natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, they were granted through State resources.
Zato so bila dodeljena iz državnih sredstev.
It must be established whether the measure grants a selective economic advantage.
Ugotoviti je treba, ali ukrep omogoča selektivno gospodarsko prednost.
It follows from the Altmark judgment that ‘where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 92(1) of the Treaty.
Iz sodbe Altmark izhaja, da „če je treba državni ukrep šteti kot nadomestilo za storitev, ki jo upravičena podjetja opravijo z namenom izpolnitve obveznosti javne službe, tako da ta podjetja dejansko ne pridobijo finančne koristi in da zaradi tega ukrepa tako ne pridobijo ugodnejšega konkurenčnega položaja glede na konkurenčna podjetja, tak ukrep ni zajet s členom 92(1) Pogodbe.
However, for such compensation to escape classification as State aid in a particular case, a number of conditions must be satisfied’ [10].
V konkretnem primeru pa se tako nadomestilo ne opredeli kot državna pomoč le, če je izpolnjenih več pogojev“ [10].
Firstly, according to the abovementioned judgment, it has to be established whether ‘the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge public service obligations and (whether) those obligations have been clearly defined’.
Prvič, v skladu z navedeno sodbo je treba ugotoviti, ali „se od upravičenega podjetja dejansko zahteva izvajanje obveznosti javne službe in (ali) so te obveznosti jasno opredeljene“.
The Commission did not raise doubts as regards the fulfilment of this condition in its decision to initiate the procedure.
Komisija ni izrazila dvomov v zvezi z izpolnjevanjem tega pogoja v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
With regard to this requirement, the Commission notes that the Road Transport Law provides a definition of the public service obligation and stipulates that the public service obligation in the public line transport arises on the basis of the written contract made between the authorities and the carrier.
V zvezi s to zahtevo Komisija ugotavlja, da Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu vključuje opredelitev obveznosti javne službe in določa, da je obveznost javne službe v javnem prevozu določena na podlagi pisne pogodbe med organi in prevoznikom.
The Czech authorities provided the Commission with the copies of the contracts and subsequent annexes concluded with transport operators.
Češki organi so Komisiji predložili izvode pogodb in poznejših prilog, sklenjenih s prevozniki.
The Commission also noted that the public service obligation was clearly and specifically defined in the contracts, namely the links and the periods in which transport services were to be provided were clearly defined for particular operators.
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da je bila obveznost javne službe jasno in izrecno opredeljena v pogodbah, tj. povezave in obdobja, v katerih se zagotovijo prevozne storitve, so bili za posamezne izvajalce jasno navedeni.
Secondly, it must be shown that ‘the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner’.
Drugič, dokazati je treba, da „so bili parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, predhodno objektivno in pregledno določeni“.
The Commission noted that the maximum price for transport services was established by the authorities on the basis of the criteria indicated in Paragraph 19b of the Road Transport Law and of Regulation at the level of CZK 26 per km.
Komisija je ugotovila, da so organi najvišjo ceno prevoznih storitev določili na podlagi meril iz odstavka 19b Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu in na podlagi Uredbe, tj. 26 CZK na kilometer.
Therefore, the price was established in advance, i.e. before the selection of the operators took place, in an objective and transparent manner.
Zato je bila cena predhodno objektivno in pregledno določena, tj. pred izbiro izvajalcev.
The parameter was not modified in annexes agreed upon after accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union.
Parameter se ni spremenil v prilogah, glede katerih je bil sklenjen dogovor po pristopu Češke republike k Evropski uniji.
The third condition enumerated in the Altmark judgment is that ‘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’.
Tretji pogoj iz sodbe Altmark določa, da „znesek nadomestila ne sme presegati zneska, potrebnega za pokrivanje vseh ali nekaterih stroškov, ki nastanejo zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in zmernega dobička za izpolnitev navedenih obveznosti“.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission noted that the regional authorities expressed in the invitation to submit offers that the price of maximum CZK 26 per km was the price that they were willing to pay to the carriers for providing transport services.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija ugotovila, da so regionalni organi v razpisu za zbiranje ponudb navedli, da je najvišja cena 26 CZK na kilometer cena, ki so jo pripravljeni plačati prevoznikom za zagotavljanje prevoznih storitev.
Additionally, it also noted that all the contracts contain an estimation of the losses which the particular bus operator will incur when providing transport services as foreseen in the contract.
Poleg tega je ugotovila, da vse pogodbe vključujejo oceno izgub, ki jih bo imel posamezni avtobusni prevoznik pri zagotavljanju prevoznih storitev, kot je predvideno v pogodbi.
