natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that there may be a degree of uncertainty concerning the costs to the service provider and other possible sources of revenue could not in itself lead to the State being prevented from concluding an agreement at a price reflecting the market conditions.
Dejstvo, da lahko obstaja negotovost glede stroškov storitev in morebitnih drugih virov prihodkov, državi ne sme preprečiti, da sklene sporazum po ceni, ki kaže razmere na trgu.
According to DSB, any agreement generally involves some uncertainty and, in normal contractual relations, it is the undertaking which takes on that risk.
Po mnenju DSB vsak sporazum na splošno vključuje negotovost, v običajnih pogodbenih razmerjih pa je podjetje tisto, ki nosi to tveganje.
An arrangement in which DSB alone bears the risk of unforeseen fluctuations in ticket sales or expenses would, more than any other, give DSB an incentive to improve its services and to attract more travellers [25], enabling the State to get the best value out of the contractual payments it makes to DSB, which bears the risk in the event of a decline in performance, for example due to poor management or loss of revenue.
Tak sistem, v katerem družba DSB sama nosi tveganje nepredvidenega nihanja prodaje vozovnic ali izdatkov, je ustreznejši način za izboljšanje njenih storitev in pridobivanje več potnikov, [25] kar državi omogoča, da doseže čim več koristi od pogodbenih plačil, ki jih nakazuje družbi DSB, in da tej družbi naloži tveganje v primeru manjše uspešnosti, na primer zaradi slabega vodenja ali izgube prihodkov.
DSB is therefore of the view that, at the time when the two contracts were concluded, the State acted as a rational investor optimising its options for obtaining the best possible yield from those contracts.
DSB tako meni, da je država ob sklenitvi obeh pogodb torej ravnala kot razumen vlagatelj, ki optimizira svoje možnosti, da bi imel čim večji donos od navedenih pogodb.
Second, DSB considers that it had a legitimate expectation that the contractual payments would in any case fulfil the criteria laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and qualify for block exemption under that Regulation.
Drugič, DSB meni, da je upravičeno zaupala v dejstvo, da so se pri pogodbenih plačilih v vsakem primeru upoštevala merila, določena v Uredbi (EGS) št. 1191/69, in da so bila ta plačila upravičena do skupinske izjeme na podlagi te uredbe.
It expresses doubts regarding the Commission’s interpretation of Article 14 of the Regulation.
Dvomi pa o tem, kako je Komisija razlagala člen 14 te uredbe.
DSB points out that Section V of the Regulation – which does not contain any provisions relating to the amount of compensation – contrasts with Sections II to IV of the Regulation where public service obligations are concerned.
DSB namreč opozarja, da je oddelek V Uredbe – v katerem ni določb o znesku nadomestil – v nasprotju z oddelki od II do IV iste uredbe, ki vsebujejo podrobne določbe o znesku nadomestila za obveznosti javne službe.
According to DSB, the underlying aim of the Regulation was to guarantee reasonable compensation for operators.
Po mnenju DSB je bil namen Uredbe izpolniti željo, da se izvajalcem storitev zagotovi razumno nadomestilo.
In terms of commitments entered into voluntarily, transport operators bound by public service contracts are in a very different situation from operators on which the State unilaterally imposes public service obligations, and this is reflected in the Regulation.
Kar zadeva prostovoljno sprejete zaveze, so prevozniki, vezani s pogodbami o izvajanju javne službe, v povsem drugačnem položaju kot izvajalci storitev, ki jim je država enostransko naložila obveznosti javne službe, kar je razvidno v Uredbi.
In those circumstances, the Commission cannot interpret Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 in the light of Article 106(2) of the TFEU [26].
Komisija v teh okoliščinah Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 ne more razlagati z vidika člena 106(2) PDEU [26].
Finally, DSB does not agree with the Commission’s interpretation of Article 17 of the Regulation, according to which the notification exemption provided for applies solely to compensation for public service obligations and not to public transport service contracts.
Nazadnje, DSB se ne strinja s tem, kako je Komisija razložila člen 17 Uredbe, in sicer da se predvidena oprostitev priglasitve uporablja le za nadomestila za obveznosti javne službe, ne pa za pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza.
DSB points out that the transport contracts at issue between DSB and the Danish State were concluded before the adoption of the Regulation and before its entry into force.
