 100 zaposlenih več, kot je bilo sprejemljivo.
The Finnish authorities reject allegations that the aid received by Tieliikelaitos has allowed the State Enterprise to accept a lower margin level on plan-and-implement contracts.
Finski organi zavračajo obtožbe, da je pomoč, ki jo je prejelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, državnemu podjetju omogočila, da pri naročilih načrtovanja in izvajanja sprejme nižjo stopnjo marže.
As explained above, the margin level of plan and implement contracts was low because Tieliikelaitos was unprepared for the level of risk they involve.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je bila marža pri naročilih načrtovanja in izvajanja nizka, ker podjetje Tieliikelaitos ni bilo pripravljeno na tveganje, ki jo pogodbe vključujejo.
As to the complainants’ claim that expenses caused by additional personnel were considered to be a cost that artificially reduced the margin of Tieliikelaitos in the negotiated contracts, the Finnish authorities note that excess personnel were not included in the calculation of the margin level of negotiated contracts.
V zvezi s trditvami pritožnikov, da so stroški, nastali zaradi dodatnega osebja, pri naročilih, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, umetno zmanjšali maržo podjetja Tieliikelaitos, finski organi ugotavljajo, da odvečno osebje ni bilo vključeno v izračun marže pri naročilih, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji.
Excess personnel were placed into service projects.
Odvečno osebje je sodelovalo le pri storitvenih projektih.
Finally, Finland rejects the allegation that the comparatively poor financial performance of Tieliikelaitos points to inefficiencies on the part of Tieliikelaitos operations and the use of uncompetitive pricing policy in liberalised markets.
Finska tudi zavrača obtožbo, da sorazmerno slabi finančni rezultati podjetja Tieliikelaitos kažejo na neučinkovitost njegovega delovanja in uporabo nekonkurenčne cenovne politike na liberaliziranih trgih.
In Finland’s view, the poor result can be accounted for by the additional costs due to the adjustment of Tieliikelaitos’ personnel, and the fact that the special arrangements made for personnel could not cover all the costs of additional personnel.
Po mnenju Finske je slab rezultat mogoče pripisati dodatnim stroškom, nastalih s prilagoditvijo osebja podjetja Tieliikelaitos, in dejstvu, da posebne ureditve, uvedene za osebje, ne bi mogle pokriti vseh stroškov dodatnega osebja.
According to the Finnish authorities, for the time being it is cheaper for the Road Administration to continue with negotiated contracts.
Po mnenju finskih organov je trenutno za cestno upravo ceneje, da naročila še naprej oddaja po postopku s pogajanji.
The first attempt to tender out part of ferry services was unsuccessful for the following reasons.
Prvi poskus javnega razpisa za del trajektnih storitev je bil neuspešen zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
Firstly, the prices offered by the bidders were 17-25 % higher than the prices of the negotiated contracts in force between the Road Administration and Tieliikelaitos, about which the parties have held separate annual price negotiations.
Prvič so bile cene, ki so jih ponudili ponudniki, za 17–25 % višje od cen naročil, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, ki so bila sklenjena med cestno upravo in podjetjem Tieliikelaitos ter o katerih sta se stranki letno pogajali.
Therefore, having accepted the results of the tender, the Road Administration would have had to pay more for the respective services.
Če bi cestna uprava torej sprejela rezultate javnega razpisa, bi morala za zadevne storitve plačati več.
Secondly, Tieliikelaitos’ market position would have been strengthened (as the prices quoted by Tieliikelaitos were the lowest prices offered, although still being higher than the prices in the negotiated contracts, the Road administration would have to accept Tieliikelaitos as the winning bidder).
Drugič, tržni položaj podjetja Tieliikelaitos bi se okrepil (ker so bile cene, ki jih je navedlo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, najnižje od ponujenih cen – čeprav so bile vseeno višje od cen naročil po postopku s pogajanji – bi morala cestna uprava podjetje Tieliikelaitos sprejeti kot najboljšega ponudnika).
Therefore the Finnish authorities reject the allegation that the negotiated contracts between the Road administration and Tieliikelaitos would involve any competitive advantage for Tieliikelaitos.
Zato finski organi zavračajo obtožbe, da bi naročila, oddana po postopku s pogajanji, ki sta jih sklenila cestna uprava in podjetje Tieliikelaitos, vključevala kakršno koli konkurenčno korist za podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
On the contrary, they may constitute a disadvantage since the conditions of negotiated contracts do not reflect adequately the need for renewal of equipment (capital costs are not included in their entirety in the price of ferry services).
