natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
TYPICAL UNDERTAKING, WELL RUN AND ADEQUATELY PROVIDED WITH MEANS OF TRANSPORT (FOURTH ALTMARK CRITERION)
POVPREČNO, DOBRO VODENO PODJETJE, KI JE USTREZNO OPREMLJENO S PREVOZNIMI SREDSTVI (ČETRTO MERILO ALTMARK)
Germany stated that, contrary to the Commission’s observation in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the parameters for the calculation of the public service compensation are set out and take into account all available information from public and private transport undertakings within or outside the VRR area.
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da se – v nasprotju s stališčem Komisije v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave – pri določitvi parametrov za izračun nadomestila za opravljanje javnih storitev upoštevajo vse razpoložljive informacije javnih in zasebnih prevoznikov na območju združenja VRR ali zunaj njega.
VRR has established the costs (i.e. the target data) which result from activities discharging public service obligations in the first three categories by a typical undertaking which is well run with the collaboration of their own expert/auditor, Industrie- und Verkehrstreuhand GmbH (‘IVT’ or ‘the expert’).
Združenje VRR je vrednost stroškov (to pomeni načrtovane podatke), ki izhajajo iz dejavnosti povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja v okviru izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe v prvih treh kategorijah, opredelilo ob podpori lastnega strokovnjaka/revizorja, družbe Industrie- und Verkehrstreuhand GmbH (v nadaljnjem besedilu: IVT).
IVT has at its disposal comparative data on a large number of transport undertakings established in Germany and Austria stemming from a comparative analysis.
IVT ima na podlagi primerjalne analize dostop do primerljivih podatkov številnih prevoznikov, ki imajo sedež v Nemčiji in Avstriji.
The target data were adjusted by VRR taking account of certain (e.g. regional) specificities.
VRR je prilagodilo načrtovane podatke ob upoštevanju ustreznih (na primer regionalnih) posebnosti.
The target data for the fourth category are established by reference to certain regional market data.
Načrtovani podatki za četrto kategorijo se ugotovijo s sklicevanjem na ustrezne regionalne tržne podatke.
At the end of its analysis VRR defines a margin for average market prices of the various cost categories.
Na koncu VRR določi maržo na povprečne tržne cene po posameznih kategorijah stroškov.
These target data were established for the year 2003 and they are updated according to an index in accordance with Annex 9 to the Financing Guidelines (provisions concerning the ‘evolution of the price level over time’) and according to volume increases/decreases and changes in structures.
Načrtovani podatki so bili pridobljeni za leto 2003 in posodobljeni z ustreznim indeksom v skladu s Prilogo 9 k direktivi o financiranju (določbe o „stroškovni posodobitvi“) ter glede na povečanje/zmanjšanje obsega in strukturne spremembe.
Germany emphasised in particular that, in its view, the fact that an undertaking is discharging a public service obligation (such as, for instance, paying employees higher than the normal rates due to social policy decisions) does not make it possible to conclude that such an undertaking is not well run.
Nemčija še posebej poudarja, da po njenem mnenju na podlagi dejstva, da neko podjetje izpolnjuje obveznosti javne službe (tako da na primer zaradi družbenopolitičnih odločitev svojim zaposlenim izplačuje višje plače), ni mogoče skleniti, da to podjetje ni dobro vodeno.
Germany expressed the opinion that the public financing of infrastructure maintenance costs does not affect trade between Member States because this infrastructure is exclusively used by the beneficiary of such financing.
Po mnenju Nemčije se z javnim financiranjem stroškov vzdrževanja infrastrukture ne vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, saj to infrastrukturo uporabljajo izključno prejemniki teh finančnih sredstev.
Further, it argued that the financing of infrastructure maintenance costs does not affect a distinct market open to competition, namely the local regional transport market, because VRR’s financing system prevents financing earmarked for infrastructure maintenance costs (where the market is closed to competition) from being used by transport undertakings in the market open to competition.
S financiranjem stroškov vzdrževanja se prav tako ne vpliva na ločen trg, odprt za konkurenco, to pomeni lokalni regionalni prometni trg, saj sistem financiranja združenja VRR preprečuje, da bi prevozniki namenska sredstva za kritje stroškov vzdrževanja infrastrukture (za trge, ki so zaprti za konkurenco) uporabljali na trgu, odprtem za konkurenco.
