natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The classification of a national measure as State aid as provided for in Article 87(1) EC requires the following cumulative conditions to be fulfilled, namely: (1) the measure in question confers a selective economic advantage; (2) that advantage is financed via State resources; (3) that advantage distorts or threatens to distort competition and, finally, (4) that advantage has an effect on trade between Member States.
Da bi bil nacionalni ukrep opredeljen kot državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES, morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji štirje kumulativni pogoji, in sicer: (1) zadevni ukrep daje selektivno gospodarsko prednost; (2) ta prednost se financira iz državnih sredstev; (3) ta prednost izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in, nazadnje, (4) ta prednost prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission notes that SNCM received State resources totalling EUR 274,54 million via CGMF wholly owned by the French Government.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba SNCM prejela državna sredstva v skupnem znesku v višini 274,54 milijona EUR prek družbe CGMF, ki je v 100-odstotni lasti francoske države.
Since SNCM operates in the maritime transport sector, open to competition within Europe, the potential economic advantage that it has received is likely to distort competition and to have an effect on trade between Member States.
Ker družba SNCM deluje v sektorju pomorskega prevoza, ki je odprt konkurenci znotraj Evrope, lahko morebitna gospodarska prednost, ki jo je bila deležna, izkrivi konkurenco in prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The fact that the cabotage market to the Mediterranean islands was, until 1 January 1999, temporarily exempt from the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) does not exclude prima facie that subsidies granted for operating cabotage routes to the Mediterranean islands under a public service delegation could have an effect on trade between Member States and distort competition.
Dejstvo, da je bil trg kabotaže z otoki Sredozemlja do 1. januarja 1999 začasno izvzet iz uporabe Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 3577/92 7 decembra 1992 o uporabi načela prostega pretoka storitev v pomorskem prometu med državami članicami (pomorska kabotaža), ne pomeni, da se lahko a priori izključi, da so lahko subvencije, izplačane za opravljanje kabotažnih povezav z otoki Sredozemlja na podlagi PPJS, vplivale na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljale konkurenco.
In any event, even if subsidies granted for operating cabotage routes could not have an effect on trade between Member States or entail distortions in competition before 1 January 1999, the situation changed after that date since, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92, cabotage activities were from then on open to all Community operators.
Čeprav je mogoče, da subvencije, dodeljene za opravljanje kabotažnih povezav, niso vplivale na trgovino in niso vključevale izkrivljanja konkurence pred 1. januarjem 1999, se je položaj po tem datumu vsekakor spremenil, saj so v skladu z Uredbo št. 3577/92 dejavnosti kabotaže odslej na voljo vsem prevoznikom Skupnosti.
In addition, it should be stated that SNCM does not carry on only cabotage transport but also operates on the international maritime market, which was liberalised by Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da družba SNCM izvaja ne samo kabotažni prevoz, ampak deluje tudi na mednarodnem trgu pomorskega prevoza, ki je bil liberaliziran z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 4055/86 z dne 22. decembra 1986 o uporabi načela svobode opravljanja storitev v pomorskem prometu med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.
Accordingly, the Commission considers in the present case that the last three criteria of Article 87(1) EC cited in paragraph 220 of this decision are fulfilled.
Zato Komisija meni, da so v obravnavanem primeru zadnja tri merila iz člena 87(1) ES, navedena v točki 220 te odločbe, izpolnjena.
The following sections examine in turn, in respect of each measure, the existence of a selective economic advantage and, where applicable, compatibility with the common market of measures classified as State aid.
V naslednjih oddelkih bosta za vsak ukrep zaporedoma preučena obstoj selektivne gospodarske prednosti in, po potrebi, združljivost ukrepov, opredeljenih kot državna pomoč, s skupnim trgom.
The capital contribution of EUR 53,48 million for public service compensation
Kapitalski vložek v višini 53,48 milijona EUR iz naslova nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe
Although in its decision of 2003 the Commission recognised the public service compensation nature of a part of the EUR 76 million, namely EUR 53,48 million, for operating services to Corsica between 1991 and 2001, the Commission had assessed the capital contribution in its entirety, namely EUR 76 million, in terms of restructuring aid in so far as that amount had been notified by the French authorities for that purpose.
Čeprav je Komisija v Odločbi iz leta 2003 priznala, da ima del teh 76 milijonov EUR, to je 53,48 milijona EUR, za povezave s Korziko med letoma 1991 in 2001 značaj nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe, je preučila celotni kapitalski vložek, to je 76 milijonov EUR, iz naslova pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ker so francoski organi ta znesek priglasili na tej podlagi.
