natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This served to establish an overall amount of revenues (price per kilometre multiplied by a number of kilometres) which would be paid to an operator for providing services.
To je bila podlaga za določitev skupnega zneska prihodkov (cena na kilometer pomnožena s številom kilometrov), ki se izplača izvajalcu za zagotavljanje storitev.
From this amount actual revenues were deducted in order to define losses [6].
Od tega zneska so bili odšteti dejanski prihodki za določitev izgub [6].
The operator had to provide the authority with documentary proof of actual revenues after providing the services.
Izvajalec je moral organu predložiti dokazilo o dejanskih prihodkih po zagotovitvi storitev.
Only then would the final amount of losses be established and the payment of the compensation take place.
Šele nato je bil določen dokončen znesek izgub in izplačano nadomestilo.
Apart from the general requirements envisaged by the Road Transport Law for carriers and deriving from the fact that such operators held licences, each contract stipulated more specific obligations for each operator, namely the obligation to provide transport on specific lines and at defined times as well as conditions for amendments of the contracts and penalties in the event of failure to comply with contracts.
Poleg splošnih zahtev iz Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu za prevoznike in zaradi dejstva, da so ti izvajalci imeli licence, so bile v vsaki pogodbi določene natančnejše obveznosti za vsakega izvajalca, tj. obveznost zagotavljanja prevoza na določenih progah in ob določenem času ter pogoji za spremembe pogodb in kazni za neizpolnjevanje pogodb.
The Czech authorities have informed the Commission that after 2003 the Southern Moravia authorities agreed to conclude further contracts for providing transport services with the same operators for 2004 and 2005.
Češki organi so Komisijo obvestili, da so se organi Južne Moravske dogovorili, da po letu 2003 z istimi izvajalci sklenejo dodatne pogodbe za zagotavljanje prevoznih storitev v letih 2004 in 2005.
The Czech authorities have acknowledged that no specific procedure was undertaken for the purpose of selecting operators which would provide transport services in 2004 and 2005.
Češki organi so potrdili, da za izbiro izvajalcev, ki bi opravljali prevozne storitve v letu 2004 in 2005, niso izvedli posebnih postopkov.
The following table provides data concerning the amounts of compensation envisaged in the contracts for 2004 (Table 1):
V naslednji tabeli so navedeni podatki v zvezi z zneski nadomestil po pogodbah za leto 2004 (Tabela 1):
Name of the operator
Ime izvajalca
Date of the contract
Datum pogodbe
Maximum amount of the compensation envisaged in the contract
Najvišji znesek nadomestila po pogodbi
Modified:
Sprememba:
Furthermore, contracts concluded for 2004 were prolonged for 2005 (Table 2):
Poleg tega so bile pogodbe, sklenjene za leto 2004, podaljšane za leto 2005 (Tabela 2):
According to the Czech authorities, with regard to transport services in the Southern Moravia Region, the abovementioned undertakings did not obtain in the course of 2004-2005 any other financing from the State or through State resources.
Po trditvah čeških organov v zvezi s prevoznimi storitvami v regiji Južna Moravska zgoraj navedena podjetja v obdobju 2004–2005 niso prejela drugih finančnih sredstev od države ali bila financirana iz državnih sredstev.
The Commission decided to initiate the procedure on the grounds stated in recitals 31 to 38.
Komisija se je odločila sprožiti postopek na podlagi razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 31 do 38.
Presence of aid
Prisotnost pomoči
The Commission had doubts that the third condition set in the Altmark judgment [7] was fulfilled.
Komisija ni bila prepričana, da je bil tretji pogoj iz sodbe Altmark [7] izpolnjen.
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 actually incurred, not exceeding what had been envisaged in advance in the contracts, the Commission took the preliminary view that the amount of compensation could not exceed the actual losses.
Ker je bilo nadomestilo izračunano na podlagi vnaprej določenega parametra (26 CZK na kilometer) in ker je končno plačilo temeljilo na dokazih o dejansko nastalih izgubah, pri čemer ni bil presežen znesek, ki je bil dejansko vnaprej določen v pogodbah, je Komisija predhodno ocenila, da znesek nadomestila ni mogel presegati dejanskih izgub.