Furthermore, public transport operators are required to provide separate accounts for the different cost categories.
Poleg tega morajo javni prevozniki voditi ločeno računovodstvo za posamezne kategorije stroškov.
Germany being of the opinion that there is no State aid in favour of RBG or BSM, it provided comments on the compatibility of the alleged aid only in respect of the second subcategory of the fourth category, namely the social obligations in connection with operation imposed by the shareholder [26].
Ker Nemčija meni, da ne obstaja državna pomoč v korist podjetja RBG ali BSM, zavzema stališče do združljivosti domnevne pomoči le v zvezi z drugo podkategorijo četrte kategorije, torej družbenopolitičnimi obveznostmi na območju obratovanja na podlagi zahtev delničarja [26].
It argued that the compensation of the higher pay scale is, in any case, compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Nemčija navaja, da je nadomestilo za višje stroške plač na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU vsekakor združljivo z notranjim trgom.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID ON THE BASIS OF REGULATION (EC) No 1370/2007
ZDRUŽLJIVOST POMOČI Z NOTRANJIM TRGOM NA PODLAGI UREDBE (ES) ŠT. 1370/2007
As Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force on 3 December 2009, the Commission requested Germany to provide its observations on the compatibility of the new financing system with the internal market on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Ker je Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 začela veljati 3. decembra 2009, je Komisija pozvala Nemčijo, naj predstavi stališče do združljivosti „novega sistema financiranja“ z notranjim trgom na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Germany was in principle of the opinion that the Commission should assess the compatibility of the new financing system on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 only as from 3 December 2009.
Nemčija načeloma meni, da bi lahko Komisija šele po 3. decembru 2009 preverila združljivost „novega sistema financiranja“ z notranjim trgom na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Furthermore, Germany argued that the new financing system – if it involves State aid – is also compatible with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Nemčija še navaja, da je „novi sistem financiranja“ – če bi pomenil pomoč – združljiv tudi z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Germany also informed the Commission of the following adjustments to the new financing system in order to comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007:
Poleg tega je Nemčija Komisijo obvestila o naslednjih prilagoditvah „novega sistema financiranja“, ki naj bi ustrezale zahtevam iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007:
Entrustment with the public service mission: The imposed public service obligations for RBG (decision of the competent authority dated 25 June 2009) and BSM (decision of the competent authority dated 26 November 2009) have been summarised in a single public service contract with a limited duration of 10 years.
Pooblastitev za obveznosti javne službe: obveznosti javne službe, naložene podjetjema RBG (s sklepom pristojnega organa z dne 25. junija 2009) in BSM (s sklepom pristojnega organa z dne 26. novembra 2009), so bile povzete v eni sami pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe, katere trajanje je omejeno na 10 let.
Application of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007: The net financial effect will be calculated in line with the provisions of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Uporaba Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007: finančni neto učinek se izračuna v skladu z določbami Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007.
COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
The Commission received comments from one interested party, which requested confidential treatment.
Komisija je prejela zgolj pripombe ene zainteresirane strani, ki je zaprosila za zaupno obravnavo.
The initial complainant, the city of Langenfeld, did not submit any observations.
Prvotni pritožnik, mesto Langenfeld, ni predložil pripomb.
The interested party disputed the Commission’s finding that the old financing system is existing aid.
Zainteresirana stran dvomi o ugotovitvi Komisije, da gre pri „starem sistemu financiranja“ za obstoječo pomoč.
As regards the financing by cross-subsidisation, the third party submitted that this is a practice, usually termed ‘kommunaler Querverbund’, common to a great number of municipal holding companies in Germany, which according to the third party has been called into question by a judgment of the German Federal Finance Court [27].
Zainteresirana stran v zvezi z navzkrižnim subvencioniranjem navaja, da gre tu za prakso, ki se praviloma šteje za „občinsko navzkrižno povezavo“, značilno za številne mestne holdinške družbe v Nemčiji, o kateri pa se po mnenju zainteresirane strani dvomi na podlagi sodbe Bundesfinanzhof [27].
In the third party’s opinion, where such cross-subsidisation occurs by way of a control and profit/loss transfer agreement, there is no way to prevent overcompensation in view of the automatic character of the transfer.