The estimation of losses is carried out in the following manner: first, the losses are calculated for the scenario that the company receives CZK 26 per km plus the revenues from passenger tickets.
Ocena izgub je določena na naslednji način: Prvič, izgube se izračunajo za primer, da podjetje prejema 26 CZK na kilometer in prihodek od prodaje vozovnic potnikom.
Then, the losses are calculated taking into account only the revenues from passenger tickets.
Nato se izgube izračunajo ob upoštevanju izključno prihodkov od vozovnic.
The price of CZK 26 per km includes also a reasonable profit, calculated on the basis of objective parameters established in the Regulation with reference to the value of the assets of undertakings.
Cena 26 CZK na kilometer vključuje tudi zmeren dobiček, izračunan na podlagi objektivnih parametrov iz Uredbe ob upoštevanju vrednosti sredstev podjetij.
The final settlements and payments of compensation take place only once the particular bus operator has provided the documentary proof of the actual losses.
Končni obračuni in plačila se izvedejo šele, ko posamezni avtobusni prevoznik predloži dokazilo o dejanskih izgubah.
If the actual losses are lower than the forecast, then only the actual losses are compensated.
Če so dejanske izgube nižje od napovedanih, se nadomestijo le dejanske izgube.
If the actual losses are higher than the forecast, then the maximum level of compensation is the level of the preliminary estimation.
Če so dejanske izgube višje od napovedanih, je najvišja raven nadomestila enaka ravni predhodne ocene.
An increase of this cap is only possible if there are unforeseeable costs.
Povišanje te zgornje meje je mogoče le v primeru nepredvidljivih stroškov.
As regards this latter concept on which the Commission expressed doubts in its decision to initiate the procedure, it should be mentioned that the concept of unforeseeable costs is governed by the Road Transport Law.
V zvezi s slednjim pojmom, glede katerega je Komisija izrazila dvome v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, je treba omeniti, da pojem nepredvidljivih stroškov ureja Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu.
It is set out in greater detail in the public service contracts concluded by the Southern Moravia Region with the individual transport operators.
Natančneje je opredeljen v pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe, ki jih je regija Južna Moravska sklenila s posameznimi prevozniki.
Unforeseeable costs refer to situations which are independent from the companies’ management such as natural disasters, price interventions by the State, diversions or changes in excise duties, VAT, etc. The operators must prove the reality of these unforeseeable costs.
Nepredvidljivi stroški se nanašajo na dogodke, ki niso odvisni od upravljanja družb, kot so naravne nesreče, državne intervencije glede cen, preusmeritve ali spremembe trošarin, DDV itd. Izvajalci morajo dokazati dejanski obstoj teh nepredvidljivih stroškov.
The existence of this exception to the maximum transport price does not compromise the ability of the compensation mechanism to make sure that the compensation does not exceed the actual losses [11].
Obstoj te izjeme od najvišje cene prevoza ne ogroža zmožnosti mehanizma nadomestil za zagotovitev, da nadomestilo ne preseže dejanskih izgub [11].
Therefore, as the calculation of the compensation was made on the basis of the parameter established in advance (CZK 26 per km) and as the final remuneration was based on evidence of the losses, and therefore the costs, actually incurred, including unforeseeable costs, the Commission considers that the amount of compensation could not exceed the actual losses, and therefore the actual costs.
Ker je bil izračun nadomestila izveden na podlagi vnaprej določenega parametra (26 CZK na kilometer) in ker je končno plačilo temeljilo na dokazih o izgubah in s tem stroških, ki so dejansko nastali, vključno z nepredvidljivimi stroški, Komisija meni, da znesek nadomestila ni mogel presegati dejanskih izgub in s tem dejanskih stroškov.
Furthermore, the Commission considers the profit of CZK 2041 per km included in the sum of CZK 26 per km as reasonable as it does represent a margin of 7,85 %.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da je dobiček 2041 CZK na kilometer, vključen v znesek 26 CKZ na kilometer, sprejemljiv, saj predstavlja 7,85-odstotno odstopanje.
As a result, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the third condition of Altmark is fulfilled.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da je tretji pogoj iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjen.
Lastly, the Altmark judgment foresees that if ‘the undertaking, which is to discharge public service obligations, is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been 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 obligation’.
Sodba Altmark tudi določa, da če „podjetje, ki naj bi izvajalo obveznosti javne službe, ni bilo izbrano v postopku oddaje javnega naročila, je treba raven nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo tipično podjetje, ki je dobro vodeno in primerno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi za izpolnitev zahtevanih pogojev javne službe, pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti, ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in zmernega dobička za izpolnitev te obveznosti“.
