natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Altmark judgment [13], Article 73 of the EC Treaty cannot be applied directly but only by virtue of Council Regulations, in particular Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligation inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway [14].
V skladu s sodbo Altmark [13] člena 73 Pogodbe ES ni mogoče uporabiti neposredno, temveč le na podlagi uredb Sveta, zlasti Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 z dne 26. junija 1969 o ukrepanju držav članic glede obveznosti javne službe v železniškem in cestnem prometu ter prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh [14].
Pursuant to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 it can only be applied with relation to State aid granted to transport operators in rail, road and inland waterways.
V skladu s členom 1(1) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 se lahko uporablja le v zvezi z državno pomočjo, ki je dodeljena prevoznikom v železniškem in cestnem prometu ter prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh.
However, the Member States may exclude from the scope of that Regulation any undertakings whose activities are confined exclusively to the operation of urban, suburban or regional services.
Vendar lahko države članice iz področja uporabe navedene uredbe izključijo vsa podjetja, katerih dejavnosti so omejene samo na izvajanje mestnih, primestnih ali regionalnih prevozov.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission already noted that the Czech authorities did not make such an exemption.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija že ugotovila, da češki organi niso naredili take izjeme.
Therefore, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 are applicable.
Zato veljajo zadevne določbe Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Pursuant to Article 1(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, in order to ensure adequate transport services the competent authorities of the Member States may conclude public service contracts with a transport undertaking.
V skladu s členom 1(4) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 lahko pristojni organi držav članic s prevoznim podjetjem sklenejo pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, da bi zagotovili ustrezne prevozne storitve.
Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 stipulates that a public service contract is a contract concluded between the competent authorities of a Member State and a transport undertaking in order to provide the public with adequate transport services.
Člen 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 določa, da je pogodba o izvajanju javne službe pogodba med pristojnimi organi države članice in prevoznim podjetjem, da se javnosti zagotovijo ustrezne prevozne storitve.
According to Article 14(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, a public service contract shall cover, inter alia, the following points:
V skladu s členom 14(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 pogodba o izvajanju javne službe med drugim obsega naslednje:
the nature of the service to be provided, notably the standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality;
vrsto storitve, ki jo je treba zagotoviti, predvsem standarde o stalnosti, rednosti, zmogljivosti in kakovosti;
the price of the services covered by the contract, which shall either be added to tariff revenue or shall include the revenue, and details of financial relations between the two parties;
ceno storitev, ki jih obsega pogodba in ki se bodisi prišteje k prihodku od tarif ali vključuje prihodek, ter podrobnosti o finančnih odnosih med obema pogodbenicama;
the rules concerning amendment and modification of the contract, in particular to take account of unforeseeable changes;
pravila o spreminjanju in dopolnjevanju pogodbe, zlasti ob upoštevanju nepredvidenih sprememb;
the period of validity of the contract;
čas veljavnosti pogodbe;
the penalties in the event of failure to comply with the contract.
pogodbene kazni v primeru kršitve določil pogodbe.
First of all, as already mentioned in the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission notes that according to Paragraph 19 of the Road Transport Law, ‘the public service obligation in the public line transport arises on the basis of the written contract’ between the relevant authorities and operators.
Prvič, kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, Komisija ugotavlja, da je v skladu s členom 19 Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu „obveznost javne službe v javnem prevozu določena na podlagi pisne pogodbe“ med pristojnimi organi in izvajalci.
Additionally, the Commission notes that the conditions of providing transport services were not imposed by the authorities but were negotiated and agreed upon between the operators and the regional authorities.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da pogojev za zagotavljanje prevoznih storitev niso določili organi, ampak so se v zvezi z njimi dogovorili izvajalci in regionalni organi.
Therefore, the Commission comes to the conclusion that despite the wording of the Road Transport Law (public service obligation) the provisions of Section V — ‘Public service contracts’ of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 can be applied.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da se kljub besedilu Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu („obveznost javne službe“) lahko uporabljajo določbe iz Oddelka V – „Pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe“ Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Secondly, the Commission notes that the nature of the service was defined in the contracts both expressis verbis and by reference to the fact that the operators held licences for providing public transport services.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila narava storitve v pogodbah opredeljena izrecno in s sklicevanjem na dejstvo, da so imeli izvajalci licence za izvajanje storitev javnega prevoza.