Če tako navzkrižno subvencioniranje poteka na podlagi sporazuma o nadzoru in prenosu dobička, po mnenju zainteresirane strani zaradi samodejnega prenosa ni mogoče izključiti čezmerne kompenzacije.
The third party contested that VRR actually takes account of the cross-subsidisation when it applies its financing system in practice and that VRR consequently adjusts its financing amounts accordingly.
Zainteresirana stran izpodbija, da bi združenje VRR pri praktični uporabi sistema financiranja v resnici upoštevalo navzkrižno subvencioniranje in tako ustrezno prilagodilo zneske financiranja.
As regards the financing by VRR, the third party argued that VRR’s new financing system is not applied in practice as it is formulated in the Financing Guidelines, for the following reasons:
V zvezi s financiranjem, ki ga zagotavlja VRR, zainteresirana stran navaja, da se novi sistem financiranja združenja VRR iz spodaj navedenih razlogov v praksi ne uporablja skladno z direktivo o financiranju.
According to the third party the public service obligations are defined in a non-transparent way in collaboration with the transport undertakings themselves.
Po navedbah zainteresirane strani se obveznosti javne službe opredeljujejo nepregledno, tj. skupaj s prevozniki.
It argued that a threefold act of entrustment needs to comply with the requirement of clarity in the same way as a single act.
Trojni akt o pooblastitvi mora zahtevo po jasnosti izpolnjevati prav tako kot enojni akt o pooblastitvi.
It considered that the licences under the PBefG are generally not capable of being regarded as the imposition of a public service obligation because they are granted on the initiative of the transport undertaking concerned, which therefore also defines the conditions of its service.
Po mnenju zainteresirane strani se dovoljenja, izdana na podlagi PBefG, praviloma ne morejo obravnavati kot uvedba obveznosti javne službe, saj se odobrijo na pobudo zadevnih prevoznikov, ki tako tudi določijo pogoje za opravljanje svojih storitev.
In addition, the transport undertaking itself can ask for a later adjustment of the licence.
Poleg tega lahko prevoznik sam zaprosi za naknadno prilagoditev dovoljenja.
The third party also considered the Local Public Transport Schemes not to be a suitable act of entrustment as they do not impose any obligations but rather only define – in a general manner – policy goals.
Zainteresirana stran tudi trdi, da načrti lokalnega prevoza ne pomenijo primernega akta o pooblastitvi, saj se z njimi ne uvajajo obveznosti javne službe, temveč se le opredelijo zelo splošni politični cilji.
Regarding the infrastructure provision, the third party submitted that no precise definition of the obligations is given and that only a framework of measures generally capable of being financed is spelled out.
Zainteresirana stran v zvezi z zagotavljanjem in vzdrževanjem infrastrukture navaja, da obveznosti niso natančno opredeljene in da so navedeni le ukrepi, katerih financiranje je povsem splošno.
Furthermore, the third party stated that the bulk of the investment in this category would normally be carried out by the transport undertakings in their own economic interest.
Pojasnjuje še, da prevozniki večino naložb iz te kategorije običajno izvedejo zaradi lastnega komercialnega interesa.
Regarding the management and marketing tasks imposed by VRR or the competent local authority, the third party argued that the management and marketing tasks connected with participation in a transport association such as VRR are an aspect of the general economic framework in the sector.
Zainteresirana stran v zvezi z režijskimi in prodajnimi nalogami, ki se nanašajo na združenje oziroma nosilce nalog, trdi, da te naloge, povezane z udeležbo v združenju, kot je VRR, predstavljajo en vidik splošnih gospodarskih razmer v tem sektorju.
In practice, no transport undertaking operates outside the system of a transport association.
Dejansko pa noben prevoznik ni dejaven zunaj združenja.
Therefore, according to the third party, compliance with management and marketing tasks imposed by a transport association is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a licence which otherwise would be refused by the competent authority.
Zato je po mnenju zainteresirane strani izpolnjevanje režijskih in prodajnih nalog, ki se nanašajo na združenje, nujni pogoj za podelitev dovoljenja, ki ga pristojni organi sicer ne bi izdali.
Finally, participation in a transport association brings with it certain economic benefits, e.g. economies of scale.
Ne nazadnje so z udeležbo v takem združenju povezane tudi nekatere ekonomske prednosti, na primer ekonomija obsega.
