natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
More precisely, the Court indicates that the choice of the reference framework follows a two-step approach: firstly, the determination of the system of charges which is the object of the measure under assessment and, secondly, determination of the general scheme applicable to the system of charges in question.
Sodišče natančneje navaja, da se referenčni sistem izbere po dvostopenjskem pristopu: prvič, opredeli se sistem stroškov, ki ga zadeva obravnavani ukrep, in, drugič, opredeli se splošni sistem, ki se uporablja za zadevni sistem stroškov.
On the assumption that an appropriate external comparison can be identified, by reference to which the existence of ‘abnormal’ charges could be defined, the measure under assessment would not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Če je mogoče določiti zunanji primerjalni okvir, v primerjavi s katerim je mogoče opredeliti obstoj „neobičajnih“ stroškov, zadevni ukrep ni državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
If this is not the case, the measure under assessment would constitute State aid within the meaning of that provision.
V nasprotnem primeru je zadevni ukrep državna pomoč v smislu te določbe.
Absence of an external comparison in the present case
Neobstoj zunanjega primerjalnega okvira v obravnavanem primeru
Applying this methodology to the case in question, the Commission considers that the system of charges concerned by the measure under assessment comprises social contributions paid by an employer into a mandatory pension scheme for employees.
Komisija, ki je v tej zadevi uporabila to metodologijo, meni, da sistem stroškov, ki je predmet zadevnega ukrepa, sestavljajo prispevki za socialno varnost, ki jih nosi delodajalec v okviru obveznega starostnega zavarovanja svojih zaposlenih.
From a theoretical standpoint the Commission distinguishes between two potential reference frameworks:
Komisija na teoretični ravni razlikuje med dvema možnima referenčnima okviroma:
provisions relating to mandatory old-age pensions insurance applicable to statutory pension schemes, i.e. the social security scheme managed by CNAV and the complementary schemes managed by AGIRC and ARRCO,
določbe na področju obveznega starostnega zavarovanja, ki veljajo za pokojninske sisteme splošnega prava, to je sistem socialne varnosti, ki jo upravlja CNAV, in dopolnilni sistemi, ki jih upravljata AGIRC in ARRCO,
provisions relating to mandatory old-age pensions applicable to other public enterprises.
določbe na področju obveznega starostnega zavarovanja, ki veljajo za druge javne ustanove.
With reference to the first potential basis for comparison, namely statutory pension schemes, the Commission notes that, since 1 January 2006, RATP has been paying a social contribution, the level of which is identical to the social contribution paid by companies affiliated to the pension funds responsible for statutory schemes.
Komisija v zvezi s prvim primerjalnim okvirom, to je pokojninskimi sistemi splošnega prava, ugotavlja, da RATP od 1. januarja 2006 plačuje prispevek za socialno varnost, ki je enak prispevkom, ki jih podjetja plačujejo v pokojninske sklade, ki upravljajo sisteme splošnega prava.
The Commission observes however that, at 1 January 2006, the benefits paid to RATP beneficiaries by the special scheme managed by the CRP-RATP are in excess of the benefits paid to employees affiliated to statutory schemes.
Komisija vseeno ugotavlja, da so 1. januarja 2006 dajatve, ki so bile upravičencem RATP izplačane iz posebnega sistema, ki ga upravlja CRP-RATP, višje od dajatev, ki jih prejemajo zaposleni, ki so vključeni v sisteme splošnega prava.
Moreover, the Commission finds that the members of the statutory schemes are employees under private law contracts whereas the conditions of RATP employees are governed by service regulations.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da so zavarovanci sistemov splošnega prava zaposleni po pogodbi zasebnega prava, medtem ko za zaposlene v RATP veljajo kadrovski predpisi.
In this respect, it should be noted that the status of RATP staff diverges from statutory law in several respects (see footnote 6).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da kadrovski predpisi RATP z več vidikov odstopajo od splošnega prava (glej opombo 6 v tej odločbi).
