natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany made clear that the entrustment with the obligation to fulfil higher vehicle quality standards stems from Local Public Transport Schemes, decisions by the competent city or district council and the VRR’s Financing Guidelines.
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da prenos obveznosti upoštevanja višjih standardov kakovosti vozil izvira iz javnih načrtov lokalnega potniškega prevoza, sklepov pristojnih mestnih ali okrožnih svetov in direktive o financiranju združenja VRR.
Regarding cross-subsidisation, Germany emphasised that the automatic element in a profit and loss transfer is reflected only in the accounting and that actual payment of the sums does not occur automatically.
Nemčija v zvezi z navzkrižnim subvencioniranjem poudarja, da se prenos dobička ali izgube samodejno izvede le v knjigovodstvu, za izplačilo samo pa to ne velja.
SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE AND OF THE FINAL DECISION
OBSEG POSTOPKA IN DOKONČNEGA SKLEPA
In the present case, Germany has argued that, because the complaint of the City of Langenfeld related to the old financing system, which was not subject to the formal investigation procedure at issue, the Commission is not entitled to issue a decision pursuant to Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now Article 108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty [28].
Nemčija je v obravnavanem primeru trdila, da Komisija ni upravičena sprejeti sklep na podlagi člena 6(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [28] [zdaj člena 108 PDEU], saj se je pritožba mesta Langenfeld prvotno nanašala na stari sistem financiranja, ki pa v obravnavanem formalnem postopku preiskave ni zajet.
The Commission notes that it has acted in line with the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as it is requested to examine any information in its possession from whatever source regarding alleged unlawful State aid.
Komisija opozarja, da je ravnala skladno z določbami člena 10(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, na podlagi katerih mora preveriti vse njej razpoložljive podatke iz katerega koli vira, ki se nanašajo na nedopustno državno pomoč.
Furthermore, it has also carried out a preliminary assessment according to the requirements of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Poleg tega je v skladu s svojimi obveznostmi na podlagi člena 6(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 podala predhodno oceno.
Hence the Commission is not precluded from taking a decision in the present case to close the formal investigation procedure in respect of the new financing system.
Zato Komisiji ni prepovedano v obravnavanem primeru sprejeti sklep o zaključku formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi z novim sistemom financiranja.
The Commission also points out that the present investigation does not relate to the old financing system.
Komisija še opozarja, da se trenutna preiskava ne nanaša na stari sistem financiranja.
With regard to the financing for discharging a public service obligation, the Commission assumed in the opening decision that the new financing system entered into force on 28 June 2005, i.e. the date on which the decision to implement it was adopted.
Glede financiranja izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe je Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izhajala iz tega, da je „novi sistem financiranja“ začel veljati 28. junija 2005, to pomeni na dan, ko je bil sprejet sklep o izvajanju tega sistema.
However, as Germany made clear during the formal investigation procedure, the new financing system entered into force, not when the decision was adopted on 28 June 2005, but only on 1 January 2006.
Kot pa je pojasnila Nemčija med formalnim postopkom preiskave, novi sistem financiranja ni začel veljati s sprejetjem sklepa 28. junija 2005, temveč je začel veljati šele 1. januarja 2006.
Accordingly, the Commission will limit its assessment to the period from 1 January 2006.
Zato se v oceni omejuje na obdobje po 1. januarju 2006.
Germany has informed the Commission that the new financing system was modified in September 2009 in the light of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Nemčija je Komisijo seznanila s tem, da je bil novi sistem financiranja septembra 2009 spremenjen ob upoštevanju začetka veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
In particular, the acts of entrustment and the rules for compensation in the Financing Guidelines were modified.
Predvsem so bili spremenjeni akti o pooblastitvi in predpisi o nadomestilih v direktivi o financiranju.
The Commission considers that it is not possible to take a final position on the existence of State aid and the possible compatibility of the thus modified new financing system with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 without first giving Germany the opportunity to comment on possible concerns of the Commission with regard to the modifications.
Komisija meni, da ne more podati dokončnega mnenja o obstoju državne pomoči in morebitni združljivosti spremenjenega novega sistema financiranja z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, ne da bi pred tem Nemčiji dala možnost predložitve pripomb glede morebitnih pomislekov Komisije v zvezi s spremembami.
Hence, without taking a view on the Financing Guidelines as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and the acts of entrustment as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, the Commission limits this final decision to compensation payments made to RBG and BSM on the basis of the new financing system and the revenue sharing agreements for the years 2006 to 2009.
Zato se Komisija v tem sprejetem sklepu omejuje na nadomestila podjetjema RBG in BSM, dana na podlagi novega sistema financiranja in pogodb o delitvi prihodkov za obdobje 2006–2009, ne da bi se izrekla o direktivi o financiranju, spremenjeni leta 2009 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, in o aktu o pooblastitvi, spremenjenem leta 2009 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
The Commission reserves the right to assess the Financing Guidelines as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and the acts of entrustment as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 should doubts arise as to their compliance with the EU State aid rules.