In relation to the vehicle quality standards imposed by VRR or the competent local authority, the third party submitted that VRR’s new financing system does not define exactly which type of vehicle would be bought by the transport undertakings purely out of their own economic interest.
Zainteresirana stran v zvezi s standardi kakovosti vozil, ki se nanašajo na združenje oziroma nosilce nalog, trdi, da v novem sistemu financiranja združenja VRR ni natančno opredeljeno, kateri tip vozila bi prevozniki sami kupili zaradi lastnega komercialnega interesa.
Regarding the additional costs of unprofitable services in off-peak periods imposed by the competent local authority or by VRR, the third party stated that such services can be operated at marginal cost when they are well planned, a transport undertaking having in its opinion to calculate its vehicle and personnel requirements according to peak-hour demand.
Glede dodatnih stroškov zaradi nedobičkonosnih voženj v urah redkega prometa – zahtev nosilcev nalog oziroma združenja zainteresirana stran pojasnjuje, da bi se lahko te storitve ob dobrem načrtovanju opravljale po mejnih stroških, saj mora prevoznik po njenem mnenju pri ugotavljanju potreb po vozilih in človeških virih upoštevati potrebe v prometnih konicah.
Regarding the social obligations in connection with the operation imposed by the shareholder, the third party submitted that bearing higher personnel costs cannot be regarded as a public service obligation or a service of general economic interest as it does not relate to the provision of transport services.
Zainteresirana stran v zvezi s družbenopolitičnimi obveznostmi na območju obratovanja na podlagi zahtev delničarja navaja, da višjih stroškov osebja ni mogoče obravnavati kot obveznosti javne službe ali storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, saj niso povezani z opravljanjem storitev prevoza.
Regarding the other requirements in connection with the operation or requirements inherent in the system imposed by the competent local authority or VRR which are justified individually and lead to an economic disadvantage, the third party argued that they cannot be regarded as public service obligations and that they are not in fact imposed on the transport undertakings.
V zvezi z drugimi zahtevami za območje obratovanja oziroma sistemskimi zahtevami – zahtevami nosilcev nalog oziroma združenja na podlagi posebnega dokaza, ki pomenijo ekonomsko breme, trdi, da se ne morejo šteti za obveznosti javne službe in da ne pomenijo zahtev za prevoznike.
Concerning the second Altmark criterion, the third party emphasised that no common system for the definition of the parameters applies to the second and third subcategory of the fourth category of public service obligations in VRR’s new financing system.
Glede drugega merila Altmark zainteresirana stran poudarja, da novi sistem financiranja združenja VRR ne vsebuje skupnega sistema za opredelitev parametrov za drugo in tretjo podkategorijo četrte kategorije obveznosti javne službe.
According to the third party, the establishment of the parameters in all of the categories cannot be verified by competitors for their correctness as they are not published.
Po navedbah zainteresirane strani konkurenti za nobeno kategorijo ne morejo preveriti, ali so bili parametri pravilno opredeljeni, saj niso objavljeni.
Concerning the third Altmark criterion, the third party submitted that the public service obligations cannot be assessed completely separately from the commercial activities of the transport undertakings.
Glede tretjega merila Altmark zainteresirana stran navaja, da se obveznosti javne službe ne morejo obravnavati popolnoma ločeno od komercialnih dejavnosti prevoznikov.
Moreover, overcompensation must be assessed separately for every single category.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba obstoj čezmerne kompenzacije preveriti za vsako kategorijo posebej.
In the third party’s opinion, the new financing system does not ensure that the relevant receipts or other economic advantages in relation to the public service obligation are taken into account in the various categories.
Po njenem mnenju se z novim sistemom financiranja ne zagotavlja, da bi se v posameznih kategorijah upoštevali vsakokratni prihodki ali druge ekonomske prednosti, povezane z obveznostmi javne službe.
The automatic character of the cross-subsidisation mechanism makes it impossible to prevent overcompensation in VRR’s financing system.
Ker navzkrižno subvencioniranje poteka samodejno, naj s sistemom financiranja združenja VRR ne bi bilo mogoče preprečiti čezmerne kompenzacije.
Concerning the fourth Altmark criterion, the third party argued that, on the basis of the information at its disposal, it was not in a position to evaluate the appropriateness of the benchmarking method employed by VRR.
