natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Section 45(1) of the Transport (Scotland) Act of 2005, which came into force on 10 October 2005 repealed those provisions of the 1960 Act but Section 45(2) provided that any Undertaking which had been entered into before 10 October 2005 would continue to have effect.
Razdelek 45(1) (škotskega) Zakona o prevozu iz leta 2005, ki je stopil v veljavo 10. oktobra 2005, je razveljavil te določbe Zakona iz leta 1960, vendar je razdelek 45(2) določal, da vse obveze, sklenjene pred 10. oktobrom 2005, ostanejo v veljavi.
This meant that the Undertaking dated 7 April 1995 entrusting the public service obligations to CalMac continued to have effect after the entry into force of the 2005 Act.
To je pomenilo, da je obveza z dne 7. aprila 1995, s katero je bilo podjetje CalMac pooblaščeno za obveznosti javne službe, ostala v veljavi po začetku veljavnosti Zakona iz leta 2005.
Since 1 October 2006, when the restructuring of the CalMac group took place and a new legal entity was created to operate the Gourock-Dunoon route, compensation for the public service obligations in this route is based on Section 70(1) of the Transport (Scotland) Act of 2001 as amended by the Transport Scotland Act of 2005.
Od 1. oktobra 2006, ko je bilo izvedeno prestrukturiranje skupine CalMac in je bil ustanovljen nov pravni subjekt za obratovanje na progi Gourock–Dunoon, temelji nadomestilo za obveznosti javne službe na tej progi na razdelku 70(1) (škotskega) Zakona o prevozu iz leta 2001, kot je bil spremenjen s škotskim Zakonom o prevozu iz leta 2005.
Until 1 October 1997, when the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services contract entered into force, the public service obligations were specified in annual letters from the Scottish Ministers to CalMac (regularity, frequencies, capacities, fare rates and subsidy amount).
Do 1. oktobra 1997, ko je začela veljati pogodba za prevoze s trajekti na reki Clyde in po Hebridih, so bile obveznosti javne službe opredeljene v letnih dopisih, ki so jih škotski ministri pošiljali podjetju CalMac (rednost, pogostost, zmogljivosti, prevozne tarife in znesek subvencije).
Since 1 October 2007, the specifications of the public service obligations are part of the public service contract which followed a public tender procedure, except for the Gourock-Dunoon route.
Od 1. oktobra 2007 so specifikacije obveznosti javne službe del pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, ki je sledila postopku javnega razpisa, razen proge Gourock–Dunoon.
As regards the Gourock-Dunoon route, since 1 October 2007 the subsidy requirements have been determined administratively on the basis of the Scottish Ministers’ approvals of the company’s annual financial plans and the in-year monitoring by the Scottish Government of actual deficit requirements.
Kar zadeva progo Gourock–Dunoon, so bile od 1. oktobra 2007 zahteve za subvencijo določene upravno na podlagi odobritve letnih finančnih načrtov podjetja s strani škotskih ministrov in medletnega spremljanja dejanskih zahtev glede primanjkljaja s strani škotske vlade.
In light of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the purpose of the aid scheme has clearly remained constant since the inception of the scheme.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija meni, da je namen programa pomoči očitno ostal nespremenjen od njegove uvedbe.
It is to provide ferry transport services between the Scottish islands.
Namreč zagotavljati storitve prevozov s trajekti med škotskimi otoki.
The evolution of the legal basis of the scheme did not materially change the nature of the advantage given to CalMac since 1973.
Razvoj pravne podlage programa ni bistveno spremenil narave prednosti, ki jo je imelo podjetje CalMac od leta 1973.
CalMac has continuously been receiving deficit grants, capital grants and loans (for piers and harbours infrastructure and for vessels).
Podjetje CalMac je neprekinjeno prejemalo dotacije za primanjkljaj, kapitalske dotacije in posojila (za pomole in pristaniško infrastrukturo ter za plovila).
The source of this financing has also not changed as all funds continue to come from the national budget.
Tudi vir tega financiranja se ni spremenil, saj še vedno vsa sredstva prihajajo iz državnega proračuna.
There have been regular increases in the amount of annual compensation.
Letno nadomestilo se je redno povečevalo.
These increases should not, however, be regarded as new aid.
Vendar se teh povečanj ne sme šteti za novo pomoč.
As the Court of Justice has stated [53]‘… the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered.’