Furthermore, the Commission considered the profit included in the sum of CZK 26 per km as reasonable.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da je dobiček, vključen v znesek 26 CZK na kilometer, sprejemljiv.
However, the Commission expressed doubts on the notion of unforeseeable cost in the Czech legislation, which could serve as a justification for an extraordinary increase of the cap for the compensation.
Vendar je Komisija izrazila dvom glede pojma nepredvidljivih stroškov v češki zakonodaji, ki bi lahko utemeljevali izredno povečanje zgornje meje nadomestila.
In addition, the Commission concluded that neither the fourth condition set in the Altmark judgment was fulfilled.
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da ni bil izpolnjen niti četrti pogoj iz sodbe Altmark.
The Commission considered that the procedure applied by the Czech authorities could not be considered a public procurement procedure or a procedure ensuring that the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided with means of transport would have incurred, as required by the Altmark judgment.
Komisija je menila, da se postopek, ki so ga uporabili češki organi, ne more šteti kot postopek oddaje javnih naročil ali postopek, ki zagotavlja, da je višina nadomestila določena na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo tipično podjetje, ki je dobro vodeno in ustrezno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi, kot je določeno v sodbi Altmark.
As a consequence, the Commission considered that there was no clear evidence to prove that the compensation had not granted a selective advantage and therefore, given that the other conditions of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty were fulfilled, State aid within the meaning of this provision.
Zato je Komisija menila, da ni jasnega dokaza, da se z nadomestilom ni dala selektivna prednost in s tem ob upoštevanju, da so bili izpolnjeni drugi pogoji člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, državna pomoč v skladu s to določbo.
The Commission noted that the compatibility of such State aid with the common market should be assessed in light of the general principles derived from the EC Treaty, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and the Commission’s decision practice in other areas than public transport [8].
Komisija je ugotovila, da je treba združljivost takšne državne pomoči s skupnim trgom oceniti glede na splošna načela, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe ES, sodne prakse Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišča prve stopnje ter prakse odločanja Komisije na drugih področjih kot je javni promet [8].
Having examined the available information, the Commission considered that the general principles governing the assessment of compatibility of the aid were complied with in the case in hand.
Komisija je po pregledu razpoložljivih informacij menila, da so bila pri zadevnem primeru splošna načela, ki veljajo za ocenjevanje združljivosti pomoči, upoštevana.
The pre-establishment in the selection procedure of a maximum price for compensation based on national statistical analysis guaranteed the absence of overcompensation of the operators.
S predhodno določitvijo najvišje cene za nadomestilo, ki je temeljila na nacionalni statistični analizi, pri postopku izbire je bilo zagotovljeno, da izvajalci niso prejeli previsokih nadomestil.
However, as in the case at hand there was no public procurement procedure and that the Complainant pleads that Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, Tredos received illegal State aid, the Commission considered that it had to give the opportunity to the Complainant and third parties to comment on the methodology applied for establishing the amount of compensation by the Southern Moravia authorities, before being able to conclude with certainty that the aid is compatible with Article 73 of the EC Treaty by virtue of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Ker pa v zadevnem primeru ni bilo postopka oddaje javnega naročila in je pritožnik navedel, da so družbe Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA in TREDOS prejele nezakonito državno pomoč, je Komisija menila, da mora dati pritožniku in tretjim strankam priložnost, da predložijo pripombe o metodologiji, ki so jo organi Južne Moravske uporabili za določitev zneska nadomestila, preden lahko z gotovostjo zaključi, ali je pomoč skladna s členom 73 na podlagi člena 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE ČEŠKIH ORGANOV
The Czech Republic stated that the concept of unforeseeable costs is governed by the Road Transport Law with regard to the preliminary expert estimate of the demonstrable loss for the entire period for which the public service obligation contract is concluded.
Češka republika je navedla, da pojem nepredvidljivih stroškov ureja Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu v zvezi s predhodno strokovno oceno dokazljive izgube za celotno obdobje, za katero se sklene pogodba o obveznosti javne službe.
This estimate, which is submitted by the carrier, forms a mandatory part of the public service contract.
Ta ocena, ki jo predloži prevoznik, je obvezen del pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe.