DSB opozarja, da so bile zadevne prevozne pogodbe med njo in državo Dansko sklenjene pred sprejetjem navedene uredbe in pred začetkom njene veljavnosti.
If the Regulation were to be applied, it would be legislation with retroactive effect, which DSB considers to be contrary to fundamental legal principles, including both the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Če bi se uporabila ta uredba, bi šlo za zakonodajo z učinkom za nazaj, kar se družbi DSB zdi v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravnimi načeli, to je z načeloma pravne varnosti in zaupanja v pravo.
DSB also points out that there is no reason to believe that the EU legislator wished to give Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 retroactive effect.
DSB še opozarja, da iz ničesar ni mogoče sklepati, da je zakonodajalec EU želel Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007 dati učinek za nazaj.
DSB points out that, on the contrary, the Regulation provides for a gradual introduction of the new rules and that the provisions of the Regulation are not in general valid for contracts which have already been concluded if they have a limited term.
Nasprotno, DSB opozarja, da je v Uredbi določena postopna uvedba novih pravil, pa tudi določbe Uredbe na splošno ne veljajo za že sklenjene pogodbe, če je njihovo trajanje omejeno.
Since the term of the contracts in question is in line with that prescribed in the transitional provisions, DSB considers that they are governed solely by the legislation in force at the time when they were concluded (Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70).
Ker je trajanje zadevnih pogodb v skladu s trajanjem, predpisanim v prehodnih določbah, DSB meni, da zanje velja le zakonodaja, ki je veljala ob njihovi sklenitvi, in sicer uredbi (EGS) št. 1191/69 in (EGS) št. 1107/70.
DSB also relies on the Commission’s most recent decision-making practice, in which the Commission considered that it was not possible to apply Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 to contracts concluded before the entry into force of the Regulation on 3 December 2009 [27].
DSB se opira tudi na najnovejšo prakso odločanja Komisije, v kateri je ta menila, da Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007ni mogoče uporabiti za pogodbe, sklenjene pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe 3. decembra 2009. [27].
In the alternative, DSB submits information in support of the view that the public transport service contracts comply in any case with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
DSB podredno navaja informacije, s katerimi je mogoče dokazati, da so v pogodbah o javni službi prevoza v vsakem primeru upoštevane določbe Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY DKT
PRIPOMBE ZDRUŽENJA DKT
By letter of 16 February 2009, DKT submitted its comments on the decision initiating the procedure.
Združenje DKT je v dopisu z dne 16. februarja 2009 predložilo pripombe o odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
Those comments are summarised below.
Te pripombe so povzete v nadaljevanju.
DKT refers to the information submitted to the Commission in the context of its complaint and to the contacts that took place prior to the initiation of the procedure.
Združenje DKT se sklicuje na vse informacije, ki jih je poslalo Komisiji v okviru svoje pritožbe, in pogodbe, sklenjene pred sprožitvijo postopka.
DKT points out that the Commission’s decision initiating the procedure appears to refer only to DSB’s public transport service contracts concerning its traditional rail transport activities, and not to relate to urban transport activities carried out by its subsidiary DSB S-tog a/s, which are nevertheless referred to in its initial complaint.
DKT opozarja, da se zdi, da se Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka sklicuje le na pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, sklenjeni z družbo DSB v zvezi z dejavnostmi klasičnega železniškega prevoza, ne pa na dejavnosti mestnega prevoza, ki jih opravlja njena hčerinska družba DSB S-tog a/s, ki jih je vseeno omenilo v svoji prvotni pritožbi.
DKT points out that the contracts relating to urban transport are of the same type and raise the same questions.
DKT opozarja, da so pogodbe v zvezi z mestnim prevozom enake narave in postavljajo enaka vprašanja.
In the light of this, DKT emphasises the fact that the present review by the Commission should relate also to the urban transport public service contracts.
V teh okoliščinah vztraja, da se mora preiskava Komisije nanašati tudi na pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe mestnega prevoza.
In general, DKT considers that the criteria in the judgment in Altmark are not fulfilled in this case and that the contracts in question therefore involve the granting of State aid.
DKT na splošno meni, da v tej zadevi merila iz sodbe Altmark niso izpolnjena in da zadevne pogodbe torej vključujejo državno pomoč.
