natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the Commission has identified four public transport service contracts relating to the periods 2000-04 and 2005-14 and concerning main line, regional and suburban transport services, which are likely to contain elements of State aid (see recitals 28, 46, 50 and 69 above).
Komisija je zato opredelila štiri pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, ki se nanašajo na obdobji 2000–2004 in 2005–2014 ter storitve prevoza po glavnih ter regionalnih in lokalnih železniških progah, ki lahko vsebujejo elemente državne pomoči (glej uvodne izjave 28, 46, 50 in 69 zgoraj).
There are also the additional contracts concluded to deal with the late delivery of rolling stock (see recital 114).
Tem je dodala še dodatne pogodbe, sklenjene zaradi zamud pri dobavi železniškega voznega parka (glej uvodno izjavo 114).
The Commission points out in that regard that the interested parties have submitted their observations on the various outstanding problems and doubts expressed by the Commission in its decision initiating the procedure, in relation to all of those contracts.
Komisija glede tega opozarja, da so zainteresirane strani predložile pripombe o različnih točkah razprave in dvomih, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, in to v zvezi z vsemi zadevnimi pogodbami.
The Commission has also examined whether there are any other fiscal measures of relevance to the compatibility of the public service compensation at issue [33].
Komisija je preučila tudi vpliv drugih ukrepov davčne narave na združljivost obravnavanih nadomestil za javne storitve. [33].
Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reads as follows: ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, 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) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, „[r]azen če ta pogodba ne določa drugače, 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“.
The public transport service contract provides for the payment of compensation to DSB for the discharging of the public transport service contract through the budget of the Danish State.
V pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza je določeno plačilo nadomestila družbi DSB za izvajanje pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza iz danskega proračuna.
That compensation is therefore paid through State resources.
To nadomestilo se torej plača iz državnih sredstev.
DSB, an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, is the sole recipient of the public service compensation provided for in the contracts.
Družba DSB, ki je podjetje v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, je edina upravičenka do nadomestil za javne storitve, določenih v pogodbah.
The measure is therefore selective within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Ukrep je torej selektiven v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
According to the Court of Justice, an undertaking does not receive an economic advantage where the compensation for a public service complies with the four criteria laid down in the judgment in Altmark.
Po mnenju Sodišča podjetje nima gospodarske prednosti, kadar nadomestilo za javne storitve izpolnjuje štiri merila, določena v sodbi Altmark.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the public transport service contracts concluded between the Danish Government and DSB fulfil these four criteria cumulatively.
Torej je treba preučiti, ali pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, ki sta jih sklenila dansko ministrstvo za promet in družba DSB, kumulativno izpolnjujejo ta štiri merila.
Since the four criteria laid down by the judgment in Altmark are cumulative, failure to comply with just one of those criteria is sufficient to verify that the measures under review confer a selective advantage.
Ker so merila, določena v sodbi Altmark, kumulativna, je neizpolnjevanje le enega od teh meril dovolj za preverjanje, ali obravnavani ukrepi zagotavljajo gospodarsko prednost.
In the interests of clarity and in view of the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission will analyse first whether the undertaking in this particular case really has been charged with a public service obligation and, in that capacity, receives compensation which is established on an objective and transparent basis (the first two criteria in Altmark) and will then examine specifically whether that undertaking was chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure or, failing that, whether the compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs that would be incurred by a typical, well-run undertaking in discharging its obligations (fourth criterion in Altmark).
Komisija bo zaradi jasnosti in posebnih okoliščin zadeve najprej analizirala, ali gre v tej zadevi dejansko za podjetje, ki so mu bile naložene obveznosti javne službe in zato prejema nadomestilo, določeno na objektivni in pregledni podlagi (prvi dve merili iz sodbe Altmark), da bi nato preučila, ali je bilo to podjetje konkretno izbrano v postopku oddaje javnega naročila, in če tega postopka ni bilo, ali nadomestilo, ki mu je dodeljeno za ta namen, temelji na analizi stroškov povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja (četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark).
