natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the application of the third and fourth Altmark criteria in the present case, in particular the methods used to verify costs and avoid overcompensation;
uporabo tretjega in četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark v obravnavanem primeru, zlasti načine, ki se uporabljajo za preverjanje stroškov in preprečevanje prekomernih nadomestil, ter
the compatibility of the public service contract with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
združljivost pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Relationship between the Altmark criteria and Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69
Odnos med merili iz sodbe Altmark in Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69
Austria considers that Article 73 of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which is based on it, constitute a lex specialis to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Avstrija meni, da sta člen 73 Pogodbe ES in Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki temelji na tem členu, lex specialis v odnosu do člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Therefore, whenever a public service contract meets the criteria set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, there is no State aid, and therefore no need to assess the public service contract in question under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and the Altmark criteria.
Če torej pogodba o izvajanju javne službe izpolnjuje merila iz člena 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ne gre za državno pomoč in zato zadevne pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe ni treba preučiti na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES in meril iz sodbe Altmark.
Austria bases this interpretation on point 37 of the Altmark judgement, which states:
Avstrija je tako razlago utemeljila s točko 37 sodbe Altmark, ki se glasi:
‘The first point to examine is whether Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 is applicable to the transport services at issue in the main proceedings. Only if that is not the case will the application of the general provisions of the Treaty on State aid to the subsidies at issue in the main proceedings have to be considered.’
„Najprej je treba preučiti, ali se Uredba št. 1191/69 uporablja za prevozne storitve, ki se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari. Vprašanje, ali se za subvencije iz postopka v glavni stvari uporabljajo splošne določbe Pogodbe glede državnih pomoči, bo treba preučiti le, če se zgoraj navedena uredba ne uporablja.“
Application of the second Altmark criterion in the present case
Uporaba drugega merila iz sodbe Altmark v obravnavanem primeru
Austria argues that even if Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 does not address the existence of State aid, but merely its compatibility with the common market, the public service contract concluded between Verkehrsverbund Tirol and Postbus in any event meets the four Altmark criteria.
Avstrija trdi, da pogodba o izvajanju javne službe, ki sta jo sklenila Verkehrsverbund Tirol in družba Postbus – čeprav se Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 ne nanaša na obstoj državne pomoči, ampak le na združljivost take pomoči s skupnim trgom –, vsekakor izpolnjuje vsa štiri merila iz sodbe Altmark.
As far as the second Altmark criterion is concerned, Austria explains that both the remuneration for the Bestellleistungen and the remuneration for the Bestandsleistungen have been established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Kar zadeva drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark, Avstrija pojasnjuje, da sta bili plačili za Bestellleistungen in Bestandsleistungen določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
With respect to the Bestellleistungen, Austria explains that the contract is a net contract, whereby Postbus receives a fixed price for each bus kilometre driven of EUR 2,57/km [12].
Kar zadeva Bestellleistungen, Avstrija pojasnjuje, da gre pri pogodbi za „neto pogodbo“, na podlagi katere družba Postbus prejme fiksno plačilo (2,57 EUR/km) za vsak opravljeni kilometer avtobusnega prevoza [12].
Therefore, the price had been fixed in advance, using the objective and transparent criterion of the ‘price per km driven’.
Cena je bila torej določena vnaprej na podlagi objektivnega in preglednega merila („cena na prevoženi kilometer“).
With respect to the Bestandsleistungen, Austria explains that the price had also been agreed in advance by the parties as a fixed price, namely EUR 1690000 for 952761 km to be driven.
Kar zadeva Bestandsleistungen, Avstrija pojasnjuje, da sta se strani prav tako vnaprej dogovorili za fiksno ceno, tj. 1690000 EUR za predvidoma 952761 prevoženih kilometrov.
What had not been fixed in advance was the exact split between the three components of payment, namely ticketing revenues, compensation for tariff obligations and compensation for integrated transport systems.
Vnaprej ni bila določena le natančna razlika med tremi komponentami plačila, tj. dohodki iz prodaje vozovnic, nadomestilom za tarifne obveznosti in nadomestilom za integriran prometni sistem.
Austria explains that the explanation lies in the very nature of the three components, two of which depend on the number of passengers transported, the third one being the difference between the total agreed price and the sum of the first two elements.
Avstrija navaja, da je mogoče to pojasniti z naravo teh treh komponent, saj sta prvi dve odvisni od števila prepeljanih potnikov, tretja pa se ujema z razliko med skupno dogovorjeno ceno in vsoto prvih dveh komponent.