Nasprotno, pomenijo lahko škodo, saj pogoji naročil, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, ne odražajo ustrezno potrebe po obnovi opreme (stroški kapitala niso v celoti vključeni v cene trajektnih storitev).
Finland is developing a new procurement model for future rounds of competitive bidding, by revising the conditions of the liberalisation associated with capital costs and refurbishing of ferries.
Finska razvija nov model oddaje javnih naročil za prihodnje konkurenčne ponudbe, v katerem bo spremenila pogoje liberalizacije, povezane s stroški kapitala in obnovitvijo trajektov.
An opportunity to do this can be obtained by reducing the risks associated with investments through redemption conditions for ferry equipment attached to the agreement.
To lahko stori tako, da zmanjšanja tveganost naložb z odkupnimi pogoji za trajektno opremo, zajeto v sporazumu.
Another option is to require that all tenderers have new vessels.
Druga možnost je, da zahteva, da imajo vsi ponudniki nova plovila.
In the meantime, the existing ferry contracts have been extended until the end of 2009.
Medtem so bila veljavna trajektna naročila podaljšana do konca leta 2009.
The Finnish authorities argue that the special arrangements and special projects cannot be considered to constitute an advantage.
Finski organi trdijo, da posebnih ureditev in posebnih projektov ni mogoče šteti za koristi.
When Tieliikelaitos started operations on 1 January 2001, it had 4235 employees, although in reality it needed significantly fewer personnel.
Ko je podjetje Tieliikelaitos1. januarja 2001 začelo delovati, je imelo 4235 zaposlenih, čeprav je dejansko potrebovalo znatno manj osebja.
It is clear that the former Road Service, as an official institution based on hierarchy, had a significant number of positions and tasks which were not needed in Tieliikelaitos, which thus led to significant overstaffing at Tieliikelaitos.
Jasno je, da je nekdanja služba za ceste kot uradna ustanova, ki temelji na hierarhiji, imela veliko delovnih mest in nalog, ki v podjetju Tieliikelaitos niso bili potrebni, kar je povzročilo znatno preveliko število zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos.
In Finland’s view, the fact that Tieliikelaitos was required to employ its entire staff and was prohibited from any lay-offs has been a structural disadvantage to Tieliikelaitos.
Po mnenju Finske je dejstvo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos moralo zaposliti celotno osebje in ni smelo odpuščati delavcev, za podjetje Tieliikelaitos pomenilo strukturno pomanjkljivost.
The expenses the company incurred due to that structural disadvantage have exceeded any, even theoretical, economic advantages gained by Tieliikelaitos.
Stroški, ki jih je podjetje imelo zaradi te strukturne pomanjkljivosti, so presegli vse prednosti podjetja Tieliikelaitos, celo teoretične in gospodarske.
The personnel transfer procedures available to Tieliikelaitos have been more expensive and slower than the personnel policies available to Tieliikelaitos’ competitors.
Postopki premestitve osebja, ki jih je izvedlo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, so bili dražji in počasnejši od kadrovske politike konkurenčnih ponudnikov.
According to Finland, the Finnish State could have opted not to transfer the excess employees to Tieliikelaitos at the time it was established.
Po mnenju Finske se finska država ob ustanovitvi podjetja Tieliikelaitos ni mogla odločiti, da odvečnih zaposlenih ne bi prenesla na podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
Finland also refers to the Combus judgment of the Court of First Instance in which the Court dealt with a similar situation concerning transfers of personnel.
Finska se sklicuje tudi na sodbo Combus, ki jo je izdalo Sodišče prve stopnje in v kateri je obravnavalo podoben položaj v zvezi s premestitvijo osebja.
It was concluded in this case that a one-off payment by the Danish State to officials who were employed by Combus and who agreed to give up their status as officials and become employed on a contract basis by that undertaking did not constitute State aid.
V tej zadevi je odločilo, da enkratni znesek, ki ga je danska država plačala uradnikom, ki so bili zaposleni v podjetju Combus ter so se strinjali, da se odrečejo statusu uradnikov in se v tem podjetju zaposlijo pogodbeno, ni pomenil državne pomoči.
The CFI considered that the measure did not result in lightening the burden normally assumed in an undertaking’s budget.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da ta ukrep ni zmanjšal bremen v proračunu podjetja.