First criterion: recipient undertaking must actually have clearly defined public service obligations to discharge
Prvo merilo: podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati jasno opredeljene obveznosti javne službe
In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission observed that DSB did indeed have clearly defined public service obligations to discharge and that the first criterion in the judgment in Altmark was therefore fulfilled.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka ugotovila, da DSB dejansko izpolnjuje jasno opredeljene obveznosti javne službe in da je zato prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjeno.
Even though the Commission did not express any doubts concerning that criterion, DKT disputed its reasoning, taking the view that the Commission should have verified the necessity and proportionality of the public service obligations.
Čeprav Komisija ni izrazila dvoma o tem merilu, je združenje DKT izpodbijalo njeno sklepanje, ker bi morala Komisija po njegovem mnenju preveriti nujnost in sorazmernost nalog javne službe.
DKT is also of the opinion that their necessity should be examined railway line by railway line and that their proportionality should be assessed in the light of the profitability of each of the lines concerned, taking into account the constraints and requirements imposed by the authority.
DKT še meni, da bi bilo treba nujnost preučiti za vsako progo posebej, sorazmernost pa oceniti z vidika možnosti donosnosti vsake zadevne proge ob upoštevanju zahtev, ki so jih naložili javni organi.
To support its argument, DKT cites the example of the Copenhagen-Århus railway line, which is covered by the public transport service contracts even though it is profit-making according to an analysis carried out by DKT itself.
V podporo svojemu sklepanju navaja primer železniške proge Köbenhavn–Aarhus, ki jo pokrivajo pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, čeprav bi bila ta proga upravičena na podlagi analize, ki jo je opravilo sámo združenje DKT.
The Danish authorities have disputed those arguments and challenged DKT’s calculations concerning the Copenhagen-Århus railway line, stating that the latter are not sufficiently detailed and do not match the figures they have.
Danski organi so zavrnili te trditve in izračune, ki jih je združenje DKT opravilo glede železniške proge Köbenhavn–Aarhus, ter pojasnili, da ti niso dovolj podrobni in ne ustrezajo številkam, ki jih imajo na voljo.
According to the Danish authorities, the line in question is also loss-making.
Po mnenju danskih organov tudi zadevna proga ustvarja izgubo.
The Commission points out that, in the passenger land transport sector, the necessity of a service of general economic interest is to be assessed on the basis of Article 93 of the TFEU and the legislation, in this case Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, until 3 December 2009, and after that, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Komisija opozarja, da je treba v sektorju kopenskega potniškega prometa nujnost storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena presojati na podlagi člena 93 PDEU in zakonodaje, v tem primeru Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 do 3. decembra 2009, po tem datumu pa Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Article 1(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provided that:
Člen 1(4) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 določa:
‘in order to ensure adequate transport services which in particular take into account social and environmental factors and town and country planning, or with a view to offering particular fares to certain categories of passenger, the competent authorities of the Member States may conclude public service contracts with a transport undertaking’.
„Da bi zagotovili ustrezne prevozne storitve, ki zlasti upoštevajo socialne in okoljske dejavnike ter načrtovanje mest in podeželja, ali da bi določenim skupinam potnikov ponudili posebne voznine, lahko pristojni organi držav članic s prevozniškim podjetjem sklenejo pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe.“
Article 14(1) of that Regulation defined the content and characteristics of public service contracts – standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality, rates and conditions.
V členu 14(1) navedene uredbe so opredeljeni vsebina in značilnosti pogodb o izvajanju javne službe – standardi o stalnosti, rednosti, zmogljivosti in kakovosti, določene tarife in pogoji.
Public service obligations are henceforth defined in Article 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 as:
Obveznosti javne službe so zdaj opredeljene v členu 2(e) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 kot:
‘a requirement defined or determined by a competent authority in order to ensure public passenger transport services in the general interest that an operator, if it were considering its own commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions without reward’.
