natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tieliikelaitos was obliged, through the act governing its transformation from being a part of the administration to becoming a State Enterprise, to overtake the entire workforce of the Road production branch of the former Road Service, even though this staff was oversized compared to its needs.
Podjetje Tieliikelaitos je moralo na podlagi zakona o preoblikovanju iz dela uprave v državno podjetje prevzeti celotno delovno silo panoge proizvodnje cest v nekdanji službi za ceste, čeprav je bilo glede na potrebe osebja preveč.
In addition, the act prohibited Tieliikelaitos to lay off any staff in the transitional period.
Poleg tega je zakon podjetju Tieliikelaitos prepovedoval, da v prehodnem obdobju odpusti osebje.
The Finnish authorities contest that any of the measures aimed at solving Tieliikelaitos’ overstaffing problem constituted State aid.
Finski organi nasprotujejo temu, da so kateri koli ukrepi za reševanje težav s prevelikim številom zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos pomenili državno pomoč.
Indeed, such measures would only serve to partially compensate a structural disadvantage suffered by Tieliikelaitos due to the overstaffing problem and costly employment conditions inherited from pre-liberalisation time as well as due to the ban imposed by the Finnish Parliament to lay off the employees during the transitional period.
Takšni ukrepi bi le delno nadomestili strukturne pomanjkljivosti, ki jih je podjetje Tieliikelaitos imelo zaradi težav s prevelikim številom zaposlenih in visokih stroškov zaposlovanja, ki jih je prevzelo iz obdobja pred liberalizacijo, ter zaradi prepovedi finskega parlamenta, da v prehodnem obdobju ne sme odpuščati zaposlenih.
In this regard, the Finnish authorities rely on the Combus judgment by the Court of First Instance as described above.
V zvezi s tem se finski organi sklicujejo na navedeno sodbo Combus Sodišča prve stopnje.
In the specific circumstances of the Combus case, the Court of First Instance has relied on the argument that, ‘instead of paying the DKK 100 million directly to the officials employed by Combus, the Danish Government could have obtained the same result by reassigning those officials within the public administration, without paying any particular bonus, which would have enabled Combus to employ immediately employees on a contract basis falling under private law’.
V posebnih okoliščinah zadeve Combus se je Sodišče prve stopnje sklicevalo na to, da „bi lahko danska vlada, namesto da je uradnikom podjetja Caombus neposredno plačala 100 milijonov DKK dosegla enak rezultat, če bi uradnike prerazporedila v javni upravi in ne bi plačala posebne premije, kar bi podjetju Combus omogočilo takojšnje zaposlovanje na podlagi pogodbe v okviru zasebnega prava“.
The Commission recalls that the reasoning expressed in the Combus judgment and referred to by the Finnish authorities has not been explicitly confirmed by the Court of Justice or indeed referred to in any subsequent judgment by the Court of First Instance.
Komisija opozarja, da Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti razlogov, ki jih je navedlo v sodbi Combus in na katere se sklicujejo finski organi, ni izrecno potrdilo oz. jih v poznejših sodbah ni navedlo tudi Sodišče prve stopnje.
In any event, certain elements of the case law of the Court of Justice militate against the assumption that the grant by the State of a compensation for a structural disadvantage could not qualify as aid and thus suggest that the Combus judgment should not be given an overbroad interpretation.
V vsakem primeru nekateri elementi sodne prakse Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti nasprotujejo domnevi, da se nadomestilo za strukturne pomanjkljivosti, ki ga dodeli država, ne more šteti kot pomoč, kar pomeni, da se sodba Combus ne sme razlagati preobsežno.
In its constant case law, the Court of Justice has held that whether a measure constitutes aid must be established on the basis of the effects of the measure, and not on the basis of the causes or aims of that measure.
V svoji stalni sodni praksi je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti določilo, da mora biti ukrep, če pomeni pomoč, oblikovan na podlagi učinkov ukrepa in ne na podlagi vzrokov ali ciljev tega ukrepa.
The Court of Justice has also held that any measure which relieves an undertaking from the charges which are normally included in the budget of the undertaking constitutes State aid.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je tudi določilo, da vsak ukrep, ki podjetje razbremeni stroškov, ki so običajno vključenih v proračun podjetja, pomeni državno pomoč.
The Court of Justice has clarified that this includes in particular costs related to the remuneration of employees.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je še pojasnilo, da to vključuje zlasti stroške nadomestila zaposlenim.