The reform of road administration and maintenance sector in Finland was carried out in a situation similar to the one in Combus.
Reforma cestne uprave in sektorja vzdrževanja se je na Finskem izvajala v podobnih razmerah kot v podjetju Combus.
The fact that Tieliikelaitos did not pay any compensation to personnel who was transferred to government agencies, including the Road Administration, cannot be considered to constitute State aid.
Ker podjetje Tieliikelaitos osebju, ki je bilo premeščeno v vladne agencije, med drugim tudi v cestno upravo, ni plačalo nadomestila, se to ne more šteti za državno pomoč.
In Finland’s view, the applicability of the Combus judgment is in no way reduced by the Court judgements cited by the Commission in its decision to initiate the procedure (Altmark Trans and France v. Commission).
Po mnenju Finske uporabnost sodbe Combus nikakor ne zmanjšujeta sodbi Sodišča, ki ju navaja Komisija v svoji odločitvi o začetku postopka (Altmark Trans in Francija proti Komisiji.
These judgments indeed predate the Combus judgment and were thus necessarily taken into account by the Court of First Instance.
Ti sodbi sta bili izrečeni pred sodbo Combus in ju je Sodišče prve stopnje ustrezno upoštevalo.
Furthermore, Finland argues that if a measure is not intended to confer an advantage which has an effect on the budget, it is not a case of a transfer of State funds and therefore does not constitute State aid.
Poleg tega Finska meni, da če ukrep ni namenjen ustvarjanju koristi, ki vplivajo na proračun, ne gre za prenos državnih sredstev in zato ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Finland considers that administrative measures which have no effect on State finances do not constitute State aid.
Finska meni, da upravni ukrepi, ki ne vplivajo na državne finance, ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Thus, Finland believes that the State has not lost income because it agreed to employ 116 former personnel of Tieliikelaitos and pay their salaries.
Finska verjame, da država ni izgubila dohodkov, ker se je strinjala, da zaposli 116 nekdanjih zaposlenih podjetja Tieliikelaitos in izplača njihove plače.
No one of these employees was appointed without an assessment of his/her suitability for the position.
Nobeden od zaposlenih ni bil imenovan na določeno delovno mesto brez ocene njegove primernosti.
Transfers of personnel between Tieliikelaitos and civil service departments were only possible when a post became open and it was published.
Premestitve osebja med podjetjem Tieliikelaitos in oddelki državne uprave so bile mogoče le, če je bilo delovno mesto prosto in objavljeno.
If a suitable applicant could not be found within Tieliikelaitos other applicants were considered.
Če ustreznega kandidata ni bilo mogoče najti v podjetju Tieliikelaitos, so izbrali druge kandidate.
With respect to financial transfers by the State for solving Tieliikelaitos’ overstaffing problem, Finland stresses that Tieliikelaitos did not receive EUR 100 million in State aid as is claimed by the complainants.
V zvezi s finančnimi transferji države, s katerimi naj bi rešili težave prevelikega števila zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos, Finska poudarja, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos ni prejelo 100 milijonov EUR državne pomoči, kot trdijo pritožniki.
Tieliikelaitos received EUR 68 million from the Road Administration to fund service projects (from 68 million approximately 56 million went to cover personnel costs and the rest was spent on materials and other ‘non-personnel’ items).
Podjetje Tieliikelaitos je od cestne uprave za financiranje storitvenih projektov prejelo 68 milijonov EUR (od 68 milijonov je bilo približno 56 milijonov namenjenih za kritje stroškov dela, medtem ko se je preostanek porabil za material in druge stroške, ki niso povezani z osebjem).
In addition, the Road Administration paid EUR 20,1 million to support the adjustment of staff.
Poleg tega je cestna uprava plačala 20,1 milijona EUR za prilagoditev osebja.
The total compensation of EUR 88,1 million did not cover all the expenses incurred from the excess staff.
Skupno nadomestilo 88,1 milijona EUR ni pokrilo vseh stroškov, nastalih zaradi odvečnega osebja.
According to the Expert statement the excess staff caused structural disadvantages amounting to EUR 157 million over the period 2001-2004.
V skladu s strokovnim poročilom je odvečno osebje povzročilo strukturne pomanjkljivosti, ki so v obdobju 2001–2004 znašale 157 milijonov EUR.
Finland notes that sound accounting procedures were followed in the preparation of Tieliikelaitos’ financial statements, and that the financial statements have been audited.