DKT considers that aid to be incompatible and illegal and that the Commission should order its recovery.
DKT meni, da je ta pomoč nezdružljiva in nezakonita ter da bi Komisija morala odrediti njeno vračilo.
The first criterion in the judgment in Altmark
Prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark
Even though the Commission did not express any doubts concerning compliance with the first criterion in the judgment in Altmark, DKT has nevertheless submitted comments in this respect.
Čeprav Komisija ni izrazila dvoma o upoštevanju prvega merila iz sodbe Altmark, je združenje DKT vseeno navedlo nekaj pripomb o tem vprašanju.
DKT considers that the wide discretion available to Member States in establishing public service obligations should not lead to arbitrary situations in which third parties are not able to challenge the reason why an activity is carried out under a public transport service contract.
DKT meni, da širok manevrski prostor, ki ga imajo države članice pri določitvi obveznosti javne službe, ne bi smel privesti do samovoljnih položajev, v katerih tretje strani ne bi mogle postaviti pod vprašaj dejstva, da se dejavnost opravlja v okviru naloge javne službe prevoza.
According to DKT, the Commission is required to state the reasons for the need to impose a public service obligation.
Po mnenju DKT mora Komisija obrazložiti potrebo, da se naloži obveznost javne službe.
On the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice and the decision-making practice of the Commission, DKT disputes the Commission’s analysis that there is no manifest error of assessment.
DKT na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča in prakse Komisije izpodbija analizo, v kateri je Komisija ugotovila, da ni bilo očitne napake pri presoji.
DKT considers in particular that the existence of objectives relating to punctuality, quality and regularity of service is not sufficient to establish that a service should be regarded as a public service mission.
DKT zlasti meni, da obstoj ciljev glede točnosti, kakovosti in rednosti storitve ne zadostuje za ugotovitev, da je storitev naloga javne službe.
Rather, the Commission should conduct this analysis in the light of the criteria set out in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and examine the proportionality of the public service missions.
Komisija bi morala to analizo opraviti z vidika meril, določenih v Uredbi (EGS) št. 1191/69, in preučiti sorazmernost nalog javne službe.
According to DKT, the Commission should examine in particular whether the operation of the services in question in accordance with the requirements of punctuality, quality and regularity would not be profitable.
Po mnenju DKT bi Komisija morala zlasti preučiti, ali zadevno opravljanje storitev v skladu z opredeljenimi cilji točnosti, kakovosti in rednosti ne bi bilo donosno.
DKT considers that public service compensation is justified only where transport services are not profitable and where compensation is therefore essential for their operation, which implies carrying out a separate examination of the finances of each of the rail links concerned.
DKT namreč meni, da so nadomestila za javne storitve utemeljena le, kadar storitve niso donosne in je nadomestilo nujno potrebno za njihovo opravljanje, kar pomeni, da je treba ločeno preučiti vsako od zadevnih železniških povezav.
DKT disputes the Commission’s reasoning that the 10-year budgets on which the calculation of DSB’s compensation is based would allow the second criterion in the judgment in Altmark to be fulfilled.
DKT izpodbija sklepanje Komisije, da bi desetletna proračuna, na katerih temelji izračun nadomestil za družbo DSB, omogočila izpolnjevanje drugega merila iz sodbe Altmark.
It takes the view that those budgets do not contain the parameters and detailed cost analysis making it possible to establish the level of compensation required for each of the rail lines concerned.
Meni namreč, da ta proračuna ne vsebujeta parametrov niti podrobne analize stroškov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti raven zahtevanih nadomestil za vsako zadevno železniško progo.
DKT considers that fulfilment of the third criterion in the judgment in Altmark should be analysed in conjunction with fulfilment of the fourth since, if an undertaking cannot be regarded as a typical, well-run undertaking, examination of whether or not the third criterion has been met becomes superfluous because it cannot be based on an analysis of that undertaking’s costs.
DKT meni, da je treba tretje merilo analizirati v povezavi s četrtim merilom iz sodbe Altmark, ker če podjetja ni mogoče obravnavati kot povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, postane preučitev tretjega merila odveč, saj ne more temeljiti na analizi stroškov tega podjetja.