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je navedlo [53], da „[…] nastanka nove pomoči ali spremembe obstoječe pomoči ni mogoče oceniti glede na obseg pomoči ali zlasti njenega zneska v finančnem smislu kadar koli med trajanjem podjetja, če se pomoč zagotovi pod prejšnjimi zakonskimi določbami, ki ostanejo nespremenjene.“
The Commission is of the view that the increasing aid amounts are the consequence of increased financial needs of the public service provider in fulfilling its public service mission, while the public service obligations, the funding arrangements and the amendments to the statutory provisions for the compensation have not suffered material changes.
Komisija meni, da so vse večji zneski pomoči posledica večjih finančnih potreb izvajalca javne službe pri izpolnjevanju njegovega poslanstva javne službe, medtem ko pri obveznostih javne službe, dogovorih o financiranju in spremembah zakonskih določb o nadomestilu ni prišlo do bistvenih sprememb.
The beneficiary of the measure has been the same since the beginning of the scheme.
Upravičenec ukrepa je od začetka programa enak.
Although CalMac underwent a restructuring process in 2006, it has always been the sole beneficiary of the aid and has always been a fully-owned public company.
Čeprav je bilo podjetje CalMac leta 2006 prestrukturirano, je bilo vedno edini upravičenec pomoči in vedno popolnoma v javni lasti.
In 2006 its vessel and shore assets were separated from its ferry operating role.
Leta 2006 so bila njegova plovila in kopenska sredstva ločena od njegove vloge izvajalca prevozov s trajekti.
This change cannot be seen as altering the beneficiaries of the scheme as the two separate legal entities continue to be the only interveners in the compensation scheme.
Te spremembe ni mogoče šteti za spremembo upravičencev programa, saj sta dva ločena pravna subjekta ostala edina posrednika v programu nadomestil.
This legal separation is a change of technical nature that does not lead to a material change of beneficiary of the aid.
Ta pravna ločitev je sprememba tehnične narave, ki ne povzroča bistvene spremembe upravičenca pomoči.
Likewise, the attribution of the operations on the Hebrides and Clyde to two separate legal entities (CalMac Ferries Ltd and Cowal Ferries Ltd, two wholly-owned subsidiaries of David MacBrayne Ltd) must be seen as a change of technical nature that does not lead to a material change of beneficiary of the aid.
Prav tako je treba dodelitev izvajanja prevozov na Hebridih in reki Clyde dvema ločenima pravnima subjektoma (CalMac Ferries Ltd in Cowal Ferries Ltd, dvema hčerinskima družbama v izključni lasti podjetja David MacBrayne Ltd) šteti za spremembo tehnične narave, ki ne povzroča bistvene spremembe upravičenca pomoči.
There have been some adaptations to the overall service and routes served by CalMac.
Celotne storitve in proge, na katerih obratuje podjetje CalMac, so bile nekoliko prilagojene.
A few new services were added while a few others were discontinued.
Dodanih je bilo nekaj novih storitev, nekaj drugih pa opuščenih.
One of these adaptations, for example, resulted from the opening of a new bridge which rendered the existing service superfluous.
Ena izmed teh prilagoditev je bila, na primer, posledica odprtja novega mostu, zaradi katerega je postala obstoječa storitev odvečna.
The Commission considers that these are technical changes intended to adapt the public service offer to the needs of the population.
Komisija meni, da so to tehnične spremembe, namenjene prilagoditvi ponudbe javnih storitev potrebam prebivalstva.
These adaptations did not change the overall purpose of the scheme.
Te prilagoditve niso spremenile skupnega namena programa.
The public service obligations are defined as a whole and limited technical adjustments to the routes served do not materially change the essence of the scheme.
Obveznosti javne službe so opredeljene kot celota, omejene tehnične prilagoditve prog, na katerih se obratuje, pa ne spreminjajo pomembno bistva programa.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission has concluded in the course of its investigation that the aid scheme concerning CalMac constitutes an existing aid [54] and initiated the co-operation procedure provided for pursuant to Article 17 of the Procedural Regulation in parallel to the formal investigation procedure.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov je Komisija med svojo preiskavo sklenila, da program pomoči za podjetje CalMac predstavlja obstoječo pomoč [54], in sprožila postopek sodelovanja, predviden v členu 17 Postopkovne uredbe, sočasno s formalnim postopkom preiskave.
It informed the Member State about this conclusion and expressed its preliminary view that some aspects of the scheme were no longer compatible with the common market.
Državo članico je obvestila o tem sklepu in izrazila svoje predhodno stališče, da nekateri vidiki programa niso več združljivi s skupnim trgom.
The Member State’s authorities were given the opportunity to submit their comments on this preliminary view.
Organi države članice so lahko podali svoje pripombe o tem predhodnem stališču.
