natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its judgment in Altmark Trans [19] the Court set out the criteria which must be applied when assessing whether compensation has been given for a public service:
Sodišče je merila, ki jih je treba uporabiti za presojo o tem, ali obstaja nadomestilo za izvajanje javne službe, opredelilo v sodbi v zadevi „Altmark Trans“ [19]:
‘… public subsidies intended to enable the operation of urban, suburban or regional scheduled transport services are not caught by that provision where such subsidies are to be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations. […]:’
„Javne subvencije, katerih namen je omogočiti uporabo rednih storitev mestnega, primestnega ali regionalnega prevoza, ne spadajo na področje uporabe te določbe, če je treba take subvencije obravnavati kot nadomestilo za storitve, ki so jih opravila podjetja, ki so prejemniki zadevnega nadomestila, za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe […]“
According to the Court, that is the case if the following four criteria have been met:
Po mnenju Sodišča je ta pogoj izpolnjen, če so izpolnjena naslednja štiri merila:
first, the recipient undertaking must be actually required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations must have been clearly defined;
prvič, podjetje, ki je prejemnik nadomestila, mora dejansko opravljati obveznosti javne službe in te morajo biti jasno opredeljene;
second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner;
drugič, parametri, na podlagi katerih je izračunano nadomestilo, morajo biti določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način;
third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations;
tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati zneska, ki je potreben za kritje vseh stroškov ali dela stroškov, ki nastanejo pri izvajanju obveznosti javne službe, z upoštevanjem ustreznih prejemkov ter primernega dobička zaradi izvajanja teh obveznosti;
fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has to be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.’
četrtič, če podjetje, ki naj bi izpolnjevalo obveznosti javnih storitev, v danem primeru ni izbrano v skladu s postopkom oddaje javnih naročil, […] je treba stopnjo potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi nastali v običajnem podjetju, ki je dobro vodeno in ima zagotovljena ustrezna prevozna sredstva, pri izpolnjevanju navedenih obveznosti, pri čemer je treba upoštevati ustrezne prejemke in primeren dobiček pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti.“
Recipient undertaking actually required to discharge clearly defined public service obligations
Podjetje, ki je prejemnik nadomestila, mora dejansko opravljati jasno opredeljene obveznosti javne službe
Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 defines public service obligations as follows: ‘Public service obligations’ means obligations which the transport undertaking in question, if it were considering its own commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions’.
V členu 2(1) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 so obveznosti javnih služb opredeljene: „Obveznosti javnih služb’ pomenijo obveznosti, ki jih zadevno prevozno podjetje, če bi upoštevalo lastne poslovne interese, ne bi prevzelo ali jih ne bi prevzelo v enakem obsegu ali pod enakimi pogoji.“
The contract concluded between Postbus and Verkehrsverbund Tirol formalises specific requirements which are imposed on the service provider to ensure that a balanced transport network exists given the rural nature, the low population density and the geographical characteristics of the areas served.
S pogodbo, ki sta jo sklenila podjetje Postbus in Verkehrsverbund Tirol, so formalizirane posebne zahteve, ki se naložijo izvajalcu storitev, da se zagotovi izvedba uravnoteženega prometnega omrežja ob upoštevanju podeželske značilnosti in redke poseljenosti ter geografskih značilnosti pokritih območij.
These factors are likely to discourage an operator from offering such services on a strictly commercial basis.
Prav ti elementi lahko ponudnika takih storitev odvrnejo od tega, da bi jih sam ponujal kot izključno poslovne storitve.
Postbus is obliged to offer such services and to propose the relevant timetables; the routes on which the services must be offered are clearly set out in a contractual manner as specified in point 2 of the contract.
Podjetje Postbus je zavezano k zagotavljanju takih storitev, urniki, ki jih mora upoštevati, in proge, na katerih jih mora zagotavljati, pa so jasno določeni s pogodbo, kot je to navedeno v členu 2 pogodbe.
It is therefore clear from the contract concluded between Postbus and Verkehrsverbund Tirol that Postbus is actually responsible for the public transport service in the district of Lienz.