DKT points out that the award of the public transport service contracts in question was not the subject of a tendering procedure.
DKT opozarja, da dodelitev zadevnih pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza ni bila predmet javnega razpisa.
In addition, DKT shares the Commission’s doubts as to whether the 10-year budgets and the methodology applied by the Danish State would allow the fourth criterion in the judgment in Altmark to be fulfilled.
Še več, DKT se strinja s Komisijo, ki dvomi, da lahko desetletna proračuna in metodologija, ki jo je uporabila Danska, omogočijo izpolnjevanje četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark.
In that regard, DKT submits, in particular, that the tendering procedures organised for certain lines showed that DSB’s competitors were able to operate services at a cost around 27 % lower than DSB’s costs.
DKT glede tega predvsem trdi, da je bilo z javnimi razpisi, organiziranimi za nekatere proge, dokazano, da so konkurenti družbe DSB sposobni opravljati storitve za ceno, ki je približno 27 % nižja od cene družbe DSB.
Similarly, DKT points out that DSB uses statutory staff, which precludes compliance with the fourth criterion in the judgment in Altmark.
DKT še opozarja, da DSB zaposluje javne uslužbence, kar izključuje upoštevanje četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark.
The incompatibility of overcompensation
Nezdružljivost čezmernega nadomestila
DKT does not agree with the Commission’s reasoning concerning the issue of the compatibility of the aid.
DKT se ne strinja s sklepanjem Komisije glede vprašanja združljivosti pomoči.
It takes the view that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 draws a distinction between, on the one hand, an approach based on real costs included in Sections II, III and IV of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and, on the other hand, an approach based on the price quoted by one service provider compared with that quoted by a competitor for providing the same service, included in Section V of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Meni namreč, da Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 vsebuje razlikovanje med pristopom, ki temelji na dejanskih stroških, povzetim v oddelkih II, III in IV Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, po eni strani, in pristopom, ki temelji na ceni, ki jo ponudnik v primerjavi s konkurentom zaračunava za isto storitev, povzetim v oddelku V Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, po drugi strani.
According to DKT, this distinction is reflected in the differences in nature between public service obligations and public transport service contracts, which are based on different procedural requirements.
Po mnenju združenja DKT se to razlikovanje kaže v različni naravi obveznosti javne službe in pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, ki temeljijo na različnih postopkovnih zahtevah.
Consequently, the Commission’s reasoning, based on a real costs approach and the principles associated with the implementation of Article 106(2) of the TFEU, cannot be applied to the examination of a price laid down in connection with public transport service contracts.
Zato sklepanja Komisije, ki temelji na pristopu na podlagi dejanskih stroškov, in načel, povezanih z izvajanjem člena 106(2) PDEU, ni mogoče uporabiti za preučitev cene, določene v pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe prevoza.
DKT considers such an approach to be contrary to Community case-law (judgment in Combus), the Commission’s practice (Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation [28] and the actual decision to initiate a procedure, which confirms the lex specialis nature of Article 93 of the TFEU.
DKT meni, da je tak pristop v nasprotju s sodno prakso Skupnosti (sodba Combus), prakso Komisije (Okvir Skupnosti za državne pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve [28] in odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka, ki potrjuje, da ima člen 93 PDEU naravo lex specialis.
Based on the observation that, in this case, the Commission intends to apply an approach based on the real costs where public transport service contracts are concerned, DKT has formulated comments on that approach.
Združenje DKT, ki izhaja iz ugotovitve, da namerava Komisija v tej zadevi za pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza uporabiti pristop na podlagi dejanskih stroškov, je vseeno predložilo komentarje o tem pristopu.
DKT considers that the information submitted by the Danish authorities to support the absence of overcompensation is incorrect.
DKT namreč meni, da podatki, ki so jih predložili danski organi za potrditev neobstoja čezmernega nadomestila, niso točni.
DKT puts forward several arguments:
Zato navaja več trditev:
DSB was able to reduce its costs significantly during participation in tendering procedures on certain lines,
DSB je lahko zelo zmanjšala stroške, ko je sodelovala v postopkih javnega razpisa za nekatere proge.