Komisija si pridržuje pravico, da preveri direktivo o financiranju, spremenjeno leta 2009 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, in akt o pooblastitvi, spremenjen leta 2009 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, če bi se pojavili dvomi o njuni združljivosti s pravili EU o državni pomoči.
Article 107(1) TFEU provides that ‘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 production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU „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 z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
STATE RESOURCES AND IMPUTABILITY TO THE STATE
DRŽAVNA SREDSTVA IN ODGOVORNOST DO DRŽAVE
For the assessment of the presence of state resources and their imputability it is necessary to distinguish between the compensation payments made by VRR to transport undertakings on the basis of the Financing Guidelines, on the one hand, and direct payments made to transport undertakings on the basis of paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance, on the other.
V zvezi s preverjanjem uporabe državnih sredstev in zadevno odgovornostjo je treba razlikovati med nadomestili, ki jih VRR izplača prevoznikom na podlagi direktive o financiranju, in neposrednimi izplačili prevoznikom na podlagi člena 19 statuta ZV VRR.
Payments under the Financing Guidelines
Nadomestila na podlagi direktive o financiranju
With regard to the compensation payments made by VRR to transport undertakings on the basis of the Financing Guidelines, the Commission observes that VRR is a public body which is financed by contributions levied from the cities and districts which are its members.
V zvezi z nadomestili, ki jih VRR izplača prevoznikom na podlagi direktive o financiranju, Komisija ugotavlja, da je VRR ustanova javnega prava, ki se financira s prispevki, pobranimi od mest in okrožij, ki pripadajo združenju VRR.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that these amounts are paid from state resources.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da se ti zneski financirajo z državnimi sredstvi.
VRR forms part of the regional administration.
VRR je del regionalne uprave.
Its financing decisions are therefore also imputable to the State.
Zato je mogoče njegove odločbe o financiranju pripisati tudi državi.
Payments under the control and profit/loss transfer agreements
Izplačila na podlagi sporazuma o nadzoru in prenosu dobička
With regard to direct payments to transport undertakings on the basis of paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance in conjunction with the revenue sharing agreements, the Commission notes that all five options provided for by this rule originate from public undertakings or public bodies.
Glede neposrednih izplačil prevoznikom na podlagi člena 19 statuta ZV VRR v povezavi s pogodbami o delitvi prihodkov Komisija ugotavlja, da je mogoče vseh pet možnosti, predvidenih po tej ureditvi, pripisati javnim podjetjem ali organom.
The Commission observes that the payments made to RBG and BSM through revenue sharing agreements or shareholder agreements also stem from public undertakings.
Komisija ugotavlja, da izplačila podjetjema RBG in BSM, izvedena na podlagi pogodb o delitvi prihodkov oziroma sporazumov delničarjev, prav tako prihajajo od javnih podjetij.
The City of Düsseldorf holds 100 % of the shares in Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH and the City of Monheim holds 100 % of the shares in Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH.
Mesto Düsseldorf ima v 100-odstotni lasti družbo Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH, mesto Monheim pa ima v 100-odstotni lasti družbo Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH.
For this reason, irrespective of their corporate or other legal status, both are public undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as financial transparency within certain undertakings [29].
Obe podjetji sta iz tega razloga in ne glede na njun status pravne osebe ali drug pravni status javni podjetji v smislu člena 2(b) Direktive Komisije 2006/111/ES z dne 16. novembra 2006 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji ter o finančni preglednosti znotraj določenih podjetij [29].
The Commission concludes, therefore, that the funds paid to RBG and BSM through Holding der Landeshaupstadt Düsseldorf GmbH and Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH are financed from state resources.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da se izplačila, ki jih Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH oziroma Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH nakaže podjetju RBG oziroma BSM, financirajo z državnimi sredstvi.
However, the Court of Justice has also ruled that, even if the State is in a position to control a public undertaking and to exercise a dominant influence over its operations, actual exercise of that control in a particular case cannot be automatically presumed.
Vendar je Sodišče tudi odločilo, da v primeru, ko je država v položaju, da nadzira neko javno podjetje in izvaja prevladujoč vpliv nad njegovimi dejavnostmi, ni mogoče zanesljivo domnevati, da se ta nadzor v konkretnem primeru dejansko izvaja.
A public undertaking may act with more or less independence, according to the degree of autonomy left to it by the State.
Javno podjetje lahko glede na stopnjo samostojnosti, ki mu jo omogoča država, nastopa bolj ali manj neodvisno.
Therefore, the mere fact that a public undertaking is under state control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the financing to the undertakings in question, to be considered imputable to the State.