Finska ugotavlja, da so se pri pripravi finančnih izkazov podjetja Tieliikelaitos upoštevali ustrezni računovodski postopki in da so bili finančni izkazi revidirani.
The financial statement does not include notes at the level of detail referred to by the complainants.
Finančni izkazi ne vsebujejo tako podrobnih navedb, kot navajajo pritožniki.
Nevertheless, the Expert statement provides the following justifications for uncovered structural disadvantage related to the excess staff (EUR 69 million in total, i.e. EUR 157 million — EUR 88 million):
Strokovno poročilo pa za nekrite strukturne pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z odvečnim osebjem (skupaj 69 milijonov EUR, tj. 157 milijonov EUR minus 88 milijonov EUR) navaja naslednje utemeljitve:
Firstly, the Road Administration did not cover all costs related to the special service projects.
Prvič, cestna uprava ni krila vseh stroškov posebnih storitvenih projektov.
Secondly, the funds provided by the Road Administration to finance measures related to looking for new jobs, supplementary training and re-training and support for anticipatory early retirement were not sufficient.
Drugič, sredstva, ki jih je zagotovila cestna uprava za financiranje ukrepov, povezanih z iskanjem novih delovnih mest, dodatnim usposabljanjem in ponovnim usposabljanjem ter podporo za predvideno predčasno upokojitev, niso bila zadostna.
As a result, Tieliikelaitos had to earmark over EUR 20 million in personnel adjustment costs out of its own funds (EUR 12,8 million thereof were paid out in 2004 and 2005).
Podjetje Tieliikelaitos je za stroške prilagoditve osebja namenilo več kot 20 milijonov EUR lastnih sredstev (12,8 milijona EUR je bilo izplačanih v letih 2004 in 2005).
Thirdly, Tieliikelaitos had to bear additional administrative expenditures related to personnel adjustments, which were estimated at the level of EUR 2,8 million for the transitional period.
Tretjič, podjetje Tieliikelaitos je imelo dodatne upravne izdatke, povezane s prilagoditvijo osebja, ki so bili za prehodno obdobje ocenjeni na 2,8 milijona EUR.
Fourthly, Tieliikelaitos had to face additional expenses also due to more favourable holiday conditions for those Tieliikelaitos employees which fell in the category of long-term State employees (50 % longer holiday).
Četrtič, podjetje Tieliikelaitos je imelo dodatne stroške tudi zaradi ugodnejših pogojev za dopuste, ki so jih imeli tisti zaposleni v podjetju Tieliikelaitos, ki so spadali v kategorijo dolgoročnih državnih uslužbencev (za 50 % daljši dopust).
These additional expenses were estimated at the level of EUR 42 million during the four years of the transitional period.
Ti dodatni stroški so bili v štiriletnem prehodnem obdobju ocenjeni na 42 milijonov EUR.
In any case, pension schemes have left Tieliikelaitos with a heavy burden.
V vsakem primeru je sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja bremenil podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
Even after its conversion into a State Enterprise the staff of Tieliikelaitos remained governed by the State Pension Act No 280 of 20 May 1966, which implies that the State Enterprise had to pay the state employer’s pension contribution, which is higher than the employer’s pension contribution in the private sector.
Tudi po preoblikovanju v državno podjetje je osebje podjetja Tieliikelaitos še naprej urejal Zakon o državnih pokojninah št. 280 z dne 20. maja 1966, ki določa, da mora državno podjetje za državnega delodajalca plačati pokojninski prispevek, ki je višji od pokojninskega prispevka, ki ga mora plačati delodajalec v zasebnem sektorju.
The Amendment to the State Pension Act (No 679 of 30 July 2004) will lead to the approximation of the pension contributions and employees’ pension benefits between the private and the public sector, but only in the long run.
Sprememba Zakona o državnih pokojninah (št. 679 z dne 30. julija 2004) bo približala pokojninske prispevke in pokojnine zaposlenih v zasebnem in javnem sektorju, vendar le dolgoročno.
In 2005, the general pension contribution for private sector employers was 16,8 %.
Leta 2005 je splošni pokojninski prispevek, ki so ga plačali delodajalci v zasebnem sektorju, znašal 16,8 %.
By contrast, the Tieliikelaitos’ pension contribution was determined individually and stood at 21,13 % in 2005.
V nasprotju s tem je bil pokojninski prispevek, ki ga je plačalo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, določen posebej in je leta 2005 znašal 21,13 %.