Since the State aid scheme in favour of CalMac is an existing aid, its compatibility must accordingly be assessed exclusively by reference to the present situation [55] and the Commission is not required to assess the compatibility of the aid granted to CalMac in the past.
Ker je program državne pomoči v korist podjetja CalMac obstoječa pomoč, je treba njegovo združljivost oceniti izključno glede na obstoječe razmere [55], Komisija pa ni obvezana oceniti združljivosti pomoči, dodeljene podjetju CalMac v preteklosti.
It is clear that the payments made to NorthLink 1 under the public service contract for the operation of the Northern islands routes in the period 2002-06 and under the MoA constitute new aid since NorthLink 1 was not developing any public service activities in these routes before 2002.
Jasno je, da plačila podjetju NorthLink 1 po pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe za obratovanje na progah severnih otokov v obdobju 2002–2006 in po zapisniku predstavljajo novo pomoč, saj podjetje NorthLink 1 pred letom 2002 ni razvijalo nobenih dejavnosti javne službe na teh progah.
Similarly, the payments made to NorthLink 2 constitute new aid, independently from the question whether NorthLink 1 and NorthLink 2 should be seen as separate beneficiaries or whether NorthLink 2 should be considered as a mere continuation of NorthLink 1.
Podobno predstavljajo novo pomoč plačila podjetju NorthLink 2, ne glede na vprašanje, ali bi bilo treba podjetji NorthLink 1 in NorthLink 2 obravnavati kot ločena upravičenca in ali bi bilo treba podjetje NorthLink 2 šteti zgolj za nadaljevanje podjetja NorthLink 1.
Therefore, all aid paid from 2002 to NorthLink 1 and NorthLink 2 must be considered as new aid.
Zato je treba vso pomoč, ki je bila od leta 2002 plačana podjetjema NorthLink 1 in NorthLink 2, šteti za novo pomoč.
The compatibility of the scheme with the common market must therefore be assessed for the period since 2002.
Združljivost programa s skupnim trgom je torej treba oceniti za obdobje od leta 2002.
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 86(2) OF THE TREATY
UPORABA ČLENA 86(2) POGODBE
Article 86(2) of the Treaty is the legal basis to assess the aid granted to CalMac, NorthLink 1 and NorthLink 2.
Člen 86(2) Pogodbe je pravna podlaga za ocenitev pomoči, dodeljene podjetjem CalMac, NorthLink 1 in NorthLink 2.
Pursuant to Article 86(2) of the Treaty, it must be assessed whether:
V skladu s členom 86(2) Pogodbe je treba oceniti, ali:
the ferry services in Scotland constitute SGEI and are clearly defined as such by the UK authorities (definition) [56];
storitve prevozov s trajekti na Škotskem predstavljajo SSGP in so jih organi Združenega kraljestva jasno opredelili kot take (opredelitev) [56];
CalMac, NorthLink 1 and NorthLink 2 are explicitly entrusted by the Member State with the provision of that service and are subject to supervision as to the fulfilment of their tasks (entrustment and supervision);
je podjetja CalMac, NorthLink 1 in NorthLink 2 država članica izrecno pooblastila za opravljanje te službe, izvajanje njihovih nalog pa se nadzoruje (pooblastitev in nadzor);
the funding is proportionate to the net cost of providing the public service, taking also into account other direct or indirect revenues derived from the public service, and does not lead to unnecessary distortions of competition or effects on trade (proportionality).
je financiranje sorazmerno z neto stroški izvajanja javne službe, upoštevajoč tudi druge neposredne ali posredne prihodke iz naslova javne službe, in ne vodi k nepotrebnemu izkrivljanju konkurence ali učinkom na trgovino (sorazmernost).
APPLICABILITY OF SGEI FRAMEWORK [57]/SGEI DECISION [58]
UPORABA OKVIRA SSGP [57] / ODLOČBA SSGP [58]
As from its entry into force, the SGEI Decision exempts from the notification requirement public compensation for the performance of SGEI under certain conditions.
Odkar je stopila v veljavo, Odločba SSGP določa, da je javno nadomestilo za opravljanje SSGP oproščeno obveznosti priglasitve pod določenimi pogoji.
The SGEI Framework lays down the conditions for compatibility of measures subject to the notification requirement as from its entry into force.
Okvir SSGP od začetka veljavnosti določa pogoje za združljivost ukrepov, za katere velja obveznost priglasitve.
The SGEI Framework explicitly excludes the transport sector in its point 3 and is therefore not applicable in the present case.
Točka 3 okvira SSGP izrecno izključuje transportni sektor, zato okvir ne velja v tem primeru.