Section 19b(3) of that law stipulates that the region must subsequently reimburse the demonstrable loss up to an amount not exceeding the expert estimate, augmented only by unforeseeable demonstrable costs.
Člen 19b(3) navedenega zakona določa, da mora regija pozneje povrniti dokazljivo izgubo do zneska, ki ne presega strokovne ocene in ki se poveča le za nepredvidljive dokazljive stroške.
However, the Road Transport Law does not provide a more detailed definition of unforeseeable demonstrable costs and definition of this concept is left to the individual purchasers of transport services.
Vendar Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu ne zagotavlja natančnejše opredelitve nepredvidljivih dokazljivih stroškov, zato je opredelitev tega pojma prepuščena posameznim kupcem prevoznih storitev.
The Czech Republic recalled that the public service contracts concluded by the Southern Moravia Region provided for a preliminary estimate of losses.
Češka republika je opozorila, da so pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, ki jih je sklenila regija Južna Moravska, zagotavljale predhodno oceno izgub.
If the amount of the actual demonstrable loss for the period in question was higher than the preliminary expert estimate of demonstrable loss, the Southern Moravia Region reimbursed the demonstrable loss only up to the amount of the preliminary expert estimate.
Če je bil znesek dejanske dokazljive izgube za zadevno obdobje višji od predhodne strokovne ocene dokazljive izgube, je regija Južna Moravska povrnila dokazljivo izgubo le do zneska iz predhodne strokovne ocene.
In this context, the risk of higher actual costs and lower actual revenue in relation to the preliminary estimate of demonstrable loss was borne by the operators, with the exception of unforeseeable proven costs.
V tem smislu so tveganje za višje dejanske stroške in nižji dejanski prihodek glede na predhodno oceno dokazljive izgube, razen nepredvidljivih dokazanih stroškov, prevzeli izvajalci.
The concept of unforeseeable costs was set out in greater detail in the public service contracts concluded by the Southern Moravia Region with the individual transport operators.
Pojem nepredvidljivih stroškov je natančneje določen 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 Czech Republic provided the Commission with the relevant abstracts in the public service contracts.
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. Češka republika je Komisiji predložila ustrezne povzetke iz pogodb o izvajanju javne službe.
COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE CZECH AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANK IN UGOTOVITVE ČEŠKIH ORGANOV
The Complainant was the only third party to submit comments following the decision of the Commission to initiate the procedure.
Pritožnik je bil edina tretja stranka, ki je po odločitvi Komisije o sprožitvi postopka predložila pripombe.
Comments of the Complainant regarded the following aspects:
Pripombe pritožnika zadevajo naslednje vidike:
the allegation that the concerned transport was not commissioned as public service contracts but within the notion of public service obligation deriving from the Road Transport Law,
navedbo, da zadevni prevoz ni bil naročen v okviru pogodb o izvajanju javne službe, v skladu s pojmom obveznosti javne službe iz Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu,
the allegation that the Altmark judgment should not have been applied in this case,
navedbo, da sodba Altmark v tem primeru ne bi smela veljati,
the opposition to consider the amount of CZK 26 per km as the maximum price of the transport operation for the determination of the compensation.
ugovor glede zneska 26 CZK na kilometer kot najvišje cene prevoza za določitev nadomestila.
The Complainant considered indeed that this amount is rather just a part of the preliminary expert estimate according to which the provable loss should be compensated to the carrier in compliance with the Road Transport Act,
Pritožnik je menil, da je ta znesek dejansko le del predhodne strokovne ocene, glede na katero bi bilo treba prevozniku povrniti dokazljivo izgubo v skladu z Zakonom o prevozih v cestnem prometu,
the allegation that the local conditions of the public scheduled transport operations were not taken into account when setting the price paid for the provision of transport operations amounting to CZK 26 per km.
navedbo, da se pri določanju cene za zagotavljanje prevoza, ki znaša 26 CZK na kilometer, niso upoštevale lokalne razmere rednega javnega prevoza.