On this basis, the Court has not accepted that a measure does not confer an advantage on the undertaking in question merely because it compensates a ‘disadvantage’ suffered by the undertaking.
Na podlagi tega Sodišče ni potrdilo, da ukrep ne potrjuje koristi zadevnega podjetja le zato, ker nadomešča „škodo“, ki jo ima podjetje.
Based on these considerations, the Commission will assess separately each of the specific measures concerned.
Na podlagi tega bo Komisija posebej ocenila vsak poseben zadevni ukrep.
Transfer of staff to the Road Administration and other public administration departments
Premestitev osebja v cestno upravo in na druge oddelke javne uprave
With respect to the transfer of 116 employees of Tieliikelaitos to vacant public administration positions, the Commission first needs to assess whether this transfer was financed through State resources.
Zaradi premestitve 116 zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos na prazna delovna mesta v javni upravi mora Komisija najprej oceniti, ali je bila ta premestitev financirana z državnimi sredstvi.
This is only the case if filling vacancies in the Finnish administration with former employees of Tieliikelaitos was more costly for the Finnish State than filling these vacancies with other candidates.
To velja le, če je bila premestitev nekdanjih zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos na prazna delovna mesta v finski upravi za finsko državo dražja od zapolnjevanja teh delovnih mest z drugimi kandidati.
In this context, it is important to note that the Finnish administration did not create any additional posts for former employees of Tieliikelaitos, but only filled posts that had become vacant due to a departure of a civil servant.
Pri tem je treba upoštevati, da finska uprava za nekdanje zaposlene v podjetju Tieliikelaitos ni ustvarila dodatnih delovnih mest, ampak je le zapolnila mesta, ki so se izpraznila zaradi odhoda javnih uslužbencev.
The complainants claim that the employees from Tieliikelaitos were transferred back to the administration without any change to their employment conditions, and hence were more costly for the administration than other potential applicants.
Pritožniki trdijo, da so bili zaposleni v podjetju Tieliikelaitos znova premeščeni na upravo brez kakršnih koli sprememb v pogojih zaposlovanja, zato so bili za upravo dražji od drugih možnih kandidatov.
The Finnish government has undertaken that transfers of personnel between Tieliikelaitos and the Finnish administration were only possible when a post in the administration became open and it was published.
Finska vlada se je obvezala, da so bile premestitve osebja med podjetjem Tieliikelaitos in finsko uprave mogoče le, če je bilo delovno mesto prosto in objavljeno.
Tieliikelaitos’ employees were only hired if the vacancy arose at the corresponding level of seniority, and if their level of qualification corresponded to the published vacancy.
Zaposlene so v podjetju Tieliikelaitos zaposlili le, če se je pojavilo prosto delovno mesto z ustrezno delovno dobo in če je njihova usposobljenost ustrezala objavljenemu prostemu mestu.
Prior to the transfer, Tieliikelaitos’ employees had to undergo an assessment of his/her suitability for the position.
Pred premestitvijo je bilo treba oceniti primernost zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos za to delovno mesto.
The Commission notes that the complainant has not submitted any proof for its allegation, according to which filling vacancies with former Tieliikelaitos employees rather than with other candidates was more costly for the Finnish government.
Komisija ugotavlja, da pritožnik za svojo trditev ni predložil dokaza, v skladu s katerim bi bilo zapolnjevanje prostih delovnih mest z nekdanjimi zaposlenimi v podjetju Tieliikelaitos za finsko vlado dražje kot z drugimi kandidati.
In the view of the Commission, the assessment of all information at its disposal has not revealed any indication that the Finnish administration has incurred additional cost through the transfer of 116 employees of Tieliikelaitos to vacant public administration positions.
Po mnenju Komisije iz razpoložljivih podatkov ni razvidno, da je imela finska uprava dodatne stroške zaradi premestitve 116 zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos na prosta delovna mesta v javni upravi.
In particular, the Commission notes that the 116 employees had been formerly, when they were still working for the road service, been subject to the same employment conditions as civil servants in the Finnish administration.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je imelo 116 zaposlenih prej, ko so bili zaposleni v cestni upravi, enake pogoje zaposlovanja kot javni uslužbenci v finski upravi.
By re-integrating former civil servants into the public administration, at positions corresponding to their seniority and to their qualification profile, the Finnish State had the same costs as if it hired other people on these positions.
S ponovno vključitvijo nekdanjih javnih uslužbencev v javno upravo in na delovna mesta, ki ustrezajo njihovi delovni dobi in usposobljenosti, so finski vladi nastali enaki stroški, kot če bi za ta delovna mesta zaposlila druge ljudi.