Also in this regard, Austria concludes that the contract is a net contract, whereby Postbus receives a fixed price for each bus kilometre driven of EUR 1,77/km, and that therefore, the price had been fixed in advance, using the objective and transparent criterion of the ‘price per km driven’.
Avstrija tudi glede tega trdi, da je bila sklenjena „neto pogodba“, na podlagi katere družba Postbus prejme fiksno plačilo (1,77 EUR/km) za vsak opravljeni kilometer avtobusnega prevoza in je bila zato cena določena vnaprej na podlagi objektivnega in preglednega merila („cena na prevoženi kilometer“).
Application of the third and the fourth Altmark criteria in the present case, in particular methods to verify costs and avoid overcompensation
Uporaba tretjega in četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark v obravnavanem primeru in zlasti načini, ki se uporabljajo za preverjanje stroškov in preprečevanje prekomernih nadomestil
Austria argues that Verkehrsverbund Tirol ruled out the possibility of overcompensation being paid to Postbus by checking the price paid to Postbus per kilometre against the industry average, using three different methods: a check per cost per kilometre; a check of costs per cost item; and a check of costs according to different cost categories.
Avstrija trdi, da je Verkehrsverbund Tirol možnost, da bi bilo družbi Postbus izplačano prekomerno nadomestilo, preprečil tako, da je plačilo družbi Postbus na kilometer primerjal s povprečno ceno v zadevni industriji, in sicer na tri načine: preveril je stroške na kilometer, stroške glede na stroškovno postavko in stroške glede na različne stroškovne kategorije.
In its reply to the decision to initiate the procedure, Austria provided the Commission with further information regarding two of the methods used to check costs for providing transport services and avoid overcompensation, namely the checking of costs per cost item and the checking of costs according to different cost categories.
Avstrija je v odgovoru na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka Komisiji predložila dodatne informacije glede dveh načinov, ki jih je uporabila za preverjanje stroškov za zagotavljanje prevoznih storitev in za preprečevanje prekomernega nadomestila, tj. preverjanje stroškov glede na stroškovno postavko in preverjanje stroškov glede na različne stroškovne kategorije.
It considers that no further explanation is necessary with regard to the checking of costs per kilometre [13].
Avstrija je menila, da dodatna pojasnila glede preverjanja stroškov na kilometer niso potrebna [13].
Austria considers that these three cost checks ensure compliance with both the third Altmark criterion (absence of overcompensation) and the fourth Altmark criterion (average, well-run undertaking).
Avstrija meni, da navedena tri stroškovna preverjanja zagotavljajo skladnost s tretjim (neobstoj prekomernega nadomestila) in četrtim (povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje) merilom iz sodbe Altmark.
Check of costs per cost item
Preverjanje stroškov glede na stroškovno postavko
Through the method ‘checking of costs per item’, Verkehrsverbund Tirol compared the costs per item of Postbus with the average costs in the industry sector.
Verkehrsverbund Tirol je na podlagi „preverjanja stroškov glede na stroškovno postavko“ primerjal stroške glede na stroškovno postavko družbe Postbus s povprečnimi stroški v tem industrijskem sektorju.
Based on the average costs in the industry sector, Postbus should meet the following cost targets for the public service contract in the Lienz district:
Na podlagi povprečnih stroškov v obravnavanem industrijskem sektorju bi morala družba Postbus za pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe v okrožju Lienz izpolniti naslednje stroškovne cilje:
Cost item
Stroškovna postavka
Costs for fuel and maintenance
Stroški goriva in vzdrževanja
Vehicle costs (depreciation)
Stroški vozil (amortizacija)
Austria provides the following detailed explanation for these cost items.
Avstrija je za te stroškovne postavke dala spodaj navedeno natančno pojasnilo.
Austria based the calculation of personnel costs on 54290 driving hours (Lenkerstunden) for scheduled route operation.
Avstrija je stroške dela izračunala na podlagi 54290 ur vožnje (Lenkerstunden) za upravljanje proge.
Austria clarified that this amount is based on the number of kilometres needed to operate according to the schedule including dwell-time, but excluding round-trips to terminal bus stops/garages, rest periods etc. According to Austria, at 21 km per hour Verkehrsverbund Tirol assumed a relatively high number of driven kilometres per hour [15], as the average for Austria is 16-18 km per hour.