The Commission must first of all examine whether the procedure applied by the Czech authorities could be considered a public procurement procedure.
Komisija mora najprej raziskati, ali postopek, ki so ga uporabili češki organi, lahko velja za postopek oddaje javnega naročila.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission noted that the Southern Moravia Region distributed to the known carriers (41 of them) in the region an invitation to submit tenders for the provision of transport services in Znojmo district.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija ugotovila, da je regija Južna Moravska znanim prevoznikom (skupaj 41) v regiji poslala razpis za zbiranje ponudb za izvajanje prevoznih storitev v okrožju Znojmo.
Therefore, the procedure excluded the possibility that operators from other regions or districts were informed about the procedure and had a possibility to submit their tenders.
Zato je postopek izključil možnost, da bi bili o postopku obveščeni izvajalci iz drugih regij ali okrožij, pri čemer bi lahko predložili svoje ponudbe.
Furthermore, this procedure ran counter to the possibility that carriers from other Member States could be taken into account in choosing the operator providing the services.
Še več, ta postopek ni dopuščal možnosti, da bi se pri izbiri izvajalca, ki bo izvajal storitve, lahko upoštevali prevozniki iz drugih držav članic.
The Commission noted also that the Czech authorities did not envisage any procedure for choosing the carriers for years 2004-2005 but simply prolonged contracts with these carriers which had been chosen for providing services in 2003.
Komisija je prav tako ugotovila, da češki organi niso predvideli postopka za izbiro prevoznikov med letoma 2004–2005, ampak so preprosto podaljšali pogodbe s prevozniki, ki so bili za izvajanje storitev izbrani leta 2003.
These facts remain valid.
Ta dejstva veljajo še naprej.
The Commission can therefore conclude that the procedure applied by the Czech authorities cannot be considered a public procurement procedure as required by the Altmark judgment.
Komisija zato lahko zaključi, da postopka, ki so ga uporabili češki organi, ni mogoče šteti za postopek oddaje javnega naročila, kot zahteva sodba Altmark.
This conclusion does not prejudice the position the Commission might take on the compatibility of the relevant measures with public procurement rules.
Ta sklep ne vpliva na stališče, ki ga bo morda sprejela Komisija glede združljivosti zadevnih ukrepov s predpisi v zvezi z javnimi naročili.
Consequently, the Commission has to examine the second alternative stipulated in the fourth Altmark condition.
Zato mora Komisija pregledati drugo možnost, ki jo določa četrti pogoj iz sodbe Altmark.
The level of compensation must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical, well-run and adequately equipped undertaking, which should be an alternative to the analysis of the level of compensation established through the tender.
Raven nadomestila je treba določiti na podlagi analize stroškov tipičnega, dobro vodenega in primerno opremljenega podjetja, ki lahko nadomesti analizo ravni nadomestila, določene na podlagi razpisa.
As mentioned in the decision to initiate the procedure, according to the Czech authorities, the contractual price for the services was established on the basis of statistical costs which meant that a well-managed and well-equipped company bearing costs of CZK 23959 (EUR 0,87) per km would receive a profit of CZK 2041 (EUR 0,08) per km.
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, je bila po trditvah čeških organov pogodbena cena storitev določena na podlagi statističnih stroškov, kar je pomenilo, da bi dobro vodena in dobro opremljena družba s stroški 23959 CZK (0,87 EUR) na kilometer imela dobiček v višini 2041 CZK (0,08 EUR) na kilometer.
In this context, the Commission noted firstly that the use of statistical data aims at ensuring that the price was established with reference to the costs of a typical undertaking.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da se, prvič, z uporabo statističnih podatkov skuša zagotoviti, da je bila cena določena ob upoštevanju stroškov tipičnega podjetja.
Secondly, taking into account that all the operators taking part in the procedure had to obtain licences to conduct their activity and that they must have fulfilled certain requirements imposed on them in the invitation to submit offers, they must have been adequately provided with means of transport to meet the necessary quality requirements.
Drugič, ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so morali vsi izvajalci, ki so sodelovali v postopku, pridobiti licenco za izvajanje svoje dejavnosti in izpolniti nekatere zahteve, ki so bile določene v razpisu za zbiranje ponudb, so morali biti zadostno opremljeni s prevoznimi sredstvi za izpolnjevanje potrebnih zahtev glede kakovosti.
However, as mentioned in the decision to initiate the procedure, the use of the statistical transport cost cannot per se lead to a conclusion that the operators who accepted to provide the services for CZK 26 per km should be considered well-managed carriers.