In its judgment in Case T-349/03 annulling the Commission decision of 2003, the Community judicature called on the Commission to examine the sum of EUR 53,48 million in the light of the its judgment in the Altmark case.
Sodišče Skupnosti je v sodbi z dne 15. junija 2005, s katero je razveljavilo Odločbo Komisije iz leta 2003, pozvalo Komisijo, naj znesek v višini 53,48 milijona EUR preuči na podlagi sodbe Sodišča z dne 24. julija 2003 v zadevi Altmark.
Moreover, the French authorities requested the Commission to consider that, by virtue of its ‘public service compensation’ nature, a part of the 2002 restructuring aid does not constitute aid in the light of the Altmark case-law.
Poleg tega so francoski organi Komisijo prosili, naj za del pomoči za prestrukturiranje iz leta 2002 ugotovi, da ne pomeni pomoči na podlagi sodbe Altmark zaradi svojega značaja „nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe“.
Since the French authorities relied on the application to the present case of the Altmark case-law and, in some circumstances, the derogation provided for in Article 86(2) EC, the Commission is required to make a ruling in that respect as those arguments have decisive importance in France’s reasoning.
Ker so se francoski organi sklicevali na uporabo sodbe Altmark in, po potrebi, odstopanja iz člena 86(2) ES za obravnavani primer, se je Komisija dolžna opredeliti glede tega, ker so te trditve bistvene v utemeljitvah Francije.
Introductory remarks
Uvodne pripombe
Applicability of the Altmark case-law to the present case
Uporaba sodbe Altmark za obravnavani primer
First of all, the Commission notes that, despite the fact that the ruling in Altmark is subsequent to the implementation of the abovementioned measure, the criteria laid down by the Community judicature in that case are applicable to the present case.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da se kljub dejstvu, da je bila sodba Altmark izrečena po zgoraj navedenem ukrepu, merila, ki jih je sodišče Skupnosti opredelilo v tej sodbi, za obravnavani primer uporabljajo.
As recently pointed out by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Justice did not impose temporal limits on the scope of the statements made in the judgment in Altmark.
Kot je namreč nedavno opozorilo Sodišče prve stopnje, Sodišče ni časovno omejilo področja uporabe izjav iz sodbe Altmark.
In the absence of such temporal limits, those statements following from Article 87(1) EC are therefore fully applicable to the factual and legal situation of the present case.
Brez take časovne omejitve se te izjave, ki izhajajo iz razlage člena 87(1) ES, v celoti uporabljajo za dejansko in pravno stanje te zadeve.
Determination of the amount of compensation received for public service
Določitev zneska nadomestila, prejetega iz naslova javne službe
So far as concerns 2000 and 2001, the Commission has adopted the same approach as the abovementioned expert report and has recalculated, on the basis of the analytical profit-and-loss account supplied, the result before tax, removing provisions for restructuring already included in the restructuring costs as notified.
Komisija je za leti 2000 in 2001 uporabila enak pristop, kot je bil uporabljen v zgoraj navedenem izvedenskem poročilu, in je na podlagi analitičnih izkazov uspeha znova izračunala rezultat pred obdavčenjem, pri čemer je odštela rezervacije za prestrukturiranje, ki so že vštete v priglašene stroške prestrukturiranja.
Moreover, the Commission has been able to verify that, according to the company’s annual accounts, there was no disposal of vessels during the two years in question.
Poleg tega je Komisija na podlagi letnih računovodskih izkazov podjetja lahko preverila, da v teh letih odprodaje ladij ni bilo.
The Commission takes the view that the loss in 2002 on the Marseilles-Corsica services cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, since 1 January 2002, the operating rates for services to Corsica from Marseilles and the amounts of financial compensation have been agreed between the public authorities and SNCM on a contractual basis, contrary to the practice followed for the 1991 and 1996 agreements.
Komisija meni, da izgube leta 2002 na povezavi Marseille–Korzika ni mogoče sprejeti ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so, v nasprotju s tem, kar je veljalo za pogodbi iz let 1991 in 1996, od 1. januarja 2002 tarife za opravljanje povezave med Marseillem in Korziko ter zneske finančnega nadomestila pogodbeno določili javni organi in družba SNCM.