Furthermore, the public transport service contracts require DSB to have a sound financial situation, which reflects the fact that the contractual payments are greater than the payments that are strictly necessary to offset costs relating to public service obligations;
Poleg tega se v pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe prevoza zahteva, da ima DSB dober finančni položaj, kar pomeni, da so pogodbena plačila večja od strogega nadomestila za stroške, povezane z obveznostmi javne službe.
The level of the contractual payments is not justified appropriately, and the 10-year budgets were tailor-made to guarantee DSB a certain level of profit without relying on a detailed analysis of DSB’s costs and income for each of the lines concerned,
Raven pogodbenih plačil ni ustrezno utemeljena, desetletna proračuna pa sta bila pripravljena po meri za zagotovitev določenih ravni dobička za DSB, ne da bi temeljila na podrobni analizi stroškov in prihodkov DSB za vsako zadevno progo.
The compensation system is based on an anticipated return on equity, without being limited to compensation for additional expenditure,
Sistem nadomestil temelji na cilju donosnosti lastniškega kapitala, in ne na strogem nadomestilu za dodatne stroške.
According to the calculations submitted by DKT, the main rail link between Copenhagen and Aarhus is profitable, taking into account the obligations currently imposed on DSB, and should not therefore have been the subject of a public service obligation,
Glede na izračune, ki jih je predložilo združenje DKT, bi bila glavna železniška povezava med Köbenhavnom in Aarhusom donosna, če se upoštevajo obveznosti, ki so zdaj naložene družbi DSB, in torej ne bi smela biti predmet pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe.
Moreover, DSB’s claimed productivity gains are not consistent with the financial data showing an increase in staff costs in relation to income over the period concerned,
Poleg tega domnevno povečanje produktivnosti družbe DSB ni skladno s finančnimi podatki, ki kažejo povečanje odhodkov za osebje v primerjavi s prihodki v zadevnem obdobju.
Similarly, DKT challenges the accuracy of the DKK 1 billion reduction in the contractual payments; it claims, rather, that the figure is DKK 647 million according to the company’s annual accounts,
DKT tudi dvomi o resničnosti zmanjšanja pogodbenih plačil za eno milijardo DKK, ki naj bi bilo v resnici 647 milijonov DKK glede na letne računovodske izkaze podjetja.
DKT claims that DSB’s targets (in train/kilometres) for the period 2000-04 were not achieved – which would have justified a reduction in the contractual payments – and that DSB received compensation for rolling stock costs which it was not obliged to bear in view of the late delivery;
DKT trdi, da cilji DSB (v vlakih/km) za obdobje 2000–2004 niso bili doseženi – kar bi upravičilo zmanjšanje pogodbenih plačil – in da je DSB prejela nadomestilo za železniški vozni park, katerega stroškov ji ni bilo treba nositi zaradi zamud pri dobavi.
Finally, DKT considers that DSB could itself have borne the costs of the financial consequences of the late delivery of the rolling stock, particularly with regard to the replacement rolling stock, considering its substantial profits.
Nazadnje, DKT meni, da bi se lahko DSB sama spopadla s finančnimi posledicami zamud pri dobavi voznega parka in zlasti nadomestnega voznega parka ob upoštevanju njenega velikega dobička.
DKT alleges that DSB received DKK 225 million from AnsaldoBreda as compensation for the delays, which should have been transferred to the Danish State which, according to DKT, suffered the related loss.
DSB naj bi od družbe AnsaldoBreda prejela 225 milijonov DKK kot nadomestilo za zamude, ki bi jih morala nakazati državi, ki je po mnenju DKT zaradi tega utrpela škodo.
DSB allegedly received surplus contractual payments of DKK 104 million for rolling stock which was not put into service.
DSB naj bi prejela presežek 104 milijonov DKK iz pogodbenih plačil za vozni park, ki ni začel obratovati.
According to DKT, DSB’s high profit levels are, for the following reasons, proof that the company was overcompensated:
Velik dobiček družbe DSB je po mnenju DKT dokaz, da je podjetje dobilo čezmerno nadomestilo, in sicer iz naslednjih razlogov:
DSB’s results exceed the profit levels that a company exposed to a similar risk, namely a low risk, could reasonably expect,
Poslovni izid družbe DSB presega ravni dobička, ki bi ga podjetje, izpostavljeno podobnemu tveganju, to je majhnemu tveganju, lahko razumno pričakovalo.