„zahtev[e], opredeljen[e] ali določen[e] s strani pristojnega organa, da se zagotovijo storitve javnega potniškega prevoza v splošnem interesu, ki jih izvajalec, če bi upošteval svoje poslovne interese, ne bi opravljal ali jih ne bi opravljal v istem obsegu ali pod istimi pogoji brez plačila“.
The Commission thus points out that the specific legislation in force in no way limits the possibility of entrusting service missions covering a set of lines in order to establish a coherent transport system, particularly with the concern of allowing a certain continuity of transport.
Komisija tako opozarja, da veljavna posebna zakonodaja nikakor ne omejuje možnosti, da se dodelijo naloge storitev, ki pokrivajo vse proge, za vzpostavitev usklajenega prevoznega sistema, zlasti da se zagotovi določena stalnost prevoza.
No criteria are laid down concerning the profitability or otherwise of the individual lines concerned.
Določeno ni nobeno merilo, da morajo biti zadevne posamezne proge donosne ali ne.
Finally, that possibility is, furthermore, not limited by the existence or otherwise of comparable transport services, as argued by the first complainant in the specific case of the Copenhagen-Ystad line.
Nazadnje, ta možnost tudi ni omejena z obstojem primerljivih prevoznih storitev, kot trdi prvi pritožnik v posebnem primeru proge Köbenhavn–Aarhus.
The Commission also considers that the arguments put forward by DKT concerning other modes of transport are not relevant because the legislator has imposed different rules for each of those modes, which are explained in particular by a different degree of openness to competition of the markets and different inherent characteristics for the user and the public authorities.
Komisija še meni, da trditve DKT glede drugih načinov prevoza niso upoštevne, ker je zakonodajalec določil različna pravila za vsako vrsto prevoza, ki so pojasnjena predvsem z različno stopnjo odprtosti trgov za konkurenco in različnimi lastnimi značilnostmi za uporabnika in javne organe.
Finally, the fact that a transport service concerns a cross-border or international link is no obstacle to the possibility of operating it as part of a public service.
Nazadnje, dejstvo, da se prevozna storitev nanaša na čezmejno ali mednarodno povezavo, ne more ogroziti možnosti, da se ta prevoz opravlja v okviru javne službe. Komisija glede tega poudarja, da celo v sektorjih, ki so v celoti odprti za konkurenco, obstajajo storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena za mednarodne povezave.
The Commission therefore considers that Denmark is not committing a manifest error of assessment by including one or more profitable lines in a public transport service contract, in so far as those lines are part of a coherent transport system, and this irrespective of whether such lines already exist – a state of affairs that Denmark denies in this case.
Komisija zato meni, da Danska ne stori očitne napake pri presoji, če v pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe prevoza vključi eno ali več donosnih prog, če so te proge del usklajenega prevoznega sistema, in to brez vpliva na obstoj takih prog, kar Danska zanika v tej zadevi.
The Commission also notes that, if a line in that system were to be profit-making, the revenue from it should be taken into account in the overall calculation of costs and revenues related to the services concerned with a view to determining the level of compensation.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da če bi bila ena proga v tem sistemu upravičena, bi se morali ti prihodki upoštevati v skupnem izračunu stroškov in prihodkov, povezanih z zadevnimi storitvami, in določitvi ravni nadomestil.
It follows that the earnings from a profitable line would lead ultimately to a commensurate reduction in the financial compensation necessary in order to run the other, unprofitable lines in that system.
Iz tega izhaja, da bi dobiček donosne proge nazadnje povzročil ustrezno zmanjšanje finančnega nadomestila, potrebnega za opravljanje prevoza na drugih nedonosnih progah v tem sistemu.
In the absence of specific rules to the contrary, the Member State remains free to assess the scope of the public service that it wishes to entrust to an undertaking in order to establish an adequate transport system.
Ker ni natančnih nasprotnih pravil, država članica lahko prosto presodi obseg javne službe, ki jo želi dodeliti podjetju za vzpostavitev zadostnega prevoznega sistema.