Nevertheless, the principles of interpretation formulated therein can be useful in assessing the compatibility of the measures under analysis, given the general context of application of Article 86(2) of the Treaty [59].
Kljub temu so lahko v njem oblikovana načela razlaganja koristna pri ocenjevanju združljivosti analiziranih ukrepov glede na splošni kontekst uporabe člena 86(2) Pogodbe [59].
The SGEI Decision does not exclude maritime and air transport.
Odločba SSGP ne izključuje pomorskega in zračnega prometa.
In the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the possible application of the SGEI Decision was raised and the Commission expressed the preliminary position that it did not appear to be applicable in the present case.
V odločitvi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave je bila omenjena možna uporaba Odločbe SSGP, Komisija pa je izrazila predhodno stališče, da ta odločba ne velja v tem primeru.
There are two exceptions from the notification requirement in Article 2 of the SGEI Decision which might be relevant in the present case:
Člen 2 Odločbe SSGP vsebuje dve izjemi glede obveznosti priglasitve, ki bi lahko bili pomembni v tem primeru:
public service compensation granted to undertakings with an average annual turnover before tax, all activities included, of less than EUR 100 million during the two financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned, which receive annual compensation for the service in question of less than EUR 30 million’;
nadomestilo za javne storitve, dodeljeno podjetjem, katerih povprečni letni promet pred obdavčitvijo, ki vključuje vse dejavnosti, ne presega 100 milijonov EUR v obdobju dveh finančnih let pred letom, v katerem je bila dodeljena storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in letno nadomestilo za zadevno storitev ne presega 30 milijonov EUR“;
public service compensation for air or maritime links to islands on which average annual traffic during the two financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned does not exceed 300000 passengers’.
nadomestilo za javne storitve za zračne ali pomorske povezave z otoki, pri katerih povprečni letni promet v dveh proračunskih letih pred letom, v katerem je bila storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena dodeljena, ne presega 300000 potnikov“.
The question of which entity should be considered for the application of condition (a) above (CalMac, NorthLink 1 and NorthLink 2 separately or together) was raised in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Vprašanje, za kateri subjekt je treba upoštevati pogoj (a) zgoraj (CalMac, NorthLink 1 in NorthLink 2 posebej ali skupaj), je bilo postavljeno v odločitvi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
The Commission notes that both CalMac and NorthLink 2 are currently receiving more than EUR 30 million each per year in compensation for the operation of the respective maritime routes [60].
Komisija ugotavlja, da tako podjetje CalMac kot podjetje NorthLink 2 trenutno prejemata vsak več kot 30 milijonov EUR letno kot nadomestilo za obratovanje na zadevnih pomorskih progah [60].
Therefore, condition (a) is not met.
To pomeni, da pogoj (a) ni izpolnjen.
As regards NorthLink 2, the latest data available shows traffic of 301000 in 2004/2005 for the two routes served.
Kar zadeva podjetje NorthLink 2, najnovejši razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da je promet na omenjenih dveh progah znašal 301000 v obdobju 2004/2005.
For CalMac, the figures are much higher.
Za podjetje CalMac so vrednosti veliko višje.
Therefore, condition (c) is not met either.
To pomeni, da tudi pogoj (c) ni izpolnjen.
In conclusion, the Commission confirms its preliminary assessment that the SGEI Decision is not applicable in the present case.
Komisija torej potrjuje svojo predhodno oceno, da v tem primeru Odločba SSGP ne velja.
EXISTING AID GRANTED TO CALMAC
OBSTOJEČA POMOČ, DODELJENA PODJETJU CALMAC
Hebrides and Clyde (excluding Gourock-Dunoon)
Hebridi in Clyde (razen Gourock–Dunoon)
As mentioned previously (see Section 5.2 above), only the current situation is relevant for the compatibility assessment of the aid granted to CalMac, since it is an existing aid.
Kot je omenjeno zgoraj (glej oddelek 5.2 zgoraj), so za oceno združljivosti pomoči, dodeljene podjetju CalMac, pomembne samo trenutne razmere, ker gre za obstoječo pomoč.
Thus, only the provisions of the 2007 public service contract have to be assessed for all routes, except for Gourock-Dunoon, which is excluded from this contract.
Zato je treba oceniti samo določbe pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe iz leta 2007 za vse proge, razen Gourock–Dunoon, ki je izključena iz te pogodbe.
In accordance with the co-operation procedure provided for pursuant to Article 88(1) of the Treaty the Commission has obtained from the United Kingdom all necessary information for the review of the existing aid scheme.