Should these local conditions have been taken into account, it would have resulted in a higher amount,
Če bi se upoštevale lokalne razmere, bi bil znesek višji,
the public service compensation was a mean for the other carriers to replace their fleet,
nadomestilo za javno službo je bilo za druge prevoznike način, da nadomestijo svoj vozni park,
the Commission should have assessed the complaint also for the period before 1 May 2004,
Komisija bi morala oceniti pritožbo tudi za obdobje pred 1. majem 2004,
the allegation that the public service contracts led to a situation of competition between subsidised and non-subsidised transport which create a distortion of competition.
navedbo, da so pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe povzročile konkurenco med subvencioniranim in nesubvencioniranim prevozom, kar je ustvarilo izkrivljanje konkurence.
However, the Complainant did not comment on the concept of unforeseeable costs.
Vendar pritožnik ni predložil pripomb o konceptu nepredvidljivih stroškov.
Nor did the Complainant comment on the fact that the pre-establishment of a maximum price for compensation based on national statistical analysis could guarantee the absence of overcompensation for the operators.
Prav tako pritožnik ni predložil pripomb o dejstvu, da predhodna določitev najvišje cene za nadomestilo, ki temelji na nacionalni statistični analizi, lahko prepreči izplačila čezmernih nadomestil izvajalcem.
On the contrary, the Complainant argued that this reference amount of CZK 26 per km should not have been considered by the Czech authorities as a maximum transport price.
Nasprotno, pritožnik je trdil, da češki organi zadevnega referenčnega zneska 26 CZK na kilometer ne bi smeli upoštevati kot najvišje cene za prevoz.
Therefore, the Complainant comments did not specifically concern the doubts that the Commission expressed in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Torej pripombe pritožnika dejansko niso obravnavale dvomov, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
In addition, the Czech Republic submitted to the Commission its observations on the comments of the Complainant.
Poleg tega je Češka republika Komisiji predložila svoje ugotovitve o pripombah pritožnika.
These observations confirmed the Commission assessment on the specific issues brought forward by the Complainant.
Na podlagi teh ugotovitev je bila potrjena ocena Komisije o določenih vprašanjih, ki jih je izpostavil pritožnik.
As a consequence, the Complainant’s comments do not alter the Commission legal assessment developed in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Zato pritožnikove pripombe ne spremenijo pravne ocene Komisije, ki je bila oblikovana v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
Competence of the Commission to examine measures granted by countries acceding European Union on 1 May 2004
Pristojnost Komisije za preverjanje odobrenih ukrepov držav, ki so se pridružile Evropski uniji 1. maja 2004
The provisions of Annex IV, Chapter 3 to the 2003 Act of Accession create a legal framework for assessment of measures which were put into effect by the acceding Member States before their accession to the EU and are still applicable after accession.
Določbe iz Poglavja 3 Priloge IV k Aktu o pristopu iz leta 2003 zagotavljajo pravni okvir za oceno ukrepov, ki so jih pristopne države članice izvedle pred pristopom k EU in še vedno veljajo po pristopu.
With particular reference to the transport sector the provisions of Annex IV stipulate that ‘aid schemes and individual aid (…), put into effect in a new Member State before the date of accession and still applicable after that date, shall be regarded as existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty subject to the following condition: the aid measures shall be communicated to the Commission within four months of the date of accession’.
S posebnim poudarkom na transportnem sektorju določbe Priloge IV opredeljujejo, da „se programe pomoči in posamično pomoč, […] ki se jih je v novih državah članicah začelo izvajati pred dnem pristopa in se jih izvaja tudi po tem dnevu, šteje za obstoječo pomoč v smislu člena 88(1) Pogodbe ES, ob upoštevanju naslednjih pogojev: o ukrepih pomoči se v štirih mesecih od dne pristopa obvesti Komisijo“.
According to the established decision practice [9], ‘aid measures granted before accession and not applicable after accession cannot be examined by the Commission neither under the procedures laid down in Article 88 EC Treaty nor under the interim mechanism.
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso odločanja [9]„ukrepov pomoči, ki so odobreni pred pristopom in ne veljajo po pristopu, Komisija ne more preverjati ne v skladu s postopki iz člena 88 Pogodbe ES in ne v skladu z začasnim mehanizmom.