Iz pogodbe, ki sta jo sklenila Postbus in Verkehrsverbund Tirol, torej izhaja, da je družba Postbus dejansko zavezana za izvajanje javne prevozne službe v okrožju Lienz.
The first Altmark criterion is therefore met.
Prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark je torej izpolnjeno.
Parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner
Parametri, na podlagi katerih je izračunano nadomestilo in ki morajo biti določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način
Secondly, it must be determined whether the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.
Drugič, treba je opredeliti, ali so bili parametri, na podlagi katerih je izračunano nadomestilo, določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
The contract distinguishes between payment for Bestellleistungen and payment for Bestandsleistungen.
Pogodba ločuje med plačilom za Bestellleistungen in plačili za Bestandsleistungen.
As explained by Austria in its reply to the decision opening the formal investigation procedure, the contract provides for remuneration per kilometre of transport supplied for both categories of transport service.
Kot je pojasnila Avstrija v odgovoru na odločitev o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, je s pogodbo za obe kategoriji prevoznih storitev določeno plačilo na prevoženi kilometer.
The price is EUR 2,57/km for Bestellleistungen and EUR 1,77/km for Bestandsleistungen.
Cena je 2,57 EUR/km za Bestellleistungen in 1,77 EUR/km za Bestandsleistungen.
The only difference between the Bestandsleistungen and the Bestellleistungen is that one of the components of the compensation is adjusted so that the sum of EUR 1,77/km is systematically complied with.
Bestandsleistungen se od Bestellleistungen razlikujejo le po tem, da je ena od komponent nadomestila prilagojena, da se sistematično upošteva znesek 1,77 EUR/km.
It should be noted that it is common practice in bus transport contracts to fix the compensation on the basis of a price per kilometre driven and the total number of kilometres driven, in particular where the public authority responsible for the organisation of public transport bears the risk as regards ticket sales revenue.
Navesti je treba, da je določitev nadomestila na podlagi cene na kilometer, ki ga je treba prevoziti, in skupnega števila kilometrov, ki jih je treba prevoziti, ustaljena praksa, kar zadeva pogodbe za zagotavljanje avtobusnega prevoza, zlasti če tveganje za dohodke iz prodaje vozovnic prevzame javni organ, ki zagotavlja organizacijo javnega prevoza.
Having re-examined the content of the contracts on the basis of the additional explanations given by Austria, the Commission notes that, contrary to the findings of its preliminary analysis in points 64 to 71 of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the contract concluded between Postbus and Verkehrsverbund Tirol is a contract of this type.
Komisija je po ponovnem pregledu vsebine pogodb na podlagi dodatnih pojasnil Avstrije ugotovila – v nasprotju z ugotovitvami, ki jih je na podlagi predhodne analize dala v točkah od 64 do 71 odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave –, da je pogodba, ki sta jo sklenila Postbus in Verkehrsverbund Tirol, taka pogodba.
Fixing the compensation on the basis of a price per kilometre to be driven and the total number of kilometres to be driven meets the second Altmark criterion since the price per kilometre and the total number of kilometres to be driven are established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.
Z določitvijo nadomestila na podlagi cene na kilometer, ki ga je treba prevoziti, in skupnega števila kilometrov je izpolnjeno drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark, saj sta cena na kilometer in skupno število kilometrov, ki jih je treba prevoziti, določena vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
The second Altmark criterion is therefore met.
Drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark je torej izpolnjeno.
No overcompensation
Neobstoj prekomernih nadomestil
On the basis of paragraphs 96 to 102 of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission considers that the method which Verkehrsverbund Tirol has chosen to ensure that there is no overcompensation, namely the use of three different ways of comparing the price asked by the bus undertaking with the averages found in the sector concerned, can be accepted as proof that there is no overcompensation.