In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the transfer of 116 employees has not created any additional costs for the Finnish State.
Na podlagi teh ugotovitev Komisija sklepa, da premestitev 116 zaposlenih finski vladi ni povzročila dodatnih stroškov.
Accordingly, it does not constitute State aid, as it does not involve the transfer of State resources.
Zato to ne pomeni državne pomoči, saj ne vključuje prenosa državnih sredstev.
Funding of Special service projects
Financiranje posebnih storitvenih projektov
As far as the special projects for redundant, but not laid-off, workers are concerned, the Road Administration has paid a total of approximately EUR 68 million to fund them, including EUR 56 million funding of personnel costs (Cf. Section 5.5)
V zvezi s posebnimi projekti za presežne, vendar neodpuščene delavce je cestna uprava za financiranje v celoti plačala približno 68 milijonov EUR, vključno s 56 milijoni EUR stroškov za osebje (glej oddelek 5.5).
The Commission recognises that the respective service projects were clearly targeted at alleviating the undertaking’s structural disadvantage relating to overstaffing.
Komisija priznava, da so bili zadevni storitveni projekti namenjeni predvsem zmanjšanju strukturnih pomanjkljivosti podjetja, ki so nastale zaradi prevelikega števila zaposlenih.
From the explanations given by the Finnish authorities as confirmed by Expert statement, it considers that the payment of EUR 68 million by the State did not involve overcompensation for carrying out the respective services (cleaning of roadsides, restoration of buildings and outdoor areas).
Na podlagi razlage finskih organov, ki jo potrjuje strokovno poročilo, Komisija meni, da 68 milijonov EUR, ki jih je plačala država, ni vključevalo čezmernega nadomestila za izvajanje zadevnih storitev (čiščenje obcestnih površin, obnova objektov in območij na prostem).
On the contrary, the service projects had generated losses (Cf. Section 5.5).
Nasprotno, storitveni projekti so ustvarili izgube (glej oddelek 5.5).
Nevertheless the Commission considers that in the absence of such special service projects the undertaking would have had to remunerate its redundant workers without them contributing to the increase of revenues of the undertaking.
Kljub temu Komisija meni, da bi moralo podjetje tudi brez takšnih posebnih storitvenih projektov presežnim delavcem plačati odškodnino, čeprav ti delavci ne bi prispevali k povečanju prihodkov podjetja.
There are no proofs that in other circumstances the Finnish authorities would still have considered contracting out the respective services and that it was the most economically advantageous solution for the State to award the respective contract(s) to Tieliikelaitos.
Ni dokazano, da bi finski organi v drugačnih razmerah zadevne storitve oddajali po zunanjem postopku in da je bilo za državo gospodarsko najbolj koristno, da zadevna naročila dodeli podjetju Tieliikelaitos.
As such, the measure must be held to be financed through State resources.
Za tak ukrep mora veljati, da se financira z državnimi sredstvi.
Furthermore, unlike the transfer of staff to the administration, the situation of Tieliikelaitos as regards the special service projects is different to the situation contemplated by the Court of First Instance in Combus.
Poleg tega so v nasprotju s premestitvijo osebja v upravo razmere za izvajanje posebnih storitvenih projektov v podjetju Tieliikelaitos drugačne od razmer, kot jih je predpostavilo Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi Combus.
Unlike what happens when the 116 employees are transferred back to the administration, with this measure the overstaffing is not directly addressed.
V nasprotju s premestitvijo 116 zaposlenih na upravo se s tem ukrepom prevelikega števila zaposlenih neposredno ne odpravi.
Rather the State is procuring from Tieliikelaitos exclusively and without any form of competitive tendering, the realisation of special service projects that it seems it otherwise would not have procured, or would not have procured to the same extent.
Država raje oddaja naročila za izvajanje posebnih storitvenih projektov, ki jih sicer ne bi pridobila ali jih ne bi pridobila v enakem obsegu, izključno podjetju Tieliikelaitos in brez konkurenčnega javnega razpisa.
The State is then by the same token clearly distorting the competitive playing field in the market undergoing the liberalisation process.
Država torej tako očitno izkrivlja konkurenčne pogoje na trgu, na katerem poteka postopek liberalizacije.
The measure does not remove the structural disadvantage of the company, it rather allows it to survive in spite of that disadvantage, and does not in itself provide any incentive to put an end to this situation.