Accordingly, in accordance with the approach and the grounds for the 2001 decision, the Commission has reached the following conclusions:
Zato v skladu s pristopom in obrazložitvijo Odločbe iz leta 2001 Komisija ugotavlja naslednje:
Analytical profit-and-loss account for 1991-2001
Analitični izkaz uspeha za obdobje 1991–2001
Corsica network
Korziško omrežje
Total 1991-2001
Skupaj 1991–2001
Million FRF
Mio FRF
Million EUR
Mio EUR
Result before tax
Rezultat pred obdavčenjem
Allocation to provision/depreciation Liamone [123]
Popravek vrednosti/amortizacija Liamone [123]
Allocation to provision/Social plan
Popravek vrednosti/socialni načrt
Correction appreciation on vessels
Popravek kapitalskega dobička od ladij
Result before tax excluding appreciation and restructuring
Rezultat pred obdavčenjem ter brez kapitalskega dobička in brez prestrukturiranja
In total, the cumulative loss recorded by SNCM on Marseille-Corsica services in addition to State subsidies authorised by the 2001 decision and adjusted by the capital gains on the vessels sold during that period and restructuring costs, amounts to EUR 53,48 million for the whole of the period 1991-2001.
Kumulativna izguba, ki jo je družba SNCM evidentirala na povezavi Marseille–Korzika poleg subvencij države, odobrenih z Odločbo iz leta 2001, ter popravljena za kapitalski dobiček od ladij, prodanih v tem obdobju, in stroške prestrukturiranja, znaša 53,48 milijona EUR za celotno obdobje 1991–2001.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission takes the view that, of the EUR 76 million capital contribution notified in 2002, EUR 53,48 million may be evaluated as public service compensation.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija meni, da je od kapitalskega vložka v višini 76 milijonov EUR, priglašenega leta 2002, 53,48 milijona EUR mogoče oceniti kot nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe.
Existence of an economic advantage in the light of the Altmark case-law
Obstoj gospodarske prednosti z vidika sodbe Altmark
According to the Court of Justice, in so far as a State measure is to be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertaking in order to discharge public service obligations, so that that undertaking does 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 87(1) EC.
Sodišče meni, da če je treba državno pomoč šteti za nadomestilo v zameno za storitve, ki jih opravi upravičeno podjetje, da bi izpolnilo obveznosti javne službe, tako da to podjetje dejansko nima finančne koristi in navedeni ukrep torej ne učinkuje tako, da to podjetje postavi v ugodnejši konkurenčni položaj, kot ga imajo konkurenčna podjetja, taka pomoč ne spada na področje uporabe člena 87(1) ES.
However, in order for such compensation to escape classification as State aid, a certain number of cumulative conditions must be fulfilled (see footnote 67 of this decision).
Da pa tako nadomestilo ne bi bilo opredeljeno kot državna pomoč, mora biti izpolnjeno določeno število kumulativnih pogojev (glej opombo 68 te odločbe).
As regards, in particular, the fourth criterion identified by the Court of Justice in Altmark, it must be stated that SNCM was not chosen following a public procurement procedure serving to select the candidate able to provide the services at the lowest cost for the authority.
Zlasti kar zadeva četrto merilo, ki ga je Sodišče določilo v sodbi Altmark, je treba ugotoviti, da družba SNCM ni bila izbrana v skladu s postopkom oddaje javnih naročil, ki omogoča izbiro ponudnika, sposobnega, da te storitve skupnosti zagotovi po najnižjih stroških.
In the absence of a public procurement procedure, the Commission considers that it is for the Member State to show that the level of compensation paid to SNCM does not exceed the costs incurred by an average well-run and adequately equipped undertaking, taking into account the relevant revenues and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations, in accordance with the case-law of the Court.
Ker ni bilo postopka oddaje javnega naročila, Komisija meni, da mora država članica v skladu z zahtevami sodne prakse Sodišča dokazati, da višina nadomestila, izplačanega družbi SNCM, ne presega stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno, dobro vodeno in ustrezno opremljeno podjetje, ob upoštevanju s tem povezanih prihodkov in primernega dobička za izvajanje teh obveznosti.
In the present case, the French authorities themselves recognise in their records of 16 November 2006 that is impossible in practice to find an undertaking which might serve as a reference point for that period of 1991-2001 because of the public service obligations of SNCM, which is the only undertaking able to take on those obligations.