Iz točk 96 do 102 odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave izhaja, da je po mnenju Komisije način, ki ga je uporabil Verkehrsverbund Tirol, da bi izključil plačilo prekomernega nadomestila – tj. preverjanje cene, ki jo je zahtevalo avtobusno podjetje, na podlagi treh načinov primerjanja povprečnih vrednosti, ugotovljenih v zadevnem sektorju –, mogoče sprejeti kot dokaz za neobstoj prekomernih nadomestil.
In the present case, the Commission considers that since there was no public tender, and that a direct competitor of Postbus stated that Postbus received overcompensation, the competitor in question and all interested third parties should be given the opportunity to comment on the methods used by Austria to check costs before it can be decided with certainty whether or not Postbus is receiving overcompensation.
Vendar je Komisija v obravnavanem primeru kljub temu menila, da je treba zaradi dejstva, da ni bilo javnega razpisa, in ker je neposredni konkurent družbe Postbus trdil, da Postbus prejema prekomerno nadomestilo, v tem primeru navedenemu konkurentu in vsem tretjim zainteresiranim stranem dati možnost, da se izrečejo o načinih, na katere Avstrija preverja stroške, preden lahko z gotovostjo presodi, da družba Postbus ne prejema prekomernega nadomestila.
It should firstly be noted that the Commission has been informed by the complainant that the latter is no longer interested in the present case.
Najprej je treba navesti, da je pritožnik obvestil Komisijo, da ni več zainteresiran za nadaljevanje zadevne pritožbe.
Secondly, no third party has challenged the finding that there is no overcompensation.
Navesti je treba tudi, da neobstoja prekomernega nadomestila ni izpodbijala nobena tretja stran.
The Commission furthermore considers that Austria has provided additional information which shows that the price paid by Verkehrsverbund Tirol to Postbus is fair and adequate given the average costs observed in the sector of the industry in question and the experience of public authorities.
Komisija poleg tega meni, da je Avstrija predložila dodatna pojasnila, ki dokazujejo, da je cena, ki jo je Verkehrsverbund Tirol plačal podjetju Postbus, sprejemljiva in primerna glede na povprečne stroške, ki so bili ugotovljeni v zadevnem industrijskem sektorju, in glede na izkušnje javne uprave.
Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 above summarise the methods of calculation used and the resulting comparisons and conclusions.
V oddelkih 3.3.1 do 3.3.3 so povzeti načini, uporabljeni pri izračunih, ter primerjave in sklepi, ki iz tega izhajajo.
More generally, a method such as that in the case in question which systematically compares the compensation with the costs in the sector a posteriori and in three different ways ensures that there is no overcompensation.
Ali splošneje, z metodo, kakršna je bila uporabljena v obravnavanem primeru, s katero se nadomestila sistematično, naknadno in na tri načine primerjajo s stroški v zadevnem sektorju, je mogoče preprečiti izplačevanje prekomernega nadomestila.
If such a comparison were to lead to the finding that there is overcompensation, Austria would have to demand its recovery.
Če bi bil na podlagi take primerjave ugotovljen obstoj prekomernega nadomestila, bi morala Avstrija zahtevati vračilo.
On this basis, it can be concluded that Postbus is not receiving overcompensation for the performance of the public service contract which is the subject of this decision and that the third Altmark criterion is therefore met.
Iz tega izhaja, da družba Postbus za izvajanje pogodbe o javni službi, na katero se nanaša ta odločba, ne prejema prekomernega nadomestila in je zato tretje merilo iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjeno.
Price corresponding to the cost in an average undertaking that is well-managed and adequately furnished with means of transport
Cena, ki se ujema s stroški povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja, ki ima zagotovljena ustrezna prevozna sredstva
It still has to be checked whether the price paid by Verkehrsverbund Tirol to Postbus corresponds to the cost in an average undertaking that is well-managed and is adequately furnished with means of transport.
Treba je še preveriti, ali se cena, ki jo Verkehrsverbund Tirol plačuje družbi Postbus, ujema s stroški povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja, ki ima zagotovljena ustrezna prevozna sredstva.
To check whether this criterion is met, the three components in question should be analysed separately.