Thirdly, contracts included price per km and the overall amount of remuneration to be paid for providing the service.
Tretjič, pogodbe so vključevale ceno na kilometer in skupni znesek plačila za izvajanje storitev.
Fourthly, the contracts envisaged the conditions and the procedure for their amendment, period of validity and penalties in the case of failure to comply with the contract.
Četrtič, pogodbe so določale pogoje in postopek za njihovo spremembo, čas veljavnosti in kazni v primeru kršitve določil pogodbe.
Therefore, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the basic elements of contract enumerated in the provision of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 were covered by the contracts concluded with Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, Tredos.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da so pogodbe, sklenjene s podjetji Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA in TREDOS, zajemale osnovne elemente pogodbe, ki so našteti v določbi člena 14(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Additionally, the Commission first of all notes that the goal of the legislator, when adopting Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, was to define under which conditions ‘aid […] which corresponds to the reimbursement of certain obligations inherent in the notion of public services’ mentioned in Article 73 of the Treaty is compatible with the common market.
Poleg tega Komisija predvsem ugotavlja, da je bil cilj zakonodajalca pri sprejetju Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 opredeliti, pod katerimi pogoji so „pomoči […], če so nadomestilo za opravljanje določenih storitev, ki so del javne službe,“ kot je omenjeno v členu 73 Pogodbe, združljive s skupnim trgom.
Both the application of Article 73 of the Treaty and the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 presuppose the existence of an aid in the sense of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Uporaba člena 73 Pogodbe in uporaba Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 predpostavljata obstoj pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
If the content of the contracts can be covered by the notion of Article 73 ‘obligations inherent in the notion of public services’, the form of the instrument, that is contract or unilaterally imposed obligation, should not be, in itself, an obstacle for declaring potential State aid inherent in the contract price compatible with the common market.
Če vsebino pogodb lahko obsega pojem „storitev, ki so del javne službe,“ iz člena 73, oblika instrumenta, tj. pogodba ali enostransko uvedena obveznost, sama po sebi ne bi smela biti ovira pri označitvi potencialne državne pomoči, ki je del pogodbene cene, kot združljive s skupnim trgom.
Indeed, the decisive element for qualifying a service, be it imposed by a Member State or agreed in a contract, as a public service obligation within the meaning of Article 73 must be the substance of the service, not the form in which it is organised [15].
Odločilen element, v skladu s katerim se storitev opredeli kot obveznost javne službe v skladu s členom 73, ne glede na to, ali jo uvede država članica ali je dogovorjena v pogodbi, mora biti vsebina storitve, ne oblika njene organiziranosti [15].
In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that from a legal point of view, there is no reason why State aid inherent in the price paid for a public service contract could not be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 73.
Glede na to Komisija ugotavlja, da s pravnega vidika ni razloga, zakaj državna pomoč, ki je del cene, ki se plača za pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, ne bi mogla biti združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 73.
The Commission notes that this solution was chosen by the co-legislators in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so se za to rešitev odločili sozakonodajalci v Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007.
As Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 does not contain any precise conditions for declaring State aid inherent in the price paid for a public service contract compatible with the common market, the Commission considers that the general principles derived from the Treaty, the jurisprudence of the Community courts and the Commission’s decision practice in other areas than public transport shall be applied for deciding whether such State aid can be declared compatible with the common market [16].
Ker člen 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 ne določa natančnih pogojev, v skladu s katerimi se državna pomoč, ki je del cene, ki se plača za pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, označi kot združljiva s skupnim trgom, Komisija meni, da se pri odločitvi o tem, ali se lahko taka državna pomoč razglasi za združljivo s skupnim trgom [16], uporabljajo splošna načela iz Pogodbe, sodna praksa sodišč Skupnosti in praksa odločanja Komisije na področjih, ki ne vključujejo javnega prevoza.