Ukrep ne odpravlja strukturne pomanjkljivosti podjetja, ampak mu omogoča preživetje kljub pomanjkljivosti, ter sam po sebi ne zagotavlja spodbude za ureditev teh razmer.
The above considerations, examined in conjunction with the relevant jurisprudence, including the Combus judgment, thus lead to the conclusion that the measure concerned must be regarded as aid.
Iz navedenih ugotovitev, preučenih v povezavi z zadevno sodno prakso, vključno s sodbo v zadevi Combus, je torej razvidno, da je treba zadevni ukrep obravnavati kot pomoč.
Staff adjustment measures
Prilagoditveni ukrepi za osebje
In addition to the two above described measures EUR 20,1 million were transferred from the Road Administration’s budget for the purposes of helping Tieliikelaitos’ employees to find new jobs, financing supplementary education and retraining and for supporting pensions for early retirement.
Razen dveh navedenih ukrepov je bilo iz proračuna cestne uprave za pomoč zaposlenim v podjetju Tielliikelaitos pri iskanju nove zaposlitve, za financiranje dodatnega izobraževanja in preusposabljanja ter za podporo pokojninam pri predčasni upokojitvi nakazanih 20,1 milijona EUR.
The Finnish authorities have not provided detailed information about the relevant measures.
Finski organi niso predložili podrobnih informacij o zadevnih ukrepih.
As mentioned above, the Combus jurisprudence must be interpreted narrowly and the Commission can therefore not conclude that these measures do not lead to the grant of a selective advantage to Tieliikelaitos.
Kot je navedeno, je treba sodno prakso iz zadeve Combus razlagati ozko. Komisija zato ne more sklepati, da ti ukrepi ne omogočajo selektivne prednosti za podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
As regards the fact that during the transitional period those persons that sold land to Tieliikelaitos were largely relieved from tax on capital gains, the Commission notes that the Finnish authorities in fact do not provide any argument contesting the qualification of that measure as aid, as claimed by the complainants.
Ker so bile v prehodnem obdobju osebe, ki so prodale zemljo podjetju Tieliikelaitos, večinoma oproščene davka na kapitalski dobiček, Komisija ugotavlja, da finski organi niso utemeljili, da ne gre za ukrep kot pomoči, kot trdijo pritožniki.
On the basis of the information at its disposal, it must conclude that the measure in question may involve the grant of an advantage to Tieliikelaitos.
Na podlagi informacij, ki jih ima Komisija na voljo, ta sklepa, da je zadevni ukrep podjetju Tieliikelaitos lahko zagotovil koristi.
The Commission notes that Tieliikelaitos was not the direct beneficiary of respective fiscal advantages.
Komisija ugotavlja, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos ni bilo neposredni upravičenec zadevnih davčnih ugodnosti.
Besides, the Commission notes that not all land sellers could benefit from these advantages — only the sellers other than a corporation, partnership or limited partnership.
Poleg tega Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da teh ugodnosti niso mogli izkoristiti vsi prodajalci zemlje, izkoristiti jo niso mogle družbe, osebne družbe ali komanditne družbe.
Tieliikelaitos might have benefited from the measure provided that the direct beneficiaries would have (partially) passed these advantages onto Tieliikelaitos.
Podjetje Tieliikelaitos bi lahko izkoristilo ukrep, če bi neposredni upravičenci te ugodnosti (delno) prenesli na podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
Should there have been any advantage to Tieliikelaitos, this measure is in any case to be classified as existing aid pursuant to Article 1 (b)-v of the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — ‘aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State’ — for the following reasons:
Če je podjetje Tieliikelaitos imelo prednosti, se ta ukrep v vsakem primeru obravnava kot veljavna pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 – „pomoč, za katero se šteje, da je veljavna, ker je mogoče ugotoviti, da takrat, ko se je začela izvajati, ni bila pomoč, pozneje pa je postala pomoč zaradi razvoja skupnega trga in je država članica ni spremenila“ – zaradi naslednjega:
No aid at the time it was put into effect.
Takrat se pomoč ni izvajala. Ko je bil predhodnik podjetja Tieliikelaitos („proizvodnja cest“, del službe za ceste) še del finske uprave, je lahko koristil zadevne davčne ugodnosti.
When Tieliikelaitos’ predecessor (‘road production’ part of the Road Service) was still part of the Finnish administration, it benefited from the fiscal advantages in question: According to Section 49(1)(4) of the Income Tax Act, all State agencies and State Enterprises benefit from this tax exemption.