Zato zgolj dejstvo, da je javno podjetje pod državnim nadzorom, ne zadošča, da bi ukrepe tega podjetja, kot so obravnavani ukrepi finančne podpore, pripisali državi. Poleg tega je treba preveriti domnevo, da so bili organi kakor koli udeleženi pri sprejetju teh ukrepov.
It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in one way or another, in the adoption of these measures.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče opozorilo, da se lahko državi pripiše ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejelo javno podjetje, na podlagi celote indicev, ki izvirajo iz okoliščin v postopku v glavni zadevi, in konteksta, v katerem je nastopil ta ukrep.
Such indicators can be the integration of the undertaking into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains [31].
Taki indici so lahko vključitev javne gospodarske družbe v okvir javne uprave, značaj njenih dejavnosti in izvajanje le-teh na trgu znotraj splošnih pogojev konkurence z zasebnimi izvajalci, pravni status gospodarske družbe (ki je pod nadzorom javnega prava ali skupnega prava gospodarskih družb), intenzivnost nadzora, ki ga izvajajo javne oblasti nad upravo gospodarske družbe, ali kateri koli drugi pokazatelj, ki v posameznem primeru kaže na vključevanje javne uprave pri sprejemanju ukrepa ali majhno verjetnost, da ni vključena, upoštevajoč tudi okoliščine ukrepa, njegovo vsebino ali pogoje, ki jih vsebuje. [31]
The Commission first notes that, in general, as regards the operation of public transport services, these are activities that play a fundamental role in several policies: transport policy, regional economic development policy or town and country planning policy.
Komisija glede opravljanja storitev javnega prevoza ugotavlja, prvič, da imajo te dejavnosti na splošno poglavitno vlogo v več politikah, na primer prometni politiki, regionalni politiki gospodarskega razvoja ali urbanistični politiki mesta in države.
The public authorities are in general not ‘absent’ when decisions on the compensation of a public service obligation are taken.
Organi so praviloma vključeni, če se sprejemajo odločitve o nadomestilih za opravljanje javne službe.
Second, as regards the supervision of the activities of Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH and Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH by the State, the Commission observes that, according to the most recent information available, seven of the ten members of the supervisory board of Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH are members of Düsseldorf city council [32] and that all seven members of the supervisory board of Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH are members of Monheim city council [33].
Drugič, Komisija v zvezi z državnim nadzorom nad dejavnostmi, ki jih opravljata Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH in Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH, ugotavlja, da je po najnovejših razpoložljivih informacijah sedem od desetih članov nadzornega sveta družbe Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH hkrati tudi članov mestnega sveta občine Düsseldorf [32] in da je vseh sedem članov nadzornega sveta družbe Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH hkrati tudi članov mestnega sveta občine Monheimer.
In both cases, the mayor is one of these members.
V obeh primerih je župan eden od članov nadzornega sveta.
Third, the Commission further notes that the payments disbursed through a control and profit/loss transfer agreement have been subject to the approval of the Supervisory Board of Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH.
Tretjič, Komisija ugotavlja, da se je za izplačila, izvedena na podlagi sporazuma o nadzoru in prenosu dobička, zahtevala odobritev nadzornega sveta družbe Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH.
Equally, the capital transfers of Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH require the approval of its Supervisory Board.
Za prenose kapitala družbe Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH se prav tako zahteva odobritev njenega nadzornega sveta.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the decisions to disburse payments to RBG and BSM by the respective holding companies of the City of Düsseldorf and the City of Monheim are imputable to the State.
Komisija tako ugotavlja, da je treba sklepe vsakokratne holdinške družbe mest Düsseldorf in Monheim, da se izvedejo izplačila za podjetji RBG in BSM, prav tako pripisati državi.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measures are financed through state resources and are imputable to Germany.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da se ukrepi financirajo z državnimi sredstvi in jih je treba pripisati Nemčiji.
SELECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
SELEKTIVNA EKONOMSKA PREDNOST
It must next be established whether the measures grant a selective economic advantage to RBG and BSM.
Ugotoviti je treba, ali se podjetjema RBG in BSM z ukrepi zagotavlja selektivna ekonomska prednost.
It follows from the Altmark judgment that ‘where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 92(1) of the Treaty [now Article 107(1) TFEU]. However, for such compensation to escape classification as State aid in a particular case, a number of conditions must be satisfied’ [34].