These principles have been recalled by the Commission in a general manner in the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service obligations [17].
Na ta načela Komisija splošno opozarja v okviru Skupnosti za državno pomoč v obliki obveznosti javne službe [17].
With respect to the compatibility of State aid inherent in the price paid for a public service contract, this Community framework foresees the following at point 14: ‘The amount of compensation may not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and reasonable profit for discharging those obligations.
V zvezi z združljivostjo državne pomoči, ki je vključena v ceno, izplačano za pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, ta okvir Skupnosti v točki 14 določa naslednje: „Znesek nadomestila ne sme presegati zneska, potrebnega za pokrivanje stroškov, ki nastanejo zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti javnih storitev, ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in zmernega dobička za izpolnjevanje navedenih obveznosti.
The amount of compensation includes all the advantages granted by the State or through State resources in any form whatsoever’.
Znesek nadomestila vključuje vse prednosti, ki jih dodeli država, ali kakršno koli vrsto prednosti iz državnih sredstev“
The Commission notes that by pre-establishing in the selection procedure, as described in recitals 12 to 20, that the price the authorities were willing to pay was not more than CZK 26 per km, and subsequently by applying this parameter and adding the unforeseeable costs to calculate the revenues of the carriers, the Southern Moravia authorities ensured that the compensation could not exceed the costs incurred by the operators.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so organi Južne Moravske s predhodno določitvijo v postopku izbire, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 12 do 20, da cena, ki so jo organi pripravljeni plačati, ne presega 26 CZK na kilometer, ter posledično z uporabo tega parametra in upoštevanjem nepredvidljivih stroškov pri izračunu prihodkov prevoznikov zagotovili, da nadomestilo ne more preseči stroškov izvajalcev.
The Commission notes that although the Complainant contested the parameter to calculate the compensation, it did not bring any element showing that the compensation could exceed the costs incurred by the operators.
Komisija ugotavlja, da pritožnik ni predložil dokaza, da lahko nadomestilo preseže stroške izvajalcev, čeprav je oporekal parametru za izračun nadomestila.
On the contrary, the Complainant argued that the considered amount was rather just a part of the preliminary expert estimate according to which the provable loss should be compensated to the carrier and should even be set at a higher level.
Nasprotno, pritožnik je trdil, da je bil upoštevani znesek le del predhodne strokovne ocene, glede na katero bi bilo treba prevozniku povrniti dokazljivo izgubo, pri čemer bi morala biti celo višja.
Additionally, with regard to services provided in the Southern Moravia Region, the Commission notes that, apart from the compensations from the regional authorities, the operators did not receive any other advantages from the State or through State resources in the period of 2004-2005.
Poleg tega Komisija v zvezi s storitvami, ki se opravljajo v regiji Južna Moravska, ugotavlja, da razen nadomestil regionalnih organov izvajalci niso prejeli drugih prednosti od države ali iz državnih sredstev v obdobju 2004–2005.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the general principles governing the assessment of compatibility of the aid, as described above, are complied with in the case in hand.
Zato Komisija meni, da so splošna načela, ki se uporabljajo za oceno združljivosti pomoči, kot je opisano zgoraj, v zadevnem primeru izpolnjena.
As a consequence, the Commission concludes that the aid is compatible with Article 73 of the Treaty.
Komisija posledično ugotavlja, da je pomoč v skladu s členom 73 Pogodbe.
In the light of the legal assessment, the Commission finds that the Czech Republic has acted in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, and therefore unlawfully granted aid under the aid scheme in question.
Glede na pravno oceno Komisija ugotavlja, da je Češka republika s kršitvijo člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES nezakonito dodelila pomoč na podlagi zadevne sheme pomoči.