Avstrija je pojasnila, da ta znesek temelji na številu kilometrov, potrebnih za upravljanje v skladu z urnikom, vključno s časom mirovanja, vendar brez povratnih voženj do končnih avtobusnih postajališč/garaž, počitka itd. Po mnenju Avstrije je Verkehrsverbund Tirol z 21 km na uro postavilo razmeroma visoko kilometrsko postavko na uro [15], saj je ta v Avstriji povprečno od 16 do 18 km na uro.
If these additional costs are taken into consideration, the average hourly rate is EUR 16,30.
Ob upoštevanju teh dodatnih stroškov znaša povprečna urna postavka 16,30 EUR.
On top of this hourly rate, there is an additional charge of approximately […] % for the costs of personnel for garage services, planning and administration.
Tej urni postavki je treba prišteti še dodaten strošek za plačilo osebja v garažah, razpolaganje in upravljanje, ki je približno […] %.
Taking into account these overheads, one hour of bus operation generates costs of EUR […].
Ob upoštevanju vseh teh režijskih stroškov stane ura avtobusnega upravljanja […] EUR.
Multiplication of the annual number of driving hours by the average hourly rate results in total personnel costs of EUR […] [16].
Če letno število ur vožnje pomnožimo s povprečno urno postavko, znašajo skupni stroški dela […] EUR [16].
Concerning the costs for fuel and maintenance, Verkehrsverbund Tirol assumes there will be a cost of EUR […] for every scheduled kilometre (1157568 km), which totals EUR […]. This amount includes all vehicle-related costs, except costs for financing, depreciation and controlling.
Kar zadeva stroške goriva in vzdrževanja, je Verkehrsbund Tirol predpostavil, da znašajo stroški za vsak po urniku načrtovani kilometer (1157568 km) […] EUR, tj. skupaj […] EUR. Ta znesek vključuje vse stroške, povezane z vozili, razen stroškov financiranja, amortizacije in kontrole.
Austria explains its calculation in detail.
Avstrija je svoj izračun natančno pojasnila.
It is based on the assumption that, for the routes in the district of Lienz, four 15-metre buses with a fuel consumption of 45 l/100 km and twenty-one 12-metre buses with a fuel consumption of 36 l/100 km will be needed.
Zadevni izračun temelji na predpostavki, da bodo za proge v okrožju Lienz potrebni štirje 15-metrski avtobusi, ki porabijo 45 litrov goriva na 100 km, in enaindvajset 12-metrskih avtobusov, ki porabijo 36 litrov goriva na 100 km.
The total estimated fuel consumption of this fleet is 478000 litres.
Ta vozni park naj bi predvidoma skupaj porabil 478000 litrov goriva.
Based on a diesel price of EUR […]/litre, the total fuel costs are therefore EUR […].
Na podlagi cene dizelskega goriva, ki je […] EUR/liter, torej skupni stroški goriva znašajo […] EUR.
This is already more than the EUR […] that had been taken as a benchmark.
To že presega znesek […] EUR, ki je bil sprejet kot izhodišče za primerjavo.
Therefore, the Austrian authorities conclude that the cost item ‘fuel and maintenance’ is a very conservative estimate.
Zato avstrijski organi menijo, da je pri stroškovni postavki „gorivo in vzdrževanje“ dana zelo konzervativna ocena.
Costs for the purchase and depreciation of vehicles
Stroški nakupa in amortizacije vozil
The costs for the purchase and depreciation of vehicles of EUR […] are based on the following assumptions:
Stroški nakupa in amortizacije vozil v višini […] EUR temeljijo na spodaj navedenih predpostavkah:
The bus routes are to be operated with four 15 m buses and twenty-one 12 m buses.
Avtobusne proge je treba upravljati s štirimi 15-metrskimi avtobusi in enaindvajsetimi 12-metrskimi avtobusi.
The public service contract stipulates that the average age of the fleet shall not extend 6 years, and that at least 10 % of the fleet shall be renewed each year.
V pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe je določeno, da povprečna starost voznega parka ne sme preseči šest let in da je treba vsako leto obnoviti vsaj 10 % voznega parka.
The purchase price for a 12 m bus is EUR […]; the average annual return on capital is 5 %; and the amortisation period 8 years.
Nakupna cena za 12-metrski avtobus je […] EUR, povprečni letni donos kapitala je 5 %, amortizacijska doba pa je osem let.
Therefore, the annuity per vehicle is EUR […].
Torej znaša anuiteta […] EUR na vozilo.