V skladu s postopkom sodelovanja, določenim v členu 88(1) Pogodbe, je Komisija pridobila od Združenega kraljestva vse potrebne informacije za pregled obstoječega programa pomoči.
The assessment made above with regard to the fulfilment of the Altmark 1 criterion applies here as well.
Zgornja ocena o izpolnitvi merila Altmark 1 velja tudi tu.
The 2007 public service contract, which followed an open and transparent public tender procedure, is in accordance with Article 4 of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, which sets out the specifications that should be part of the definition, namely: ports to be served, regularity, continuity, frequency, capacity to provide the service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessels.
Pogodba o izvajanju javne službe iz leta 2007, ki je bila sklenjena po odprtem in preglednem postopku javnega razpisa, je v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe o pomorski kabotaži, ki opredeljuje specifikacije, ki morajo biti del opredelitve, in sicer: glede pristanišč, rednosti, neprekinjenosti, pogostosti, zmogljivosti zagotavljanja prevozov, prevoznih tarif in številčnega stanja posadke.
The public service contract sets out that the obligations imposed upon the Operator shall not preclude it from using the vessels for any other purposes provided that the obligation to provide the SGEI has been and continues to be satisfied.
Pogodba o izvajanju javne službe določa, da obveznosti, naložene izvajalcu, slednjemu ne preprečujejo uporabe plovil za katere koli druge namene, pod pogojem, da je obveznost opravljanja SSGP bila in ostaja izpolnjena.
In practice, this allows the Operator, for example, to carry commercial vehicles, which is an activity outside the scope of its public service tasks.
V praksi to izvajalcu omogoča, da na primer prevaža gospodarska vozila, kar je dejavnost zunaj obsega njegovih nalog javne službe.
This condition in no way constitutes a manifest error in the definition of the SGEI attributed to CalMac, since it refers to activities outside the scope of the definition of the SGEI that may be carried out by CalMac on commercial terms (without State subsidisation).
Ta pogoj v nobenem primeru ne predstavlja očitne napake v opredelitvi SSGP, dodeljenih podjetju CalMac, saj se nanaša na dejavnosti, ki niso zajete v opredelitvi SSGP in ki jih lahko podjetje CalMac opravlja pod komercialnimi pogoji (brez državne subvencije).
The public service obligations for this route and the respective compensation are intended for the transport of passengers only, commercial vehicles being excluded.
Obveznosti javne službe za to progo in zadevno nadomestilo so namenjeni samo za prevoz potnikov, medtem ko so gospodarska vozila izključena.
The definition of the public service obligations is not in line with Article 4 of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation.
Opredelitev obveznosti javne službe ni v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe o pomorski kabotaži.
Indeed, the basic characteristics of the public service such as the ports to be served, regularity, continuity, frequency, capacity to provide the service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessels, are not formally defined in a legal Act.
Dejansko osnovne značilnosti javne službe, namreč glede pristanišč, rednosti, neprekinjenosti, pogostosti, zmogljivosti zagotavljanja prevozov, prevoznih tarif in številčnega stanja posadke, niso uradno opredeljene v pravnem aktu.
It has been argued by interested parties that the definition of the public service obligations in the Gourock-Dunoon route constitutes a manifest error by reference to a competing service.
Zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da opredelitev obveznosti javne službe v primeru proge Gourock–Dunoon predstavlja očitno napako zaradi omembe konkurenčne storitve.
Indeed, there is another company – Western Ferries – providing transport services (passenger, vehicle and freight) in a similar route serving broadly the same locations, although starting and ending on different points.
Dejansko drugo podjetje – Western Ferries – opravlja storitve prevoza (potnikov, vozil in blaga) na podobni progi, ki zajema približno enake lokacije, čeprav se začne in konča na drugih točkah.
McGill’s Buses (a local bus operator) has introduced a connecting bus service from Dunoon town centre that takes foot passengers directly onto Western Ferries’ service and then drops passengers off in Glasgow city centre via Gourock.
Podjetje McGill's Buses (lokalni ponudnik avtobusnih prevozov) je uvedel povezovalni avtobusni prevoz od središča mesta Dunoon, s katerim potnike brez vozila prepelje neposredno do kraja, kjer prevoz nudi podjetje Western Ferries, in jih nato odloži v središču mesta Glasgow prek Gourocka.
The United Kingdom has provided credible information on the adequacy of a SGEI for passenger transport on this route.
Združeno kraljestvo je predložilo verodostojne informacije o ustreznosti SSGP za prevoz potnikov na tej progi.