In the light of the considerations set out above and its practice in previous decisions [34], the Commission considers that the provisions applicable to statutory schemes for mandatory old-age pensions cannot provide a basis for comparison in the analysis conducted by the Commission to determine the existence of an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija ob upoštevanju zgornjih premislekov in svoje prakse odločanja [34] meni, da se določb, ki veljajo za sisteme splošnega prava na področju obveznega starostnega zavarovanja, ne more uporabljati kot primerjalni okvir v analizi, ki jo opravlja za ugotovitev obstoja gospodarske prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
With regard to the second possible basis for comparison, namely public enterprises, the Commission has not been able to identify a set of economic operators constituting a homogenous group which could provide a basis for comparison.
Kar zadeva drugi mogoči primerjalni okvir, in sicer javne ustanove, Komisija ni mogla opredeliti vseh gospodarskih subjektov, ki sestavljajo enotno skupino, ki bi jo lahko uporabila kot primerjalni okvir.
The situation of RATP in France is therefore very particular from the legal and factual point of view in more that one respect [35].
RATP ima namreč v Franciji z več kot samo enega vidika zelo poseben pravni in dejanski položaj [35].
In conclusion, the Commission considers that there is no external basis for comparison which could be used to define a ‘normal’ contribution supported by undertakings in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of RATP in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.
Skratka, Komisija meni, da ni nobenega zunanjega primerjalnega okvira, ki bi omogočil opredelitev „običajnega“ prispevka, ki ga plačujejo podjetja v pravnem in dejanskem položaju, ki je primerljiv s položajem RATP glede na cilj, ki se poskuša doseči z zadevnim ukrepom.
The Enirisorse [36] case, cited by France, does not change the Commission's conclusions as to the existence of an advantage in favour of RATP.
Sodba Enirisorse [36], ki jo navaja Francija, ne spreminja sklepnih ugotovitev Komisije o obstoju prednosti za RATP.
In this case the Court based its conclusion on a comparison of the contested measure with a ‘normal situation’ which the Court had been able to define; a similar comparable situation does not exist in the present case.
Sodišče se namreč pri končni odločitvi v tej sodbi opira na primerjavo spornega ukrepa z „običajnim položajem“, ki ga je Sodišče lahko opredelilo, vendar ta v tej zadevi ne obstaja na podoben način.
In the absence of an appropriate external comparison, the Commission considers that, in order to determine the existence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the reference framework for assessing the existence of the advantage is the situation of RATP itself prior to the implementation of the measure.
Ker ni ustreznega zunanjega primerjalnega okvira, Komisija meni, da je za ugotovitev obstoja prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe referenčni okvir za presojo obstoja prednosti položaj RATP pred odobritvijo ukrepa.
As indicated above, under the system in place before 1 January 2006, RATP was legally liable for the pension commitments under the special scheme.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so RATP v sistemu, ki je veljal pred 1. januarjem 2006, pravno zavezovale pokojninske obveznosti posebnega sistema.
In this capacity, RATP was the guarantor of the financial equilibrium of the scheme in question, the ‘employer’ contribution paid by RATP to the special scheme did not constitute full discharge of its obligations.
Zato je RATP zagotavljal finančno ravnovesje zadevnega sistema, ker prispevek delodajalca, ki ga je RATP plačeval v posebni sistem, ni bil odvezujoč.
The Commission has observed that the main effect of the provisions foreseen by the reform notified is to transform the ‘employer’ contribution paid by RATP for the pensions of its staff into a contribution discharging it from its obligations.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je glavni učinek določb, predvidenih s priglašeno reformo, da bo prispevek delodajalca, ki ga RATP plačuje za pokojnine svojih uslužbencev, postal odvezujoč.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures under assessment relieve RATP of charges it would otherwise have had to bear under the provisions of the aforementioned 1948 law.
Komisija zato sklepa, da zadevni ukrepi RATP razbremenjujejo stroškov, ki bi jih moral nositi na podlagi zgoraj navedenega zakona iz leta 1948.
In the context of an analysis of the normal or abnormal nature of the retirement pension charges for RATP itself, the Commission considers that the obligations a company itself bears under employment legislation or collective agreements with trade unions to provide redundancy benefits and/or early retirement pensions are part of the normal costs of a business which a firm has to meet from its own resources [37].
Pri analizi, ali so stroški za pokojnine za RATP običajni ali ne, Komisija meni, da so obveznosti, ki jih mora podjetje prevzeti na podlagi delovne zakonodaje ali kolektivnih pogodb, sklenjenih s sindikati, o nadomestilih za odpoved in/ali predčasno upokojitev, del običajnih stroškov, ki jih mora podjetje financirati iz lastnih sredstev [37].
By extension, the Commission considers that the charges incumbent on RATP under the 1948 law are normal charges.
Komisija po analogiji meni, da so stroški, ki jih mora RATP plačevati na podlagi zakona iz leta 1948, običajni stroški.
Consequently, since the measure under assessment enables RATP to avoid having to bear costs which would normally have had to be met out of the undertaking's own financial resources, the Commission considers that this measure confers an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ker zadevni ukrep omogoča izogibanje plačilu stroškov, ki bi običajno morali bremeniti finančna sredstva RATP, Komisija meni, da ta ukrep daje gospodarskemu subjektu gospodarsko prednost v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
This advantage is selective since it concerns a single beneficiary only.
Ta prednost je selektivna, ker zadeva samo enega upravičenca.
The Commission has further observed that in the absence of the reform notified the obligation to ensure the financial equilibrium of the special regime which had been incumbent upon RATP would have given rise to the entering of a commitment in respect of the State on the RATP balance sheet, which would have been provisioned in the accounts on the adoption of the IFRS standards (International Financial Reporting Standards), which have been applicable at RATP since 30 June 2007.
Komisija je poleg tega ugotovila, da bi se obveznost finančnega ravnovesja posebnega sistema, ki je bila naložena RATP, če ne bi bilo priglašene reforme, kazala z vpisom obveznosti do države, ki bi bile oblikovane z rezervacijami v računih ob prehodu na standarde IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standard, mednarodni standardi računovodskega poročanja), ki se za RATP uporabljajo od 30. junija 2007.
This confirms that the creation of the CRP-RATP relieves RATP of charges that it would normally have had to bear.
Ta element potrjuje, da ustanovitev CRP-RATP razbremenjuje RATP stroškov, ki bi jih običajno moral nositi.
Inapplicability of the Combus ruling to the present case
Neuporaba sodne prakse Combus v obravnavani zadevi
The French authorities refer at length to the Combus [38] judgment, in which the Court of First Instance considered as ‘abnormal’ charges the charges resulting from a reform whereby the special status of the staff of an undertaking is transformed into a statutory status, therefore identical to that of its competitors in terms of the management of staff.
Francoski organi podrobno navajajo sodbo Combus [38], v kateri je Sodišče prve stopnje za „neobičajne“ stroške štelo stroške, ki nastanejo zaradi izjemnega statusa zaposlenih v podjetju, ki je po reformi v položaju splošnega prava, torej v enakem položaju kot njegovi konkurenti, kar zadeva vodenje zaposlenih.
The Court stated that: ‘the measure in question had been introduced to replace the privileged and costly status of the officials employed by Combus with the status of employees on a contract basis comparable to that of employees of other bus transport undertakings competing with Combus. The intention was thus to free Combus from a structural disadvantage it had in relation to its private-sector competitors. Article 87(1) EC is aimed merely at prohibiting advantages for certain undertakings and the concept of aid covers only measures which lighten the burdens normally assumed in an undertaking's budget and which are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions. […]. Moreover, 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.’
Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da je bil „namen zadevnega ukrepa […] nadomestiti privilegiran in drag status uslužbencev, zaposlenih v družbi Combus, s statusom pogodbenega uslužbenca, primerljivim s statusom zaposlenih v drugih podjetjih, ki opravljajo avtobusne prevoze in so konkurenti družbe Combus. Torej je bil namen razbremeniti družbo Combus strukturno slabšega položaja v primerjavi z njenimi zasebnimi konkurenti. Vendar je edini cilj člena 87(1) ES prepovedati prednosti, ki dajejo prednost posameznim podjetjem, saj pojem pomoči zajema samo ukrepe, ki zmanjšujejo stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja, in jih je treba šteti za gospodarsko prednost, ki je upravičeno podjetje ne bi pridobilo v normalnih tržnih razmerah. […] Poleg tega naj bi država Danska, namesto da bi 100 milijonov DKK izplačala neposredno uslužbencem, zaposlenim v družbi Combus, lahko dosegla isti rezultat, če bi te uslužbence prerazporedila znotraj javne uprave brez izplačila posebnega dodatka, kar bi družbi Combus omogočilo, da takoj zaposli pogodbene uslužbence, za katere velja status zasebnega prava.“
As a general principle it must be borne in mind that the Combus ruling has not been confirmed by the Court of Justice.
Na splošno je treba najprej opozoriti, da Sodišče ni potrdilo sodne prakse Combus.
Some of the Court's rulings contradict the theory that compensation for a structural disadvantage exempts a measure from being qualified as aid.
Nekateri deli sodne prakse Sodišča izpodbijajo trditev, da naj bi izravnava strukturno slabšega položaja izključevala opredelitev pomoči.
In this regard, the Court has constantly held that the existence of aid is to be assessed in relation to the effects and not in relation to the causes or objectives of State intervention [39].
Sodišče je tako stalno navajalo, da je treba obstoj pomoči presojati z vidika učinkov in ne razlogov za državne ukrepe ali njihovih ciljev [39].
The Court has also held that the concept of aid includes advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, reduce the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking [40].
Sodišče je še trdilo, da pojem pomoči zajema prednosti, ki so jih odobrili javni organi in ki v različnih oblikah zmanjšujejo stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja [40].
The Court has also clearly stated that the costs linked to remuneration of employees naturally place a burden on the budgets of undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those costs stem from legal obligations or collective agreements [41].
Sodišče je še jasno navedlo, da stroški, povezani s plačami zaposlenih, po definiciji bremenijo podjetja, ne glede na vprašanje, ali ti stroški izhajajo iz zakonskih obveznosti ali kolektivnih pogodb [41].
In this context, the Court has considered that the fact that State measures aim to compensate for additional costs cannot constitute grounds for disqualifying them from the definition of aid [42].
Sodišče je v tem okviru menilo, da državni ukrepi, zato ker je njihov namen izravnati dodatne stroške, ne morejo biti izvzeti iz opredelitve pomoči [42].
In this context, the French authorities cite the application of the principle laid down by the Court of First Instance in the Combus judgment, claiming that the reform notified simply relieves RATP of an ‘abnormal’ charge.
Francoski organi v tem okviru navajajo uporabo načela, ki ga je Sodišče prve stopnje določilo v sodbi Combus, in trdijo, da priglašena reforma RATP samo razbremenjuje „neobičajnih“ stroškov.
In this respect, the Commission emphasises that a number of important factual aspects distinguish the Combus case from the present case:
Komisija v zvezi s tem dodaja, da se zadeva Combus zaradi pomembnih vsebinskih elementov razlikuje od te zadeve:
the compensation payments are paid directly to the civil servants employed by Combus whereas the measure which is the object of the present decision concerns the ‘employer contributions’ of RATP,
nadomestila se nakazujejo neposredno uslužbencem družbe Combus, medtem ko se ukrep, ki je predmet te odločbe, nanaša na prispevke delodajalca, ki jih plačuje RATP,
the State measure in question in the Combus case had been introduced to replace the privileged and costly status of the officials employed by Combus with the status of employees on a contract basis comparable to that of employees of other bus transport undertakings competing with Combus.
namen ustreznega državnega ukrepa v zadevi Combus je bil nadomestiti privilegiran in drag status uslužbencev, zaposlenih v družbi Combus, s statusom pogodbenega uslužbenca, primerljivim s statusom zaposlenih v drugih podjetjih, ki opravljajo avtobusne prevoze in so konkurenti družbe Combus.
In contrast, the status and rights of RATP staff remain unchanged as a result of the measure under assessment.
Nasprotno pa status in pravice uslužbencev RATP po zadevnem ukrepu ostajajo nespremenjeni.
This status and these rights are different to those of staff employed under private law contracts by undertakings affiliated to statutory pension schemes,
Ta status in pravice so drugačni od statusa in pravic zaposlenih na podlagi pogodbe zasebnega prava pri podjetjih, vključenih v pokojninske sisteme splošnega prava,
the competitive context in which Combus was operating was different to that in which RATP operates.
konkurenčno okolje dejavnosti družbe Combus je bilo drugačno od okolja, v katerem deluje RATP.
The public limited company Combus A/S had to manage its transport services on a commercial basis and operate on the market under competitive conditions comparable to those of private bus companies.
Delniška družba Combus A/S je morala voditi prevozno dejavnost na tržni podlagi in poslovati na trgu v primerljivih konkurenčnih pogojih kot zasebna avtobusna podjetja.
In this context, following invitations to tender, the public transport management companies transferred responsibility for the provision of bus services to private and public companies.
V tem okviru javna podjetja za upravljanje prevoza na podlagi javnih razpisov predajajo opravljanje avtobusnega prevoza zasebnim in javnim podjetjem.
According to the regulations governing invitations to tender, contracts are awarded to ‘the most economically advantageous bid’, irrespective of whether or not the tenderer is a private or public undertaking.
Po pravilih, ki veljajo za javne razpise, se naročila oddajo „ekonomsko najugodnejšemu ponudniku“, pri čemer ni treba upoštevati, ali je ponudnik zasebni ali javni.
RATP, however, operates in a large non-liberalised sector which will only be opened up to competition very gradually by Regulation (EC) No 130/2007; the economic constraints at play in this sector are therefore very different.
RATP ima na voljo velik neliberaliziran sektor, ki se bo v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007 šele postopoma odprl za konkurenco in v katerem se ekonomska prisila zato izvaja drugače.
The Commission considers that the factual differences between the Combus case and the present case are sufficient to justify a different reasoning in each case.
Komisija meni, da so dejanske razlike med zadevo Combus in tem primerom zadostne, da upravičijo različen razmislek o obeh zadevah.
INVOLVEMENT OF STATE RESOURCES
PRISOTNOST DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
The Commission considers that the measure examined involves State resources in favour of RATP in that the ultimate responsibility for the financial equilibrium of the special pension scheme for RATP employees is no longer incumbent upon RATP, but on the State.
Komisija meni, da preučeni ukrep pomeni državna sredstva za RATP, ker končne odgovornosti za uravnovešenje posebnega pokojninskega sistema za uslužbence RATP ne nosi več RATP, ampak država.
With effect of the date of implementation of the reform, the State has ensured the financial equilibrium of the CRP-RATP by means of the payment of a balancing subsidy to the social security body which, in the absence of the reform, would have had to be assumed by RATP.
Država namreč od izvedbe reforme zagotavlja finančno ravnovesje CRP-RATP z nakazilom izravnalnih subvencij organu socialne varnosti, ki bi jih moral nakazovati RATP, če ne bi bilo reforme.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija zato sklepa, da zadevni ukrep pomeni državna sredstva v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND ADVERSE EFFECT ON TRADE
IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE IN VPLIV NA TRGOVINO
As indicated above, RATP, the beneficiary of the measure under assessment, is the parent company of a group of undertakings, the RATP group, which operate in the transport and associated services sectors.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je RATP, upravičenec zadevnega ukrepa, matična družba skupine podjetij, tj. skupine RATP, ki deluje v sektorjih prevoza in povezanih storitev.
It should be recalled that, in principle, aid which is intended to release an undertaking from costs which it would normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or normal activities distorts the conditions of competition [43].
V tem okviru je treba opozoriti, da pomoči, katerih cilj je odpravljati stroške, ki bi jih podjetje običajno moralo kriti pri tekočem upravljanju ali običajnih dejavnostih, načeloma izkrivljajo konkurenčne pogoje [43].
It has been ruled that any grant of aid to an undertaking exercising its activities in the Community market is liable to cause distortion of competition and affect trade between Member States [44].
Dejansko je bilo ugotovljeno, da lahko vsaka dodelitev pomoči podjetju, ki svoje dejavnosti izvaja na trgu Skupnosti, povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami [44].
Moreover, the Court of Justice considered 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 nonetheless have an effect on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Poleg tega je Sodišče navedlo, da nikakor ni izključeno, da javna subvencija, ki se dodeli podjetju, ki opravlja le lokalne in regionalne prevozne storitve, in ne prevoznih storitev zunaj države, kjer je ustanovljeno, lahko vseeno vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.