Da bi preverili, ali je to merilo izpolnjeno, je treba ločeno analizirati njegove tri komponente.
Costs in an average undertaking
Stroški povprečnega podjetja
In this regard, it should firstly be noted that Austria has based its checks on standard parameters, the averages found in the sector of the industry in question.
Glede tega je treba najprej navesti, da je Avstrija pri kontrolnih izračunih kot izhodišče uporabila standardne parametre, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so povprečne vrednosti za zadevni industrijski sektor.
They can therefore be regarded as reflecting the average in the sector in question.
Te parametre je torej mogoče obravnavati kot povprečje zadevnega sektorja.
Consequently, the costs in Postbus correspond to the costs in an average Austrian undertaking.
Zato se stroški družbe Postbus ujemajo s stroški povprečne avstrijske družbe.
Costs in a well-managed undertaking
Stroški dobro vodenega podjetja
The next question is whether the costs in Postbus also correspond to the costs in a well-managed undertaking.
Nato se postavlja vprašanje, ali se stroški družbe Postbus ujemajo tudi s stroški dobro vodenega podjetja.
In the bus transport sector, which has been dominated by monopolies and in which contracts have been awarded without tenders for a long time, an undertaking operating in the market is not necessarily a well-managed undertaking.
V sektorju avtobusnega prevoza, v katerem so dolgo prevladovali monopoli in so se naročila dodeljevala brez javnih razpisov, ni nujno, da je vsako podjetje, ki deluje na trgu, tudi dobro vodeno podjetje.
In this regard, it should firstly be noted that Austria has not explained how these parameters also represent the average in a well-managed undertaking.
Glede tega je treba navesti, da Avstrija ni predložila pojasnila, iz katerega bi izhajalo, da ti parametri odsevajo tudi povprečje dobro vodenega podjetja.
By way of example, the Commission considers that Austria could have taken as a basis the average costs in undertakings which have won a significant number of tenders in the sector in the last few years.
Komisija meni, da bi se Avstrija lahko na primer sklicevala na povprečne stroške podjetij, ki so bila v zadnjih letih izbrana na več razpisih v obravnavanem sektorju.
It should also be noted that there is a difference of EUR 0,80 per km between the price for the Bestellleistungen and the price for the Bestandsleistungen.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da se ceni za Bestellleistungen in za Bestandsleistungen razlikujeta za 0,80 EUR/km.
This seems to imply that Postbus has a certain margin for improving its efficiency as regards the Bestellleistungen.
Zdi se, da to pomeni, da ima družba Postbus na voljo določen manevrski prostor, znotraj katerega lahko izboljša učinkovitost, kar zadeva Bestellleistungen.
It must be concluded that Austria has not demonstrated that the price paid by Verkehrsverbund Tirol to Postbus corresponds to the cost in a well-managed undertaking.
Na podlagi tega je mogoče ugotoviti, da Avstrija ni dokazala, da se cena, ki jo Verkehrsverbund Tirol plačuje družbi Postbus, ujema s stroški dobro vodenega podjetja.
The fourth Altmark criterion is therefore not met.
Četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark torej ni izpolnjeno.
Conclusion as regards compliance with the Altmark criteria
Sklep glede upoštevanja meril iz sodbe Altmark
As the four criteria are cumulative, the fact that one of the four criteria has not been met leads the Commission automatically to conclude that the payments in question should be regarded as granting a selective economic advantage to the undertaking Postbus.
Ker so zadevna štiri merila kumulativna, mora Komisija na podlagi dejstva, da eno od njih ni izpolnjeno, samodejno skleniti, da je treba zadevna plačila obravnavati, kot da podjetju Postbus podeljujejo selektivno gospodarsko prednost.
Distortion of competition and effects on trade
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vplivi na trgovino
The undertaking Postbus operates in the bus transport market throughout Austria and has a large share of the market.
Podjetje Postbus deluje na celotnem avstrijskem trgu avtobusnega prevoza in ima velik tržni delež.
Giving an economic advantage to this undertaking could therefore distort competition.
