natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The municipality of Amsterdam informed the Commission by e-mail registered on 23 December 2005 that the City council of Amsterdam had by unanimity decided to invest in the roll-out of the FttH network and stated further that negotiations with BAM/DRAKA (for the construction of the network) and with BBned (for the exploitation of the network) and the negotiations with ING RE and five housing corporations (co-investors) were all on track and would be finalised by January 2006.
Mestna občina Amsterdam je z elektronsko pošto, evidentirano 23. decembra 2005, obvestila Komisijo o soglasni odločitvi mestnega sveta Amsterdama, da vlaga v uvedbo omrežja FTTH, in nato navedla, da že potekajo pogajanja z družbami BAM in DRAKA (za izgradnjo omrežja), BBned (za izkoriščanje omrežja) ter ING RE in petimi korporacijami za upravljanje družbenih stanovanj (sovlagateljicami), ki naj bi bila končana januarja 2006.
By letter registered on 27 December 2005, the Commission received a complaint regarding the project from VECAI (the association of cable operators in the Netherlands, which changed its name in September 2007 into ‘NLKabel’) [2].
Z dopisom, evidentiranim 27. decembra 2005, je Komisija prejela pritožbo, ki jo je glede projekta vložil VECAI (združenje kabelskih operaterjev na Nizozemskem, ki je septembra 2007 svoje ime spremenilo v „NLKabel“) [2].
UPC Nederland BV (a cable operator present notably in Amsterdam, hereinafter: ‘UPC’ [3] informed the Commission for the first time about its concerns in March 2005.
UPC Nederland BV (kabelski operater, navzoč predvsem v Amsterdamu, v nadaljnjem besedilu „UPC“ [3] je Komisijo o svojih pomislekih prvič obvestil marca 2005.
Both parties — with whom several meetings took place — argue that the participation of the municipality is not in line with the MEIP and constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Obe stranki – s katerima je bilo organiziranih več sestankov – trdita, da sodelovanje mestne občine ni v skladu z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji in pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Uredbe ES.
On 3 March 2006, the Commission sent a reminder to the Dutch authorities, referring to the statement of the Dutch authorities in November 2005 that further information would be provided once further progress had been made on the setup of the project and which was foreseen for spring 2006.
Komisija je 3. marca 2006 poslala nizozemskim organom opomnik, ki se je nanašal na izjavo nizozemskih organov iz novembra 2005, da bodo nadaljnje informacije predložene, ko bo dosežen nadaljnji napredek pri vzpostavljanju projekta, kar je bilo predvideno za pomlad 2006.
The Commission also reminded the Dutch authorities of the standstill obligation of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je nizozemske organe opozorila tudi na obveznost mirovanja iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The Dutch authorities replied to the Commission’s letter of 3 March 2006 on 3 April 2006, and sent additional information by letter of 2 May 2006.
Nizozemski organi so na dopis Komisije z dne 3. marca 2006 odgovorili 3. aprila 2006, dodatne informacije pa poslali z dopisom z dne 2. maja 2006.
On 19 May 2006, the Commission’s services sent another letter to the Dutch authorities, referring to the information received from UPC which cast initial doubts on the application of the MEIP and reminded the authorities again of the standstill obligation [4].
Komisija je 19. maja 2006 nizozemskim organom poslala še en dopis, nanašajoč se na informacije, ki jih je prejela od operaterja UPC in ki so sprožile prve dvome o uporabi načela vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji, ter organe še enkrat obvestila o obveznosti mirovanja [4].
The Dutch authorities sent further information in May and June 2006 [5].
Nizozemski organi so nadaljnje informacije posredovali maja in junija 2006 [5].
The Commission sent an additional request for information to the Dutch authorities on 24 July 2006, in answer to which the Dutch authorities submitted several batches of information [6].
Komisija je 24. julija 2006 nizozemskim organom poslala še en zahtevek za informacije, in nizozemski organi so v svojem odgovoru nanj predložili več svežnjev informacij [6].