Francoski organi v obravnavanem primeru v spisih z dne 16. novembra 2006 sami priznavajo, da je zaradi obveznosti javne službe, ki jih je imela družba SNCM, praktično nemogoče najti podjetje, ki bi ga lahko uporabili kot referenčno točko za to obdobje 1991–2001, ker je bila ta družba edino podjetje, ki je bilo sposobno prevzeti te obveznosti.
In those circumstances, the French authorities endeavoured to provide information serving to make the most exact comparison possible with similar undertakings, that is to say, primarily with CMN, stating, however, that those two undertakings did not have the same operating conditions as those imposed on SNCM by public service obligation agreements between 1991 and 2001.
Francoski organi so se v teh okoliščinah potrudili in zagotovili podatke, ki omogočajo kar se da natančno primerjavo s primerljivimi podjetji, zlasti z družbo CMN, pri čemer pa vseeno poudarjajo, da ta podjetja niso poslovala pod enakimi pogoji, kot so bili tisti, ki so bili družbi SNCM naloženi s pogodbami o obveznosti javne službe med letoma 1991 in 2001.
In that regard, the Commission takes the view that, in the light of the arguments of the French authorities, the latter did not demonstrate in what respect the undertakings they judged to be similar constituted the reference point as required by Community case-law.
V zvezi s tem Komisija glede na utemeljitve francoskih organov meni, da ti niso dokazali, kako so podjetja, ki jih sami štejejo za podobna, referenčne točke, kot jih zahteva sodna praksa Skupnosti.
In that context, the Commission notes that the information sent by France regarding undertakings does not make it possible to assess the degree of similarity relied on or to analyse the impact of the differences in operating conditions claimed in the comparison which should be made for the purposes of applying the fourth criterion above.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija poudarja, da ji podatki, ki jih je v zvezi s temi podjetji poslala Francija, ne omogočajo ocene stopnje zatrjevane podobnosti niti analize vpliva zatrjevanih razlik pri pogojih poslovanja na primerjavo, ki bi jo bilo treba opraviti za namene uporabe zgoraj navedenega četrtega merila.
In those circumstances, the Commission considers that, on the basis of the information and data sent by the French authorities in the present proceedings, the latter still fail to prove that the fourth criterion in Altmark is fulfilled.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija na podlagi informacij in podatkov, ki so jih v tem postopku poslali francoski organi, meni, da ti niso dokazali, da je četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjeno.
Having regard to the foregoing arguments, the Commission takes the view that the measure in question gave SNCM an economic advantage.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve Komisija meni, da je zadevni ukrep družbi SNCM prinesel gospodarsko prednost.
Given that the measure only benefited SNCM, that economic advantage was selective.
Glede na to, da je ukrep koristil samo družbi SNCM, je ta gospodarska prednost selektivna.
Consequently, the compensation granted to SNCM under the 1991 and 1996 agreements for the sum of EUR 53,48 million constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Zato nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi SNCM na podlagi pogodb iz leta 1991 in leta 1996 v višini 53,48 milijona EUR, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
Compatibility with the common market of the measure in question pursuant to Article 86(2) EC
Združljivost zadevnega ukrepa s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 86(2) ES
Since the French authorities have relied on the derogation provided for in Article 86(2) EC, the Commission will use the same approach and the same grounds as those of the 2001 decision in order to assess the measure in question.
Ker so se francoski organi sklicevali na odstopanje iz člena 86(2) ES, bo Komisija za oceno zadevnega ukrepa uporabila enak pristop in enako obrazložitev, kot sta v Odločbi iz leta 2001.
Under that article, the payment of State aid may escape the prohibition laid down in Article 87 of the EC Treaty provided that the sole purpose of the aid in question is to offset the extra costs incurred in performing the particular task assigned to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest and that the grant of the aid is necessary in order for that undertaking to be able to perform its public service obligations under conditions of economic equilibrium.
Glede na ta člen se izplačilo državne pomoči lahko izogne prepovedi iz člena 87 Pogodbe ES, če je cilj zadevne pomoči nadomestiti dodatne stroške, povzročene z izpolnjevanjem posebne naloge podjetja, pooblaščenega za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in če se dodelitev pomoči izkaže za nujno, da bi navedeno podjetje lahko izpolnjevalo svoje obveznosti javne službe v razmerah gospodarskega ravnovesja.