The Commission considers that the foregoing assessments are backed up by established case-law, according to which:
Komisija meni, da zgornje presoje podpira ustaljena sodna praksa, po kateri:
‘As regards competence to determine the nature and scope of an SGEI mission within the meaning of the Treaty, and also the degree of control that the Community institutions must exercise in that context, it follows … from the case-law of the Court of First Instance that Member States have a wide discretion to define what they regard as SGEIs and that the definition of such services by a Member State can be questioned by the Commission only in the event of manifest error’ [35].(268) The Commission’s role is therefore limited to investigating whether Denmark has not committed a manifest error of assessment in determining the scope of the public services provided for in the contracts in question.
„[g]lede pristojnosti za določitev narave in obsega naloge SSGP v smislu Pogodbe in stopnje nadzora, ki ga morajo v tem okviru opravljati institucije Skupnosti, iz […] sodne prakse Sodišča prve stopnje izhaja, da imajo države članice široko diskrecijsko pravico pri opredeljevanju, kaj štejejo za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ter da lahko opredelitev teh storitev držav članic Komisija postavi pod vprašaj le pri očitni napaki.“ [35].(268) Vloga Komisije je zato omejena na preiskovanje, ali Danska ni storila očitne napake pri presoji, s tem ko je določila obseg javne službe, določene v zadevnih pogodbah.
Consequently, the Commission maintains that it results from the contract’s legal basis in national law, namely the Danish Rail Transport Act, that DSB is responsible for discharging a public service on the basis of contracts negotiated with the Danish Ministry of Transport.
Komisija zato trdi, da iz pravne podlage v nacionalnem pravu, ki se uporablja za pogodbo, in sicer iz danskega zakona o železniškem prevozu, izhaja, da je DSB odgovorna za izvajanje javne službe na podlagi pogodb, sklenjenih z danskim ministrstvom za promet po postopku s pogajanji.
It also recalls that the contracts define in detail which lines DSB has an obligation to operate and the punctuality, quality and frequency of the train services to be provided over a specified period (the contracts being concluded for the periods 2000-04 and 2005-14 respectively).
Opozarja še, da so v pogodbah podrobno opredeljene obveznosti družbe DSB glede prog, na katerih mora opravljati prevoz, točnosti, kakovosti in pogostnosti železniških storitev, ki jih mora opravljati, za določeno obdobje (pogodbi sta bili sklenjeni za obdobji 2000–2004 oziroma 2005–2014).
The Commission points out that Denmark has demonstrated that the objective of the public transport service contracts at issue was to establish a coherent and comprehensive transport system guaranteeing a quality service for passengers and meeting Denmark’s transport operation targets.
Komisija opozarja, da je Danska dokazala, da je bil cilj zadevnih pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza vzpostaviti usklajen in obsežen prevozni sistem, ki bi potnikom zagotavljal kakovostne storitve in izpolnjeval cilje opravljanja prevoza na ozemlju države.
In relation to the specific case of the Copenhagen-Ystad link, the Commission notes that the Danish authorities have also clarified the circumstances and the various stages which led to its inclusion in the transport system covered by the public transport service contracts.
Kar zadeva posebni primer povezave Köbenhavn–Ystad, Komisija ugotavlja, da so danski organi predložili tudi pojasnila o okoliščinah in različnih fazah, ki so privedle do vključitve te povezave v prevozni sistem, ki ga pokrivata pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza.
The Danish authorities have explained how this line was operated successively as a ‘free traffic’ until 2002, then as ‘public service traffic’ but without additional compensation until 31 December 2004, and was subsequently included in the public transport service contract for the period 2005-14 (see recital 122 in this respect).
Danski organi so namreč pojasnili, kako se je prevoz na tej progi opravljal zaporedoma kot „prosti promet“ do leta 2002, nato pa do 31. decembra 2004 kot „javni promet“, vendar brez dodatnega nadomestila, nazadnje pa je bil vključen v pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe prevoza za obdobje 2005–2014 (glej glede tega uvodno izjavo 122).
They point out that the line was loss-making when it was operated as ‘free traffic’ and that no public resources were paid for the operation of the line before 2005.