Following an additional request of information of 29 September 2006, the authorities asked on 13 October 2006 for an extension of the deadline to reply.
Po dodatnem zahtevku za informacije z dne 29. septembra 2006 so organi 13. oktobra 2006 zaprosili za podaljšanje roka za odgovor.
In the meantime, the roll-out of the network commenced on 12 October 2006 [7].
Vmes se je 12. oktobra 2006 začela izgradnja omrežja [7].
In view of these developments, the extension of the deadline requested by the Dutch authorities was refused.
Glede na navedeni razvoj dogodkov je bilo podaljšanje roka, za katero so zaprosili nizozemski organi, zavrnjeno.
The Dutch authorities submitted part of their answers before the deadline of 26 October and a substantial amount of information was also provided on 30 October, 16, 20 and 21 November 2006.
Nizozemski organi so del svojih odgovorov predložili pred iztekom roka 26. oktobra 2006, precejšen del informacij pa tudi 30. oktobra 2006 ter 16., 20. in 21. novembra 2006.
UPC requested the District Court in Amsterdam in a procedure for interim measures to order the municipality of Amsterdam to respect the standstill obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and not to continue the project before the Commission has finalised its assessment.
UPC je v zahtevku za sprejetje začasnih ukrepov od okrožnega sodišča v Amsterdamu zahteval, naj mestni občini Amsterdam odredi spoštovanje obveznosti mirovanja iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES in zaustavi projekt, dokler Komisija ne dokonča svoje ocene.
The request by UPC was dismissed by the District Court which stated in its judgement of 22 June 2006 that it was not obvious that the municipality’s involvement in the project involved State aid.
Okrožno sodišče je zahtevo operaterja UPC zavrnilo v sodbi z dne 22. junija 2006, v kateri je navedlo, da ni bilo mogoče domnevati, da je udeležba mestne občine v projektu vključevala državno pomoč.
According to the Court, the mere fact that the municipality has initiated the project is not to be considered as State aid.
Po mnenju sodišča samega dejstva, da je mestna občina začela projekt, ni mogoče šteti za državno pomoč.
Moreover, the Court concluded that the initial costs incurred by Amsterdam (studies, etc.) would be reimbursed by the joint-venture Glasvezelnet Amsterdam CV and therefore did not constitute aid.
Poleg tega je sodišče ugotovilo, da bo začetne stroške Amsterdama (študije itd.) povrnila mešana družba Glasvezelnet Amsterdam CV, in zato ti niso pomenili pomoči.
UPC informed the Commission by letter of 22 September 2006 that it had appealed the decision by the District Court.
Operater UPC je z elektronsko pošto z dne 22. septembra 2006 obvestil Komisijo, da se je pritožil na odločitev okrožnega sodišča.
The municipality of Amsterdam [8] informed the Commission in November 2006 that the Court of Appeal proposed to UPC and the municipality of Amsterdam to await the Commission’s decision before a judgement by the Court would be rendered.
Mestna občina Amsterdam [8] je novembra 2006 obvestila Komisijo, da je pritožbeno sodišče operaterju UPC in mestni občini Amsterdam predlagalo, naj najprej počakata na odločitev Komisije, preden sodišče izreče sodbo.
Both parties accepted this proposal [9].
Obe stranki sta sprejeli ta predlog [9].
By letter dated 20 December 2006, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the notified measure.
Z dopisom z dne 20. decembra 2006 je Komisija obvestila Nizozemsko, da se je glede priglašenega ukrepa odločila sprožiti postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
By letter of 8 January 2007, the Dutch authorities requested access to several documents submitted by UPC mentioned in the opening decision.
Z dopisom z dne 8. januarja 2007 so nizozemski organi zaprosili za dostop do več dokumentov, ki jih je predložil operater UPC in so bili navedeni v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
By letter registered on 13 February 2007, UPC agreed to share the requested documents with the Dutch authorities, which were forwarded by the Commission to the authorities.
Z dopisom, evidentiranim 13. februarja 2007, se je operater UPC strinjal, da dopusti dostop nizozemskih organov do zahtevanih dokumentov, in Komisija jih je posredovala nizozemskim organom.
On 18 January 2007, the Court of Appeal Amsterdam [10], rejected the appeal brought by UPC Nederland against the municipality of Amsterdam to stop further activities related to the measure.
Pritožbeno sodišče v Amsterdamu [10] je 18. januarja 2007 zavrnilo zahtevo operaterja UPC Nederland mestni občini Amsterdam, naj zaustavi dejavnosti, povezane z ukrepom.
The Court of Appeal found that, although the Commission expressed in its opening decision certain doubts as to whether the MEIP is fulfilled, by providing the requested information to the Commission, the municipality of Amsterdam could still prove that the measure is in line with the MEIP and does not constitute aid.
Pritožbeno sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bila mestna občina Amsterdam s predložitvijo zahtevanih informacij Komisiji zmožna dokazati, da je bil ukrep skladen z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji in ni pomenil pomoči, čeprav je Komisija v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila nekatere dvome o spoštovanju načela vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeal considered it possible that the Commission would conclude that no aid is involved.
V teh okoliščinah je pritožbeno sodišče upoštevalo možnost, da bo Komisija ugotovila, da pomoči ni bilo.
The Court also found that the municipality would be hurt if it would have to stop all activities related to GNA, while UPC would not significantly suffer from the preparatory activities undertaken by Amsterdam.
Sodišče je tudi ugotovilo, da bi interesom mestne občine škodilo, če bi morala zaustaviti vse dejavnosti, povezane z amsterdamskim omrežjem steklenih vlaken, medtem ko operater UPC ne bi utrpel precejšnje škode zaradi pripravljalnih dejavnosti mesta Amsterdam.
By letter of 5 March 2007, UPC asked the Commission for access to confidential information submitted by the Dutch authorities and to set up a ‘data room’ [11] procedure for the measure at hand, in order to be able to assess the Dutch authorities’ claims to substantiate their complaint further.
UPC je z dopisom z dne 5. marca 2007 zaprosil Komisijo za dostop do zaupnih podatkov, ki so jih predložili nizozemski organi, in vzpostavitev postopka „podatkovne sobe“ [11] za ukrep, da bi lahko ocenila trditve nizozemskih organov zaradi nadaljnjega utemeljevanja svoje pritožbe.
By letter of 26 March 2007, the Commission informed UPC that the State aid procedures do not foresee access for third parties to the requested confidential information or for setting up a ‘data room’ procedure.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 26. marca 2007 obvestila operaterja UPC, da postopki glede državne pomoči ne predvidevajo dostopa tretjih strank do zahtevanih zaupnih informacij oziroma vzpostavitve postopka „podatkovne sobe“.
The Dutch authorities responded by letter registered on 16 March 2007 to the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Nizozemski organi so se z dopisom, evidentiranim 16. marca 2007, odzvali na odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
After several exchanges of correspondence between the Commission and the Dutch authorities on confidentiality issues, the public version of the opening decision was sent to the complainants on 23 April 2007 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union [12].
Po več izmenjavah korespondence med Komisijo in nizozemskimi organi o vprašanjih zaupnosti je bila 23. aprila 2007 pritožnikom poslana javna različica odločitve o sprožitvi postopka in bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [12].
Following the opening of procedure, the Commission received comments from five interested parties, namely from Liberty Global/UPC [13], Com Hem [14], Ono [15], France Telecom [16] and another party which requested anonymity [17].
Po sprožitvi postopka je Komisija prejela pripombe petih zainteresiranih strank, in sicer od družb Liberty Global/UPC [13], Com Hem [14], Ono [15], France Telecom [16] in še ene stranke, ki je zahtevala anonimnost [17].
By letter registered on 30 July 2007, the Commission forwarded the third party comments to the Dutch authorities.
Komisija je z dopisom, evidentiranim 30. julija 2007, nizozemskim organom predložila pripombe tretjih strank.
The authorities submitted their observations by letter dated on 17 September 2007.
Organi so svoje pripombe predložili z dopisom z dne 17. septembra 2007.
The Commission services met with representatives of Liberty Global/UPC on 5 July 2007 and with the Dutch authorities on 5 November 2007.
Komisija se je 5. julija 2007 sestala s predstavniki družbe Liberty Global/UPC, 5. novembra 2007 pa z nizozemskimi organi.
The Dutch authorities submitted additional information on 9 November 2007 and on 12 November 2007.
Nizozemski organi so 9. in 12. novembra 2007 predložili dodatne informacije.
The municipality of Amsterdam decided in 2004 to investigate the possibility of investing in a fibre-to-the-home (FttH) electronic communications access network [18].
Mestna občina Amsterdam se je leta 2004 odločila, da bo proučila možnost naložbe v dostopovno omrežje do elektronskih komunikacij FTTH (omrežje kablov iz steklenih vlaken do doma) [18] (Citynet Amsterdam).
Following reports, market analyses and preliminary contacts with potential investors, the municipality decided formally in December 2005 on the said investment and the conditions under which such an investment would take place.
Na podlagi poročil, tržnih analiz in predhodnih stikov z morebitnimi vlagatelj se je mestna občina decembra 2005 uradno odločila, da nadaljuje naložbo, in podrobneje opredelila pogoje, pod katerimi naj bi bila naložba izvedena.
The planned FttH network in Amsterdam will serve 37000 households in Amsterdam in the districts of Zeeburg, Osdorp and Oost-Watergraafsmeer, which comprise together about 10 % of the city of Amsterdam.
Načrtovano omrežje FTTH v Amsterdamu bo ponudilo storitev 37000 amsterdamskim gospodinjstvom v okrožjih Zeeburg, Osdorp in Oost-Watergraafsmeer, kar je skupno približno 10 % Amsterdama.
The municipality of Amsterdam also expressed its long-term ambition to extend the project to other parts of Amsterdam, with up to 400000 household connections altogether.
Mestna občina Amsterdam je izrazila tudi svojo dolgoročno željo, da projekt razširi na druge dele Amsterdama, kar bi skupno pomenilo do 400000 gospodinjskih priključkov.
However, this potential extension is not part of the project under assessment.
Vendar pa ta širitev ni del projekta, ki se ocenjuje.
The three-layer model
Triplastni model
The project in Amsterdam is based on a ‘three-layer model’ as outlined below.
Projekt v Amsterdamu temelji na „triplastnem modelu“, kot je prikazan spodaj.
Simplified overview of the Citynet Amsterdam project
Poenostavljen prikaz projekta Citynet Amsterdam
The first layer is the so-called ‘passive network infrastructure’, which includes ducts, fibre and street cabinets.
Prva plast je tako imenovana „pasivna omrežna infrastruktura“ ter vključuje vode, vlakna in cestne omare.
This passive infrastructure is activated by means of telecommunications equipment (the second or ‘active layer’) by a wholesale operator managing and maintaining the network and providing wholesale services to retail operators.
Ta pasivna infrastruktura se aktivira s telekomunikacijsko opremo (druga ali „aktivna plast“) grosističnega operaterja, ki upravlja in vzdržuje omrežje ter ponuja grosistične storitve maloprodajnim operaterjem.
The active layer includes the management, control and maintenance systems necessary to operate the network, such as switches, routers or splitters.
Aktivna plast vključuje upravljavske, nadzorne in vzdrževalne sisteme, potrebne za upravljanje omrežja, kot so stikala, usmerjevalniki (ruterji) ali razdelilniki.
The wholesale operator will provide an open, non-discriminatory access to retail operators to offer television, broadband, telephony and other Internet-based services to end customers (third or ‘retail layer’).