Podelitev ekonomske prednosti temu podjetju lahko torej povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence.
In the case in hand, competition could in particular be distorted by the fact that the public funding is granted to the undertaking which holds the bus transport licence in the district in question.
V obravnavanem primeru lahko izkrivljanje konkurence izhaja zlasti iz dejstva, da je javno financiranje dodeljeno podjetju, ki ima licenco za avtobusni prevoz v zadevnem okrožju.
Public financing might therefore prevent other firms from securing licences for operating public transport routes, since it strengthens the position of the recipient undertakings and allows them to offer more attractive business terms when they come to renew their licences.
S tem javnim financiranjem bi lahko torej drugim podjetjem preprečili, da bi pridobila licence za upravljanje prog javnega prevoza, saj se s tem okrepi položaj podjetij, ki so prejemniki plačila, in jim je tako omogočeno, da ob obnovitvi licenc ponudijo privlačnejše poslovne pogoje.
With regard to the potential of the measure in question to affect trade between the Member States, it should firstly be noted that the local and regional public transport market is open to competition in Austria and other Member States in that there is no national monopoly for one or more companies in this market.
Kar zadeva možnost, da bi obravnavani ukrep vplival na trgovino med državami članicami, je treba najprej navesti, da je lokalni ali regionalni trg javnega prevoza odprt za konkurenco v Avstriji in drugih državah članicah, kar pomeni, da na tem trgu eno ali več podjetij nima državnega monopola.
In this context, attention is drawn to paragraphs 77 et seq. of the judgment in Altmark Trans, in which the Court ruled that:
V tem okviru je treba opozoriti na točko 77 in naslednje iz sodbe Altmark Trans, v katerih je Sodišče odločilo:
‘… it is not impossible that a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States.
„[…] Obstaja možnost, da javna subvencija, ki se dodeli podjetju, ki zagotavlja le lokalne in regionalne prevozne storitve, pri čemer ne zagotavlja prevoznih storitev zunaj države izvora, lahko vseeno vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Where a Member State grants a public subsidy to an undertaking, the supply of transport services by that undertaking may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of providing their transport services in the market in that Member State (see, to that effect, Case 102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR 4067, paragraph 19;’ Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 26; and Spain v Commission, as referred to above, paragraph 40).
Kadar država članica dodeli javno subvencijo podjetju, lahko obseg zagotavljanja prevoznih storitev tega podjetja iz tega razloga ostane enak ali se poveča, zaradi česar imajo podjetja, ki so ustanovljena v drugih državah članicah, manj možnosti za zagotavljanje svojih prevoznih storitev na trgu te države članice (glede tega glej sodbi z dne 13. julija 1988 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji, 102/87, Recueil, str. 4067, točka 19, in z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-305/89, Recueil, str. I-1603, točka 26, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji, točka 40).
The second condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, does not therefore depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.’
Drugi pogoj za uporabo člena 92(1) Pogodbe, tj. da lahko pomoč vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, zato ni odvisen od lokalnega ali regionalnega značaja prevoznih storitev ali od obsega zadevnega področja dejavnosti.“
It therefore cannot be ruled out that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of providing their transport services in the Austrian market as a result of the measure in question.
Torej ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da so se zaradi obravnavanega ukrepa zmanjšale možnosti podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, kar zadeva zagotavljanje prevoznih storitev na avstrijskem trgu.
Consequently, the public funding granted by Verkehrsverbund Tirol to Postbus could distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Torej bi lahko javno financiranje, ki ga je Verkehrsverbund Tirol zagotovil družbi Postbus, povzročilo izkrivljanje konkurence in vplivalo na trgovino med državami članicami.
As the fourth Altmark criterion is not met but all the other conditions of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are met, the payments in question constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ker ni izpolnjeno četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark in so hkrati izpolnjeni drugi pogoji iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, Komisija meni, da so obravnavana plačila državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether this aid can be considered compatible with the common market.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali je mogoče zadevne pomoči razglasiti za združljive s skupnim trgom.