However, as the contract allows for the use of vehicles for a period of 12 years, 1/3 of the fleet is used despite the fact that it is fully amortised.
Ker je na podlagi pogodbe dovoljena uporaba vozil za 12-letno obdobje, se tretjina voznega parka uporablja kljub temu, da je bila že v celoti amortizirana.
Therefore, the costs for purchase and depreciation of vehicles concern only 2/3 of the fleet, or 16 vehicles.
Stroški nakupa in amortizacije vozil torej zadevajo le dve tretjini voznega parka, tj. 16 vozil.
Based on these assumptions, the annual costs for purchase and depreciation of vehicles are EUR […] [17].
Na podlagi teh predpostavk znašajo letni stroški nakupa in amortizacije vozil […] EUR [17].
Concerning the administrative costs of EUR […], Verkehrsverbund Tirol assumed […] % of all the other costs per cost item for its calculations [18].
Kar zadeva upravne stroške v višini […] EUR, je Verkehrsverbund Tirol za izračune upošteval […] % vseh drugih stroškov glede na stroškovno postavko [18].
This amount covers the office rental fee and office equipment.
Ta znesek vključuje stroške za najem pisarne in pisarniško opremo.
Check of costs according to the different cost categories
Preverjanje stroškov glede na različne stroškovne kategorije
The check of costs according to the different cost categories is a calculation of plausibility of the different cost categories.
Preverjanje stroškov glede na različne stroškovne kategorije je izračun verodostojnosti različnih stroškovnih kategorij.
Verkehrsverbund Tirol has established the following costs as a benchmark:
Verkehrsverbund Tirol je kot izhodišče za primerjavo upošteval naslednje stroške:
Cost categories
Stroškovne kategorije
Driver costs
Stroški za voznika
Personnel costs (other than driver costs)
Stroški dela (razen stroškov za voznika)
Tyre costs
Stroški pnevmatik
Other costs (repairs, maintenance, etc.)
Drugi stroški (popravila, vzdrževanje itd.)
These benchmarks are again explained in more detail.
Tudi ta izhodišča so podrobneje pojasnjena.
Thus, other personnel costs account for EUR […].
Drugi stroški dela torej znašajo […] EUR.
Vehicle costs
Stroški vozil
The vehicle costs are based on the same assumption as used for the check of costs per item.
Stroški vozil temeljijo na predpostavki, ki je bila uporabljena že za preverjanje stroškov glede na posamezne stroškovne postavke.
Concerning the fuel costs, Verkehrsverbund Tirol based the calculation on a fuel consumption of 465000 litres.
Kar zadeva stroške goriva, je Verkehrsverbund Tirol kot osnovo za izračun upošteval, da bo poraba goriva znašala 465000 litrov.
The average price for fuel was assumed to be EUR […] per litre.
Kot povprečna cena goriva je bila upoštevana cena […] EUR na liter.
Therefore, the overall fuel costs are EUR […] [18] EUR […] (all other costs per item) × […] % = EUR […].
Stroški goriva torej skupaj znašajo […] EUR [18] […] EUR (stroški na enoto) × […] % = […] EUR.
With regard to tyre costs, Verkehrsverbund Tirol assumed a purchase price of EUR […] for 2 pairs of tyres every year for 25 buses, resulting in costs of EUR […].
Kar zadeva stroške pnevmatik, je Verkehrsverbund Tirol upošteval nakupno ceno v višini […] EUR za dva para pnevmatik za 25 avtobusov na leto, kar skupaj znaša […] EUR. Skupni stroški torej znašajo […] EUR.
The material costs for vehicles, maintenance, insurance, tax etc., are estimated to be about EUR […] per year.
Predvideno je, da bodo materialni stroški za vozila ter stroški za vzdrževanje, zavarovanje, davke itd. znašali približno […] EUR na leto.
This includes insurance for every vehicle at about EUR […] per year and material costs of EUR […] per kilometre driven.
Ta znesek vključuje letno zavarovanje v višini približno […] EUR za posamezno vozilo in […] EUR za vsak prevoženi kilometer.
Maintenance for 25 buses totals EUR […] per year.
Vzdrževanje za 25 avtobusov stane […] EUR na leto.
The rent for garage space with a surface area of 1500 m2 is EUR […] per year.
Stroški najema garažnega prostora s površino 1500 m2 znašajo […] EUR na leto.
The administrative costs are estimated to be about EUR […] per month, hence EUR […] per year.