Glede četrtega merila Altmark zainteresirana stran navaja, da na podlagi njej razpoložljivih informacij ne more presoditi, ali je metoda določanja referenčne vrednosti, ki jo uporablja VRR, primerna.
It submitted that the total number of undertakings from which comparative data are examined is not decisive in determining whether these comparative data reflect the costs of an average, well-run undertaking.
Skupno število podjetij, katerih podatki se upoštevajo, naj ne bi bilo odločilno za to, ali ti primerjalni podatki kažejo stroške povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja.
In its opinion, the correct selection of the undertakings and the correct weighting of the data stemming from different kinds of undertaking are what matter.
To naj bi bilo bolj odvisno od pravilne izbire podjetij in pravilnega ponderiranja podatkov različnih vrst podjetij.
Regarding the effect on competition and on trade between Member States, the third party agreed with the Commission’s preliminary assessment and consequently considered that the measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Glede vpliva na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami se zainteresirana stran strinja s predhodno oceno Komisije, po kateri ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In the third party’s opinion, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 is applicable in the present case.
Po mnenju zainteresirane strani je v obravnavanem primeru mogoče uporabiti Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Germany has not made use of the possibility of exempting the services at issue from the scope of that Regulation.
Nemčija ni izkoristila možnosti, da se zadevne storitve izvzamejo s področja uporabe te uredbe.
The reasoning of the BVerwG, which has ruled in the opposite sense, is erroneous.
Utemeljitev BVerwG (zvezno upravno sodišče), ki je podalo nasprotno odločitev, naj bi bila pomanjkljiva.
In the third party’s view, the measures in question do not comply with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and are therefore not compatible with the internal market.
Po mnenju zainteresirane strani zadevni ukrepi niso skladni z določbami Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, zato niso združljivi z notranjim trgom.
On a general note, the third party argued that VRR does not have the necessary means at its disposal for monitoring compliance with the provisions of the new financing system.
Zainteresirana stran na splošno navaja, da združenje VRR nima na razpolago ustreznih sredstev, da bi nadziralo spoštovanje določb novega sistema financiranja.
VRR cannot therefore ensure compliance with the fourth Altmark criterion.
Zato ne more zagotoviti izpolnitve četrtega merila Altmark.
Finally, the third party commented extensively, especially in its later submissions, on the way in which VRR is financed by the contributions it levies from its member cities and districts.
Končno zainteresirana stran zlasti v poznejših pripombah izčrpno obravnava način, kako se VRR financira s prispevki mest in okrožij, ki so člani združenja.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY ON THE THIRD PARTY’S COMMENTS
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE O UGOTOVITVAH ZAINTERESIRANE STRANI
Germany began its observations by stating that it had provided the Commission with all necessary information and that it was therefore not necessary to comment on the aspects raised by the third party in its comments.
Nemčija je najprej navedla, da je Komisiji predložila vse potrebne informacije, zato naj pripombe o izjavah zainteresirane strani ne bi bile potrebne.
At a later stage, Germany nevertheless replied to certain comments made by the third party.
Pozneje se je Nemčija vendarle izrekla o nekaterih njenih izjavah.
Germany stated that VRR’s budget is of no importance for the actual entrustment with public service obligations or the definition of the parameters.
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da proračun združenja VRR za dejansko pooblastitev glede obveznosti javne službe in za opredelitev parametrov ni pomemben.
It explained that currently there is no obligation to publish data on the establishment of the parameters for the calculation of compensation.
Trenutno ni obveznosti objave podatkov o opredelitvi parametrov za izračun nadomestila.
Germany disputed the third party’s contention that off-peak services can be operated at marginal cost.
Nemčija izpodbija trditev zainteresirane strani, da je mogoče storitve v urah redkega prometa opravljati z mejnimi stroški.
It further disputed that participation in a transport association is a general prerequisite for carrying on public transport activities.
Izpodbija tudi trditev, da udeležba v konkretnem združenju pomeni splošni pogoj za opravljanje storitev javnega prevoza.
Germany emphasised that earnings connected with activities discharging the public service obligations in the different categories are indeed attributed correctly to the respective categories and that, in any case, VRR would look into inappropriately high profits.
Nemčija poudarja, da se prihodki, doseženi pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe v različnih kategorijah, dejansko pravilno dodelijo posameznim kategorijam in da bi združenje VRR vsekakor preverilo nesorazmerno visoke dobičke.