The Commission considers that the aid granted to Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, Tredos via the public service contracts for road transport in Southern Moravia is compatible with Article 73 of the Treaty,
Komisija meni, da je pomoč, ki je bila družbam Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA in TREDOS dodeljena s pogodbami o izvajanju javne službe za cestni prevoz na Južnem Moravskem, v skladu s členom 73 Pogodbe –
The State aid which the Czech Republic has implemented through the public service contracts for road transport in Southern Moravia with Bítešská dopravní společnost spol. s r.o., BK BUS s.r.o., Břežanská dopravní společnost s.r.o., Znojemská dopravní společnost — PSOTA, s.r.o. and Tredos, spol. s r.o. is compatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo je Češka republika izvajala s pogodbami o izvajanju javne službe za cestni prevoz na Južnem Moravskem s podjetji Bítešská dopravní společnost spol. s r.o., BK BUS s.r.o., Břežanská dopravní společnost s.r.o., Znojemská dopravní společnost – PSOTA, s.r.o. in TREDOS, spol. s r.o, je združljiva s skupnim trgom.
OJ C 43, 16.2.2008, p. 19.
UL C 43, 16.2.2008, str. 19.
For the purposes of this Decision, the reference is made to the provisions of the Law in the version applied to the present case.
V tej določbi se sklicevanja nanašajo na določbe iz različice Zakona, ki velja v zadevnem primeru.
In Czech law the compensation for public service contracts is equivalent to a notion of provable loss.
V skladu s češko zakonodajo je nadomestilo za pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe enako pojmu dokazljive izgube.
For a similar case, see also Commission Decision N 495/07 — Czech Republic — Program pořízení a obnovy železničních kolejových vozidel (OJ C 152, 18.6.2008, p. 21).
Za podoben primer glej tudi Odločbo Komisije N 495/07 – Češka republika – Program pořízení a obnovy železničních kolejových vozidel (UL C 152, 18.6.2008, str. 21).
According to the Czech legislation, losses are the difference between the sum of the economically substantiated costs and the adequate profit on the one hand and the earned receipts and revenue on the other hand.
V skladu s češko zakonodajo so izgube razlika med vsoto ekonomsko utemeljenih stroškov in ustreznim dobičkom na eni strani ter med dobljenimi prejemki in prihodki na drugi strani.
Judgment of the Court of 24 July 2003, C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkhersgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, and Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (2003) E.C.R. I-07747, points 88 to 93.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 24. julija 2003, C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkhersgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, and Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (2003) PSES I-07747, točke 88 do 93.
See Commission Decisions: C 16/07 — Austria — Official support for Postbus in the Lienz district (OJ C 162, 14.7.2007, p. 19); C 31/07 — Ireland — State aid to Córas Iompair Éireann Bus Companies (Dublin Bus and Irish Bus) (OJ C 217, 15.9.2007, p. 44); C 47/07 — Germany — DB Regio AG — Contrat de service public (OJ C 35, 8.2.2008, p. 13); C 41/08 — Denmark — Public service contract between the Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (not yet published).
Glej odločbe Komisije: C 16/07 – Avstrija – Javna podpora za Postbus v okrožju Lienz (UL C 162, 14.7.2007, str. 19), C 31/07 – Irska – Državna pomoč za avtobusna prevoznika družbe Córas Iompair Éireann (Dublin Bus in Irish Bus) (UL C 217, 15.9.2007, str. 44); C 47/07 – Nemčija – Deutsche Bahn Regio AG – Pogodba o izvajanju javne službe (UL C 35, 8.2.2008, str. 13); C 41/08 – Danska – Pogodba o izvajanju javne službe med Ministrstvom za promet in Danske Statsbaner (še ni objavljeno).
Commission Decision C 3/05 — Poland — Restructuring aid to Daewoo-FSO (OJ C 100, 26.4.2005, p. 2, points 40 to 43).
Odločba Komisije C 3/05 – Poljska – Pomoč za prestrukturiranje za Daewoo – FSO (UL C 100, 26.4.2005, str. 2. točke 40 do 43).
Judgment C-280/00 Altmark, points 87 and 88.
Sodba C-280/00 Altmark, točki 87 in 88.
It should be recalled that losses are the difference between the sum of the economically substantiated costs and the adequate profit on the one hand and the earned receipts and revenue on the other hand.