V skladu z oddelkom 49(1)(4) Zakona o davku na dohodek to davčno oprostitev koristijo vse državne agencije in državna podjetja.
However, the Road service did not exercise any economic activity at the time when the measure was put into effect, for the following reason: according to its statute, the ‘Road service’ was not allowed to offer services against remuneration on the market.
Vendar služba za ceste v času veljavnosti ukrepa ni izvajala gospodarskih dejavnosti zaradi naslednjega: v skladu s statutom službi za ceste na trgu ni bilo dovoljeno opravljati storitev, za katere bi prejemala nadomestilo.
It was confined to exclusively working within the administration.
Služba je bila omejena izključno na delovanje v upravi.
Therefore, its activity of planning, constructing and maintaining public roads was constituted in a reserved area.
Zato je dejavnosti v zvezi z načrtovanjem, gradnjo in vzdrževanjem javnih cest izvajala na pridržanem območju.
In 1993 when the Income Tax Act came into force, Tieliikelaitos formed part of the Finnish administration and was not active in any other market.
Ko je leta 1993 začel veljati Zakon o davku na dohodek, je bilo podjetje Tieliikelaitos del finske uprave in ni delovalo na nobenem drugem trgu.
The Commission concludes that at the time the measure was put into effect, it did not constitute State aid, because it did not benefit an undertaking in the sense of Article 87(1) EC Treaty.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da ukrep med izvajanjem ni pomenil državne pomoči, ker ni koristil podjetju v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe ES.
Subsequently aid due to the evolution of the common market.
Poznejša pomoč zaradi razvoja skupnega trga.
As of 2001, the ‘production part’ of the Road Service, now established under the name Tieliikelaitos, could offer its services on the market, thanks to the reform of the Finnish road service market which is the object of the present decision.
Od leta 2001 je lahko „proizvodni del“ službe za ceste, ki zdaj deluje v okviru podjetja Tieliikelaitos zaradi reforme finske službe za ceste, ki je tudi predmet te odločbe, opravljal storitve na trgu.
The decision of the Finnish government to liberalise the provision of road services was part of a major liberalisation movement, which has also prompted other EU and EEA Member States to successively open their markets for road services States on a voluntary basis (the most recent one being carried out by Norway).
Odločitev finske vlade, da liberalizira cestne storitve, je bila del obsežne liberalizacije, ki je spodbudila tudi druge države članice EU in EGP, da postopoma prostovoljno odprejo trge cestnih storitev (nazadnje je to izvedla Norveška).
Today, many companies offer their services in the sector of road maintenance and construction across the entire EU and EEA territory.
Danes veliko družb opravlja storitve v sektorju za vzdrževanje in gradnjo cest na celotnem območju EU in EGP.
These reforms have changed the market in two ways: on the one hand, former government agencies have entered the market; on the other hand, the overall size of the contestable market has increased substantially (e.g. as a result of the liberalisation carried out by Finland, the size of the contestable market has increased by more than EUR 400 million).
Te reforme so spremenile trg na dva načina: na eni strani so nekdanje vladne agencije vstopile na trg, na drugi strani pa se je celotni obseg spornega trga bistveno povečal (npr. zaradi liberalizacije, ki jo je izvedla Finska, se je velikost spornega trga povečala za več kot 400 milijonov EUR).
In the light of these developments, the Commission concludes that as of 2001, Tieliikelaitos is performing an economic activity, namely offering road services against payment, and hence constitutes an undertaking in the sense of Article 87(1) EC Treaty.
Glede na ta razvoj dogodkov Komisija ugotavlja, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos od leta 2001 opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, in sicer omogoča cestne storitve za plačilo, zato to pomeni podjetje v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Due to the evolution of the common market, the measure which at the time of its introduction did not constitute State aid has therefore become State aid.
Zaradi razvoja skupnega trga je ukrep, ki med uvedbo ni pomenil državne pomoči, zato postal državna pomoč.
Aid without being altered by the Member State.
Pomoč, ki je država članica ne spreminja.
As long as the Section 49(1)(4) of the Income Tax Act was applicable to Tieliikelaitos (till 1 January 2005), it was applied in unaltered way since 1993 when the Income Tax Act came into force.
Ko je oddelek 49(1)(4) Zakona o davku na dohodek veljal za podjetje Tieliikelaitos (do 1. januarja 2005), se je uporabljal nespremenjen od leta 1993, nato pa je začel veljati Zakon o davku na dohodek.
Inapplicability of bankruptcy law
Neuporaba stečajne zakonodaje