Only such measures that can still give rise, after accession, to the granting of additional aid or to an increase in the amount of aid already granted, may qualify as existing aid by virtue of the interim mechanism — if they fulfil the relevant conditions — and are therefore subject to it.
Le takšni ukrepi, ki lahko po pristopu še povzročijo odobritev dodatne pomoči ali povečanje zneska že odobrene pomoči, se lahko štejejo za obstoječo pomoč zaradi začasnega mehanizma, če izpolnjujejo ustrezne pogoje, in zato zanje to velja.
On the other hand, the interim mechanism is devoid of any purpose in respect of aid measures that have already been finally and unconditionally granted for a given amount before accession.
Po drugi strani začasni mehanizem ni namenjen ukrepom pomoči, ki že dokončno in brezpogojno veljajo za določen znesek pred pristopom.
(…) [I]n order to determine whether this is the case, the relevant criterion is the legally binding act by which the competent national authorities undertake to grant aid.
[…] Za ugotavljanje, ali to velja v zadevnem primeru, je ustrezno merilo pravno zavezujoč akt, v skladu s katerim so se nacionalni organi zavezali odobriti pomoč.
If no such act exists, the measure has not been granted before accession and constitutes new aid the compatibility of which with the common market is assessed by the Commission on the basis of Articles 87 and 88 EC Treaty.
Če takšen akt ne obstaja, ukrep ni bil odobren pred pristopom in pomeni novo pomoč, katere združljivost s skupnim trgom ocenjuje Komisija na podlagi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES.
A new measure must be assessed at the point in time when the aid is granted; it is the legal commitment of the state that is synonymous with the granting of aid and not the mere payment thereof.
Novi ukrep mora biti ocenjen takrat, ko je pomoč odobrena; to je pravna obveznost države, ki je enaka odobritvi pomoči in ne le izplačilu.
Any payment, current or future, under a legal commitment is an act of simple implementation and cannot be construed to be new or additional aid.
Vsako izplačilo, sedanje ali prihodnje, v skladu s pravno obveznostjo je ukrep enostavnega izvajanja in ne more veljati za novo ali dodatno pomoč.
Therefore, the Commission considers that for a measure to be considered as applicable after accession it must be shown that it is liable to produce after accession an additional benefit that was not known, or not precisely known, when the aid was granted’.
Zato Komisija meni, da se ukrep šteje kot veljaven po pristopu, če se dokaže, da lahko po pristopu prinese dodatno ugodnost, ki ni bila znana ali natančno znana, ko je bila pomoč odobrena“.
The Commission first notes that the Czech authorities did not communicate the contracts of Table 1 (all put into effect before 1 May 2004) to the Commission within the framework of the procedure established by Annex IV(3) of the 2003 Act of Accession.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da je češki organi niso obvestili o pogodbah iz tabele 1 (vse so začele veljati pred 1. majem 2004) v okviru postopka iz Priloge IV(3) k Aktu o pristopu iz leta 2003.
Further, the Commission notes that, given the definition of unforeseeable costs, as explained following the decision to initiate the procedure, the measures were liable to produce an additional benefit not precisely known when the aid was granted.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da so lahko ukrepi ob upoštevanju opredelitve nepredvidljivih stroškov, kot je pojasnjeno po odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, povzročili dodatno ugodnost, ki ni bila natančno znana, ko se je pomoč odobrila.
As a result, all contracts enumerated in Table 1, in so far as they involve State aid, concern State aid applicable after accession which is not existing aid and for which the Commission is competent.
Zato vse pogodbe iz tabele 1, če vključujejo državno pomoč, zadevajo državno pomoč po pristopu, ki ni obstoječa pomoč in za katero je pristojna Komisija.
With regards to the contracts listed in Table 2, which were all concluded after 1 May 2004, the Commission is competent to investigate.
V zvezi s pogodbami iz tabele 2, ki so bile sklenjene po 1. maju 2004, je za preiskovanje pristojna Komisija.
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the provision of certain goods shall be incompatible with the common market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, save as otherwise provided for in the Treaty.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, razen če Pogodba ne določa drugače.
The Commission notes that the compensations were paid by the Southern Moravia authorities from the public budget.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so nadomestila plačali organi Južne Moravske iz državnega proračuna.