Predvideno je, da bodo upravni stroški znašali […] EUR na mesec, tj. […] EUR na leto.
Austria’s conclusion on the third and fourth Altmark criteria
Sklep, ki ga je dala Avstrija glede tretjega in četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark
Austria concludes that Verkehrsverbund Tirol has assessed the price paid to Postbus against adequate, realistic and conservative estimates of how much an average bus undertaking would have spent for executing a comparable contract.
Avstrija meni, da je Verkehrsverbund Tirol ceno, ki jo je plačal družbi Postbus, določil na podlagi ustreznih, realističnih in konzervativnih ocen stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno avtobusno podjetje za izvedbo primerljive pogodbe.
Austria underlines that the price paid to Postbus, namely EUR 2217000, is well within the range between the two cost checks, which give results of EUR 2224965 and EUR 2205619 respectively.
Avstrija poudarja, da se cena, izplačana družbi Postbus, tj. 2217000 EUR, umešča v razpon med obema preverjanjema stroškov, katerih rezultat sta bila zneska 2224965 EUR oziroma 2205619 EUR.
Therefore, Austria considers that the likelihood of overcompensation being paid to Postbus can be ruled out, and that the price paid to Postbus corresponds to the price that an average, well-run undertaking adequately equipped with means of transport would have demanded to provide the transport services in question.
Zato Avstrija meni, da je mogoče prekomerno nadomestilo, ki naj bi bilo izplačano družbi Postbus, izključiti in da plačilo družbi Postbus ustreza ceni, ki bi jo za izvedbo obravnavanih prevoznih storitev zahtevalo povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki ima na voljo ustrezna prevozna sredstva.
Compatibility of the public service contract with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69
Združljivost pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69
For the reasons set out in section 3.3, Austria considers that the public service contract also fully complies with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Iz razlogov, navedenih v oddelku 3.3, Avstrija meni, da je pogodba o izvajanju javne službe tudi v celoti skladna s členom 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
First of all, Austria’s argument that Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty does not apply to a public service contract covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 must be rejected.
Najprej je treba zavreči utemeljitev Avstrije, na podlagi katere naj se člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES ne bi uporabljal za pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, ki spada na področje uporabe Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Amongst other things, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 enables certain aid granted by Member States in the form of compensation for the imposition of a public service obligation to be deemed to be compatible with the common market and exempts Member States from the requirement in Article 88(3) to notify the aid to the Commission before it is granted.
Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 namreč med drugim omogoča, da se nekatere pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države članice kot nadomestilo za naloženo obveznost izvajanja javne službe, obravnavajo kot združljive s skupnim trgom in državam članicam zato ni treba izpolniti obveznosti iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerega je treba pomoči pred izvedbo priglasiti Komisiji.
However, the State aid rules in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 apply only to measures which constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Vendar se pravila, ki so za državne pomoči določena z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, uporabljajo le za ukrepe, ki jih je mogoče šteti za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In other words, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 is concerned with compatibility.
Drugače povedano, Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 je uredba o združljivosti.
It is therefore necessary, in the first instance, to consider whether the payments provided for in the contract between Postbus and Verkehrsverbund Tirol constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato je treba najprej preučiti, ali so plačila, določena s pogodbo med družbo Postbus in Verkehrsverbund Tirol, državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
If they do, it is necessary, in the second instance, to consider whether they are compatible with the common market.
Če je ta pogoj izpolnjen, je nato treba preučiti, ali so zadevna plačila združljiva s skupnim trgom.
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, ‘save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
V členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES je določeno: „Razen če ta pogodba ne določa drugače, 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, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
Bus operators such as Postbus are performing an economic activity, namely the transportation of passengers in return for payment; they are therefore undertakings within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Avtobusni prevozniki, kakršen je družba Postbus, opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, tj. prevoz potnikov za plačilo; torej so podjetja v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The subsidies to Postbus are paid by Verkehrsverbund Tirol, which is financed by the Land of Tyrol and the Federal Government.
Družbi Postbus subvencije izplačuje Verkehrsverbund Tirol, ki ga financirata tirolska Land in zvezna vlada.
These sums are therefore paid from State resources.
Zadevni zneski se torej izplačajo iz državnih sredstev.
The next question is whether Postbus gains a selective economic advantage through the public service contract which is the subject of this decision.
Nato se postavlja vprašanje, ali je družba Postbus prek pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, na katero se nanaša ta odločba, pridobila selektivno gospodarsko prednost.