Poudarjajo tudi, da je bila ta proga deficitarna, ko se je prevoz na njej opravljal v „prostem prometu“, in da pred letom 2005 za opravljanje prevoza na tej progi niso bila nakazana nobena državna sredstva.
The Commission also takes note of the Danish authorities’ stated objective of connecting the island of Bornholm not only to Copenhagen but also to the rest of Denmark – as attested to by the special fares offer promoting links between Jutland and Bornholm (DSB Orange).
Komisija upošteva tudi cilj, ki so ga določili danski organi, in sicer povezati otok Bornholm ne le s Köbenhavnom, temveč tudi s preostalim danskim ozemljem – kot dokazuje ponudba tarif, ki spodbuja predvsem povezave med Jutlandom in Bornholmom (DSB Orange).
The Danish authorities considered that the existence of a rail service could take account of certain specific concerns which were not addressed by the existing bus service, such as the servicing of the neighbouring Swedish towns along the train route, with three stops in the Swedish towns of Fosieby (Malmö), Svedala and Skurup.
Še več, danski organi so menili, da obstoj železniške storitve upošteva nekatere posebne zahteve, ki jih sedanje avtobusne storitve ne izpolnjujejo, kot je opravljanje prevoza do bližnjih švedskih mest na poti vlaka s tremi postanki v švedskih mestih Fosieby (Malmö), Svedala in Skurup.
This service is also part of an intention to reinforce the options for access to the island of Bornholm.
To opravljanje prevoza je tudi del želje po povečanju možnosti dostopa do otoka Bornholm.
As indicated above in recital 263, the Commission notes that the fact that this link crosses national borders and includes stops in another Member State is no obstacle to its being operated as a public service obligation or an SGEI.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 263 zgoraj, Komisija opozarja, da dejstvo, da ta povezava prečka drugo državo članico in zajema postanke v tej državi, ne more postaviti pod vprašanj obstoja obveznosti javne službe ali SSGP.
In this respect, account should be taken, in particular, of Danish citizens’ interest in an improved service to the Swedish towns concerned.
V zvezi s tem je treba zlasti upoštevati interes, ki ga danski državljani lahko vidijo v boljši prometni povezavi z zadevnimi švedskimi mesti.
These facts supplement those set out in the decision initiating the procedure and support the Commission’s conclusion that the Danish Government did not commit a manifest error of assessment by including the Copenhagen-Ystad line, which is covered by the public transport service contracts system.
Ti elementi dopolnjujejo elemente, predstavljene v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, in potrjujejo ugotovitev Komisije, da danska vlada ni storila očitne napake pri presoji, ko je vključila progo Köbenhavn–Ystad, ki je zajeta v sistem pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza.
In general, the Commission confirms its initial conclusion and considers that the first criterion laid down by the Court in the judgment in Altmark is fulfilled.
Komisija na splošno potrjuje prvotno ugotovitev in meni, da je prvo merilo, ki ga je Sodišče opredelilo v sodbi Altmark, izpolnjeno.
Second criterion: parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner
Drugo merilo: merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno
The Commission stated in the decision initiating the procedure that the level of compensation paid to DSB for fulfilling the necessary public service requirements had been determined on the basis of a 10-year forward budget.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka opozorila, da je bila raven nadomestil za družbo DSB za izpolnjevanje zahtev javne službe določena na podlagi predvidenega desetletnega proračuna.
In their observations, the Danish authorities clarified the parameters applying to the latter period by providing the Commission with the 10-year budget for the period 2005-14, prepared on the basis of DSB’s operational development prospects during the period concerned.
Danski organi so v pripombah pojasnili merila, uporabljena za drugo obdobje, ko so Komisiji predložili desetletni proračun za obdobje 2005–2014, pripravljen glede na možnosti operativnega razvoja družbe DSB v tem obdobju.
They have therefore confirmed that the compensation provided for in each of the public transport service contracts was based on a 10-year forward budget.
Takó so potrdili, da nadomestila, določena v vsaki pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, temeljijo na predvidenem desetletnem proračunu.