Vendar, kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, na podlagi uporabe statističnih prevoznih stroškov kot take ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali so izvajalci, ki so se strinjali z opravljanjem storitev za 26 CZK na kilometer, dobro vodeni prevozniki.
The Czech authorities have not provided sufficient information on this point, including after the decision to initiate the procedure.
Češki organi v zvezi s tem niso predložili zadostnih informacij niti po odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
Hence, as not all of the requirements from the second alternative of the fourth Altmark condition are fulfilled, the Commission cannot conclude that the procedure applied by the regional authorities can be considered a procedure ensuring that the level of compensation was equal to the level to be obtained in the open public tender.
Ker niso izpolnjene vse zahteve iz druge možnosti četrtega pogoja iz sodbe Altmark, Komisija ne more zaključiti, ali se lahko postopek, ki so ga uporabili regionalni organi, obravnava kot postopek, ki zagotavlja, da je raven nadomestila enaka ravni, ki naj bi se dosegla na javnem razpisu.
In other words, the Commission cannot exclude that in the open public tender the regional authorities could have been able to find operators representing lower costs and consequently offering to provide the services demanding lower remuneration.
To pomeni, da Komisija ne more izključiti, da bi lahko regionalni organi prek javnega razpisa našli izvajalce, ki bi imeli nižje stroške in bi zato ponujali storitve, za katere je potrebno nižje plačilo.
Further, the Commission cannot conclude that the amount of compensation was established at the level which guarantees that no advantage was conferred to certain operators.
Poleg tega Komisija ne more zaključiti, ali je stopnja nadomestila določena na ravni, ki zagotavlja, da posamezni izvajalci niso imeli prednosti.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the compensation has granted an advantage to certain operators of public transport.
Komisija zato meni, da so imeli zaradi nadomestila posamezni izvajalci javnega prevoza prednost.
Consequently, the second condition for the application of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty is fulfilled in the case.
Posledično je v tem primeru izpolnjen drugi pogoj za uporabo člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
With regard to this condition, it needs to be verified whether the advantage granted from the State resources can distort competition to the extent that it affects trade between Member States.
V zvezi s tem pogojem je treba preveriti, ali lahko prednost zaradi podeljenih državnih sredstev izkrivlja konkurenco v takšnem obsegu, da bi vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission noted in this respect that the Altmark judgment provides that: ‘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.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotovila, da sodba Altmark določa: „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, 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 (v ta namen glej zadevo C-102/87, Francija proti Komisiji [1988] PSES 4067, odstavek 19; zadevo C-305/89, Italija proti Komisiji [1991] PSES I-1603, odstavek 26; in Španija proti Komisiji, odstavek 40).
In the present case, that finding is not merely hypothetical, since, as appears in particular from the observations of the Commission, several Member States have since 1995 started to open certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so that a number of undertakings are already offering their urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their State of origin.
V tem primeru ta ugotovitev ni zgolj hipotetična, saj je, kot zlasti ugotavlja Komisija, več držav članic leta 1995 začelo odpirati posamezne prevozne trge konkurenčnim podjetjem, ustanovljenim v drugih državah članicah, tako da številna podjetja ponujajo svoje storitve mestnega, primestnega ali regionalnega prevoza v državah članicah, iz katerih ne izvirajo.
Finally, according to the Court’s case-law, there is no threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected.
Končno, v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti ne obstaja prag ali odstotek, do katerega bi se lahko štelo, da trgovina med državami članicami ni prizadeta.
The relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected (see Tubemeuse, paragraph 43, and Spain v Commission, paragraph 42).
Razmeroma nizek znesek pomoči ali razmeroma majhno podjetje, ki jo prejema, sama po sebi ne izključujeta možnosti, da bi bila trgovina med državami članicami lahko prizadeta (glej Tubemeuse, odstavek 43, in Španija proti Komisiji, odstavek 42).
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’ [12].
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“ [12].
Thus, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the condition that the aid must distort competition and affect trade between Member States is fulfilled in the case at hand.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je v zadevnem primeru pogoj, da mora pomoč izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami, izpolnjen.
Taking into account the abovementioned considerations, the Commission concludes also that the measures put into effect constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da ukrepi, ki se izvajajo, predstavljajo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Article 73 of the EC Treaty envisages conditions of compatibility of aid granted in the field of coordination of transport and public service obligation in transport.
Člen 73 Pogodbe ES določa pogoje združljivosti dodeljene pomoči na področju usklajevanja prometa in obveznosti javne službe v prometu.
That Article constitutes a lex specialis with relation to Article 86(2), and Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty.
Ta člen je lex specialis glede na člen 86(2) ter člen 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ES.