Grosistični operater zagotavlja maloprodajnim operaterjem odprt, nediskriminacijski dostop, da končnim uporabnikom ponujajo televizijske in širokopasovne storitve, storitve telefonije in druge na internetu temelječe storitve (tretja plast ali „maloprodajna plast“).
In order to be able to provide these services, retail service providers will have to invest, inter alia, in equipment, procure content and operate their own service platform (maintenance, customer care, and billing).
Da bi lahko ponudniki maloprodajnih storitev ponujali te storitve, morajo med drugim vlagati v opremo, zagotavljati vsebino in upravljati lastno storitveno platformo (vzdrževanje, skrb za stranke in zaračunavanje storitev).
The stakeholders of the project
Zainteresirane strani v projektu
The passive infrastructure will be owned and managed by the partnership Glasvezelnet Amsterdam cv (‘GNA’) [19], whose shareholders are the municipality of Amsterdam, two private investors, namely ING Real Estate (hereinafter: ‘ING RE’) [20] and Reggefiber [21], and five subsidiaries of social housing corporations [22].
Pasivno infrastrukturo bo imelo v lasti in jo bo upravljalo partnerstvo Glasvezelnet Amsterdam CV (v nadaljnjem besedilu „GNA“) [19], katerega delničarji so mestna občina Amsterdam, dva zasebna vlagatelja, in sicer ING Real Estate (v nadaljnjem besedilu „ING RE“) [20] in Reggefiber [21], ter pet odvisnih družb korporacij za upravljanje družbenih stanovanj [22].
A cooperation agreement (‘Samenwerkingsovereenkomst’) was signed by the parties on 11 April 2006 and the investment agreement (‘CV-overeenkomst’) was signed on 26 May 2006.
Sporazum o sodelovanju („Samenwerkingsovereenkomst“) so stranke podpisale 11. aprila 2006, naložbeni sporazum („CV-overeenkomst“) pa je bil podpisan 26. maja 2006.
The municipality of Amsterdam invests EUR 6 million, ING RE and Reggefiber invest each EUR 3 million, three social housing corporations invest each EUR 1,5 million and two housing corporations invest each EUR 750000 [23].
Naložba mestne občine Amsterdam znaša 6 milijonov EUR, ING RE in Reggefiber vlagata vsak po 3 milijone EUR, tri korporacije za upravljanje družbenih stanovanj vlagajo vsaka po 1,5 milijona EUR, dve pa vsaka po 750000 EUR [23].
The total equity investment amounts to EUR 18 million. In addition, GNA acquired loan amounting to EUR […] [24] from […] [25].
Skupna naložba lastniškega kapitala znaša 18 milijonov EUR. Poleg tega je GNA dobil posojilo v znesku […]EUR [24] z dne […] [25].
The total planned budget for the project amounts to EUR 30 million. As also outlined in Figure 1, the Amsterdam municipality owns one third of the shares of GNA, the two private investors together another one third, while the subsidiaries of the housing corporations own the remaining one third.
Načrtovani skupni proračun za projekt znaša 30 milijonov EUR. Kot je prikazano tudi v Prikazu 1, ima mestna občina Amsterdam v lasti eno tretjino delnic GNA, zasebna vlagatelja imata skupaj v lasti drugo tretjino, preostala tretjina pa je v lasti odvisnih družb korporacij za upravljanje družbenih stanovanj.
The passive infrastructure of GNA will be activated and operated by BBned [26] on the basis of a contract between GNA and BBned of […].
Pasivno infrastrukturo podjetja GNA bo aktiviral in upravljal BBned [26] na podlagi pogodbe, sklenjene med GNA in BBned dne […].
The necessary investments to provide wholesale access will have to be undertaken by BBned.
Za potrebne naložbe za zagotovitev grosističnega dostopa bo moral poskrbeti BBned.