In the light of the case-law applicable to the 1991-2001 period, the Commission must, as it did in its 2001 decision:
Glede na sodno prakso, ki se uporablja za obdobje 1991–2001, mora Komisija, kot je to storila v Odločbi iz leta 2001:
verify whether the services whose management has been entrusted to SNCM can be qualified as a service of general economic interest, and
preveriti, ali je mogoče storitve, katerih upravljanje je bilo zaupano družbi SNCM, opredeliti kot storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in
examine whether the amount of the subsidies awarded to SNCM in the context of its public service obligations for maritime services to Corsica matches the excess costs borne by SNCM to satisfy the fundamental requirements of the public service contract.
preučiti, ali se znesek subvencij, dodeljenih družbi SNCM na podlagi obveznosti javne službe, povezanih s pomorskimi povezavami s Korziko, ujema z dodatnimi stroški, ki jih ima družba SNCM, da bi izpolnila temeljne zahteve pogodbe o javni službi.
Public service justification
Utemeljenost javne službe
In the present case, in respect of the compensation paid over the period 1991–2001, as stated by the Commission in its 2001 decision, the public service obligations imposed on SNCM and CMN stem from two five-year agreements signed by the latter and the Corsica Transport Office (OTC).
Kar zadeva nadomestila, izplačana v obdobju 1991–2001, v obravnavanem primeru obveznosti javne službe, naložene družbama SNCM in CMN, izhajajo iz dveh petletnih pogodb, ki sta ju ti družbi sklenili z Office de transport de la Corse (OTC), kot je Komisija ugotovila v Odločbi iz leta 2001.
As for whether those obligations meet a real need for public service, the Commission stated in its 2001 decision that the framework agreement and the five-year agreements comply with the territorial continuity principle which aims to limit the drawbacks of insularity and ensure that Corsica is served in ways as close as possible to purely mainland connections.
Glede vprašanja, ali te obveznosti ustrezajo resnični potrebi po javni službi, je Komisija v zgoraj navedeni odločbi iz leta 2001 ugotovila, da okvirna pogodba in petletni pogodbi ustrezajo načelu ozemeljske kontinuitete, katerega cilj je omejiti neugodnosti, ki jih prinaša otoška lega, in zagotoviti povezave s Korziko na način, ki je čim bolj podoben v celoti celinskim povezavam.
The Commission also notes that historically that objective, which is of legitimate public interest, has not been achieved through the interplay of market forces alone.
Komisija navaja tudi, da ta cilj, ki spada v legitimen javni interes, v preteklosti ni bil dosežen le z igro tržnih sil.
The Commission therefore is of the opinion that the service system provided for by the framework agreement and the five-year agreements meets a real need for a public service.
Zato Komisija meni, da sistem povezav, določen z okvirno pogodbo in petletnima pogodbama, ustreza resnični potrebi po javni službi.
The non-lump-sum character of the subsidy
Nepavšalni značaj nadomestila
As the Commission stated in its 2001 decision, SNCM received over the 1991-2001 period under the legal framework described above an annual subsidy from the State, the amount of which is fixed for five years and is revised every year according to the changes in gross domestic product at market prices and the information and analytical accounts provided by SNCM.
Kot je Komisija ugotovila v Odločbi iz leta 2001, je družba SNCM v obdobju 1991–2001 na podlagi zgoraj opisanega pravnega okvira prejemala pavšalno letno subvencijo, znesek katere je bil določen za pet let in se je revidiral vsako leto na podlagi sprememb bruto domačega proizvoda po tržnih cenah ter informacij in analitičnih evidenc, ki jih je morala predložiti družba SNCM.
In paragraph 30 of its 2001 decision, the Commission notes the fact that ‘under the terms of Article 4 of the 1976 agreement, the annual subsidy is awarded in the form of 12 equal monthly instalments.
Komisija v točki 30 Odločbe iz leta 2001 navaja, da se „glede na člen 4 pogodbe iz leta 1976 znesek letne subvencije izplača v dvanajstih enakih mesečnih obrokih.
For the subsidy to be paid over, SNCM must submit its results for the previous financial year approved by the State financial officer.
Za dokončno izplačilo subvencije mora družba SNCM najpozneje 1. julija vsako leto predložiti svoje rezultate za preteklo poslovno leto, ki jih je potrdil državni nadzornik.
Any repayments owed by SNCM are deducted from the instalment or the instalments of the current financial year.
Morebitna povračila v breme družbe SNCM se odštejejo od obroka ali obrokov za tekoče poslovno leto.