Opozoriti je treba, da so izgube razlika med vsoto ekonomsko utemeljenih stroškov in ustreznim dobičkom na eni strani ter med dobljenimi prejemki in prihodki na drugi strani.
Case C-280/00, Altmark, points 77 to 82.
Zadeva C-280/00, Altmark, točke 77 do 82.
Case C-280/00, Altmark, cited above.
Zadeva C-280/00, Altmark, navedena zgoraj.
Similarly, Article 4 of Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67) resorts to the concept of an ‘act of entrustment’, the form of which is left to Member States to determine.
Tudi v členu 4 Odločbe Komisije 2005/842/ES z dne 28. novembra 2005 o uporabi člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES za državne pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, dodeljene nekaterim podjetjem, pooblaščenim za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena (UL L 312, 29.11.2005, str. 67), se uporablja pojem „akta pooblastitve“, pri čemer njegovo obliko določijo države članice.
See also Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1).
Glej tudi Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. oktobra 2007 o javnih storitvah železniškega in cestnega potniškega prevoza ter o razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 in (EGS) št. 1107/70 (UL L 315, 3.12.2007, str. 1).
See Commission Decisions: C 16/07 — Austria — Official support for Postbus in the Lienz district; C 31/07 — Ireland — State aid to Córas Iompair Éireann Bus Companies (Dublin Bus and Irish Bus); C 47/07 — Germany — DB Regio AG — Contrat de service public; C 41/08 — Denmark — Public service contract between the Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner.
Glej odločbe Komisije: C 16/07 – Avstrija – Javna podpora za Postbus v okrožju Lienz, C 31/07 – Irska – Državna pomoč za avtobusna prevoznika družbe Córas Iompair Éireann (Dublin Bus in Irish Bus); C 47/07 – Nemčija – Deutsche Bahn Regio AG – Pogodba o izvajanju javne službe; C 41/08 – Danska – Pogodba o izvajanju javne službe med Ministrstvom za promet in Danske Statsbaner.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 February 2008 [3].
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije16. februarja 2008 [3].
The Commission invited any interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane stranke, da predložijo svoje pripombe o pomoči.
This price was included in the invitation for submitting offers sent to all potentially interested operators in 2003.
Ta cena je bila vključena v razpis za zbiranje ponudb, ki je bil leta 2003 poslan vsem morebitnim zainteresiranim izvajalcem.
The Commission noted that the price was established on the basis of the statistical data.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je bila cena določena na podlagi statističnih podatkov.
Statistical data which served as the basis for establishing this amount concerned only the actual costs of transport services in the Czech Republic for the period of 2002.
Statistični podatki, ki so služili kot podlaga za določitev te vsote, so zadevali le dejanske stroške prevoznih storitev v Češki republiki v letu 2002.
Therefore, there is no proof that an average of these costs represents the costs of an efficient undertaking.
Zato ni dokaza, da povprečje teh stroškov predstavlja stroške učinkovitega podjetja.
According to its Article 12, this Regulation will however only enter into force on 3 December 2009.
V skladu s členom 12 Uredbe bo ta uredba začela veljati šele 3. decembra 2009.
As the present contracts were signed before this date, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is therefore not applicable to them.
Ker so bile sedanje pogodbe podpisane pred tem datumom, zanje Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 torej ne velja.
Pursuant to Paragraph 19b(5) of the Road Transport Law ‘determination of the provable loss, method of calculation of the preliminary professional estimate of the provable loss, rules for allocation of funds from the relevant budgets, the documents by which calculations of the provable loss must be supported and the method of exercise of the professional government supervision over funding of the traffic services are determined by the implementing regulation.’.
V skladu z odstavkom 19b(5) Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu „so določitev dokazljive izgube, metoda izračuna predhodne strokovne ocene dokazljive izgube, pravila za dodelitev sredstev iz ustreznih proračunov, dokumenti, s katerimi je treba utemeljiti izračune dokazljive izgube, in metoda izvajanja strokovnega vladnega nadzora nad financiranjem prometnih storitev opredeljeni z izvedbeno uredbo“.