BBned will lease fibre from GNA and have the — […] [27] — right to provide wholesale transport and related services to retail operators at its own risk.
BBned bo od podjetja GNA najemal vlakna in imel pravico […] [27] na lastno odgovornost ponujati storitve grosističnega prenosa in povezane storitve maloprodajnim operaterjem.
It will pay a fee per household connected to GNA for the use of the passive network.
Za uporabo pasivnega omrežja bo plačal pristojbino na gospodinjstvo, priključeno na GNA.
The wholesale operator will provide open, non-discriminatory access to retail operators to offer TV, telephony and broadband Internet access services.
Grosistični operater bo maloprodajnim operaterjem zagotavljal odprt, nediskriminacijski dostop, da končnim uporabnikom ponujajo televizijske storitve, storitve telefonije in storitve širokopasovnega internetnega dostopa.
The services offered via the new network will compete with existing offers of cable and telecommunications companies such as KPN and UPC.
Storitve, ponujene prek omrežja, bodo konkurenčne sedanjim ponudbam kabelskih in telekomunikacijskih družb, kot sta KPN in UPC.
Based on publicly available information, it appears that BBNed has already contracted with several retail service providers who have started to offer ‘triple play’ services [28] on the GNA fibre network to end users.
Iz javno razpoložljivih informacij je mogoče razbrati, da je BBned že podpisal pogodbe z več ponudniki maloprodajnih storitev, ki so končnim uporabnikom začeli ponujati storitve „trojčka“ [28] na optičnem omrežju podjetja GNA.
The Commission notes that BBned is also active, through its affiliated companies Pilmo and Bbeyond, at retail level.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba BBned prek svojih povezanih družb Pilmo in Bbeyond dejavna tudi na maloprodajni ravni.
On 20 December 2006, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure as the Dutch authorities did not provide sufficient evidence for the Commission to conclude on the conformity of the investment by the city of Amsterdam in GNA with the MEIP.
Komisija se je 20. decembra 2006 odločila sprožiti formalni postopek preiskave, saj nizozemski organi niso predložili zadostnih dokazov, da bi Komisija ocenila, ali je naložba mesta Amsterdam v podjetje GNA skladna z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
The Commission considered it necessary to open the formal investigation procedure both for substantial and for procedural [29] reasons.
Komisija je menila, da je treba sprožiti formalni postopek preiskave zaradi vsebinskih in postopkovnih razlogov [29].
In particular, the Commission was not convinced that the investment of the municipality of Amsterdam in GNA had been ‘concomitant’, i.e. it was performed at the same time with the private investments by ING RE and Reggefiber.
Komisija predvsem ni bila prepričana, da je bila naložba mestne občine Amsterdam v podjetje GNA „hkratna“, tj. opravljena sočasno z zasebnimi naložbami družb ING RE in Reggefiber.
Moreover, the Commission was not convinced that the terms and conditions of the investment by the municipality of Amsterdam in GNA were equal to the terms and conditions under which the other parties have invested.
Poleg tega Komisija ni bila prepričana, da so bili pogoji naložbe mestne občine Amsterdam v podjetje GNA enaki pogojem, pod katerimi so vlagale druge pogodbenice.
These concerns derived primarily from the fact that the municipality of Amsterdam spent money on the Citynet project before the establishment of GNA (so-called ‘pre-investments’) [30].
Ti pomisleki so izhajali predvsem iz dejstva, da je mestna občina Amsterdam trošila denar za projekt Citynet pred ustanovitvijo podjetja GNA (tako imenovane „predhodne naložbe“) [30].
Based on the preliminary assessment, the Commission had also doubts with regard to the feasibility of GNA’s business plan.
Na podlagi predhodne ocene je Komisija tudi dvomila o izvedljivosti poslovnega načrta podjetja GNA.
Thus it was not possible at that stage to exclude the presence of State aid.
Tako v tej fazi ni bilo mogoče izključiti navzočnosti državne pomoči.