Iz sodbe Altmark izhaja, „da ker je treba državno intervencijo šteti za nadomestilo v zameno za storitve, ki so jih opravila upravičena podjetja za izvedbo obveznosti javnih služb, tako da taka podjetja v resnici ne uživajo finančne koristi in ta ukrep ne učinkuje tako, da ta podjetja postavi v ugodnejši konkurenčni položaj, kot ga imajo konkurenčna podjetja, taka intervencija ne spada na področje uporabe člena 92(1) Pogodbe ES [zdaj člena 107(1) PDEU]. Vendar morajo biti izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji, da bi se tako nadomestilo v konkretnem primeru izognilo opredelitvi za državno pomoč.“ [34]
In this regard, the German authorities claim that the financing of RBG and BSM through the measures at issue – both the financing provided through cross-subsidisation or directly by the public shareholders of undertakings in question and the financing provided directly by VRR – respect the four criteria of the Altmark judgment and therefore cannot be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
V zvezi s tem Nemčija navaja, da je financiranje podjetij RBG in BSM z obravnavanimi ukrepi – financiranje z navzkrižnim subvencioniranjem oziroma neposredno financiranje prek javnih delničarjev zadevnih podjetij in neposredno financiranje prek združenja VRR – skladno s štirimi merili iz sodbe Altmark, zato se ne šteje za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
THE RECIPIENT UNDERTAKING IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE CLEARLY DEFINED PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS
UPRAVIČENO PODJETJE JE DEJANSKO POOBLAŠČENO ZA IZPOLNJEVANJE JASNO OPREDELJENIH OBVEZNOSTI JAVNE SLUŽBE
Firstly, according to the above-mentioned judgment, it has to be established whether ‘the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge public service obligations and (whether) those obligations have been clearly defined’.
Prvič, na podlagi navedene sodbe je treba ugotoviti, ali „mora podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe“ in ali so te obveznosti „jasno opredeljene“.
In the present case, RBG and BSM are entrusted with discharging public service obligations by virtue of a so-called threefold act of entrustment, namely:
V obravnavanem primeru morata podjetji RBG in BSM na podlagi tako imenovanega trojnega akta o pooblastitvi izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe; pri tem trojnem aktu o pooblastitvi gre za:
the licences issued by the Düsseldorf Regional Government;
dovoljenja, ki jih je izdala Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf,
the Local Public Transport Schemes of the cities of Düsseldorf and Neuss, the Rhine district of Neuss and the district of Mettmann; and,
načrte lokalnega potniškega prevoza za mesti Düsseldorf in Neuss, porensko okrožje Neuss in okrožje Mettmann,
the respective positive and negative financing notices on the amount of permissible compensation, issued by VRR on the basis of point 7.2 of the Financing Guidelines.
zadevni odločbi o financiranju, odobritveno in zavrnilno, glede višine dopustnih zneskov nadomestila, ki ju VRR izda na podlagi oddelka 7.2 direktive o financiranju.
The German authorities provided the Commission with copies of these acts.
Nemčija je Komisiji predložila kopije tega akta.
In reply to the observations of the third party, the Commission considers that, although it would increase transparency if the public service obligation had been imposed by a single act, this is not strictly necessary in order to fulfil the first Altmark criterion.
Komisija v odgovoru na pripombe zainteresirane strani ugotavlja, da za izpolnitev prvega merila Altmark ni nujno, da se obveznosti javne službe prenesejo z enim samim aktom, čeprav bi bila preglednost tako večja.
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission considered that in the present case the public service obligation comprises the provision of public passenger transport services by bus, tram and rail on the basis of the licences pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 13 of the PBefG which RBG and BSM hold (see recital 61 of the opening decision).
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka trdila, da obveznosti javne službe v obravnavanem primeru zajemajo opravljanje javnih storitev potniškega prevoza z avtobusi, tramvaji in vlaki na podlagi dovoljenj, danih podjetjema RBG in BSM v skladu s členoma 8 in 13 PBefG (glej uvodno izjavo 61 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka).
In addition, the Commission notes that the public service obligation of RBG and BSM to provide passenger transport services derives from the licences obtained together with the requirement to comply with the Local Public Transport Schemes as far as frequencies, routes served and other requirements are concerned; the financing notices of VRR based on the Financing Guidelines provide further details with regard to these conditions.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da obveznosti javne službe podjetij RBG in BSM v zvezi s potniškim prevozom izhajajo iz danih dovoljenj in obveznosti upoštevanja načrtov lokalnega potniškega prevoza glede pogostnosti voženj, prog in drugih zahtev; v odločbi združenja VRR o financiranju, izdani na podlagi direktive o financiranju, so ti pogoji natančneje opredeljeni.
The Commission concludes, therefore, that in the present case the public service obligation comprises the entire provision of public passenger transport services by bus, tram and rail on the basis of the licences pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 13 of the PBefG which RBG and BSM hold.
Komisija tako ugotavlja, da obveznosti javne službe v obravnavanem primeru zajemajo celostno opravljanje javnih storitev potniškega prevoza z avtobusi, tramvaji in vlaki na podlagi dovoljenj, danih v skladu s členoma 8 in 13 PBefG, ki jih imata RBG in BSM (glej točko 61 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka).