natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denmark provides a detailed analysis of the changes in DSB’s equity capital, which grew from DKK 4,797 billion to DKK 7,701 billion over the period 1999-2004 (an increase of DKK 2,852 billion).
Danska je predložila podrobno analizo razvoja lastniškega kapitala družbe DSB, ki se je v obdobju 1999–2004 povečal s 4,797 milijarde DKK na 7,701 milijarde DKK (oziroma za 2,852 milijarde DKK).
The increase in equity capital is due to certain circumstances which had not been taken into consideration when the budget was drafted, including an unexpected marked improvement in DSB’s efficiency and higher extraordinary income resulting, for example, from the sale of real estate.
Povečanje lastniškega kapitala je posledica nekaterih okoliščin, ki se niso upoštevale pri pripravi proračuna, med njimi pa so močno izboljšanje učinkovitosti družbe DSB, ki je bilo nepričakovano, in višji izredni prihodki, na primer od prodaje nepremičnin.
These are not circumstances which the Danish Government could reasonably have taken into account in drafting the budget and hence in setting the level of compensation.
To niso okoliščine, ki bi jih danska vlada lahko razumno upoštevala pri pripravi proračuna in posledično pri določitvi zneska nadomestila.
The Danish authorities explain that the increase in equity capital is due, however, not to excessive operating grants paid by the State but to five other, essentially unforeseen factors:
Danski organi pojasnjujejo, da povečanje lastniškega kapitala vseeno ni posledica prevelikih donacij za poslovanje, ki jih je nakazala država, temveč je posledica petih drugih dejavnikov, od katerih so bili nekateri nepredvideni:
First, a very substantial part of the increase in DSB’s equity capital results from the founding budget (DKK 1,709 billion).
po eni strani je bil zelo velik del povečanja lastniškega kapitala družbe DSB predviden v okviru ustanovitvenega proračuna (1,709 milijarde DKK).
Act 249/1999 shows that there was a clear political and economic rationale for DSB’s transformation into a sustainable independent public undertaking, according to which DSB was to achieve a solvency ratio of at least 30 % within a few years.
Akt št. 249/1999 kaže, da je na začetku obstajal očiten političen in gospodarski pogoj, ki je usmerjal preoblikovanje DSB v uspešno neodvisno javno podjetje, po katerem bi morala ta družba v nekaj letih doseči vsaj 30-odstotno stopnjo solventnosti.
That rationale was based on an economic assessment of the necessary solvency ratio for an undertaking of DSB’s size;
Ta predpogoj je temeljil na gospodarski oceni stopenj solventnosti, ki so potrebne za podjetja podobne velikosti kot DSB,
Dividends were paid to the State at the end of that period in 2005 (DKK 736 million), which means that DSB could not therefore, in reality, have had that equity capital at the end of 2004,
konec tega obdobja, in sicer leta 2005, so bile državi izplačane dividende (736 milijonov DKK), kar pomeni, da družba DSB v resnici konec leta 2004 ni mogla razpolagati s svojim lastniškim kapitalom,
Part of the increase in equity capital is due to changes in accounting practices in 1999 and 2001 compared with the practices underlying the 1999 budget (upwards adjustment of equity capital to DKK 594 million).
del povečanja lastniškega kapitala je posledica sprememb računovodskih praks leta 1999 in 2001 v zvezi s predpogoji, na podlagi katerih je bil pripravljen začetni proračun za leto 1999 (ocena lastniškega kapitala v višini 594 milijonov DKK).
That change in accounting practices did not have any real commercial significance for the undertaking, and a correction should therefore be made.
Ta sprememba računovodskih praks ni imela nobenega dejanskega ekonomskega učinka za podjetje, zato je treba to popraviti.
The Danish authorities therefore stress that, if a correction is made for the effects of the modified accounting practices, the change in equity capital was in fact negative, with a reduction of DKK 135 million;
Danski organi tako poudarjajo, da je mogoče v popravljenih podatkih teh računovodskih sprememb ugotoviti, da je bil razvoj lastniškega kapitala v resnici negativen, saj se je zmanjšal za 135 milijonov DKK,
The rate of corporation tax, which was 32 % at the time of the founding budget in 1999, was subsequently lowered to 30 % (over the course of 2002, 2003 and 2004).
stopnja davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ki je bila ob pripravi ustanovitvenega proračuna leta 1999 32 %, se je nato (v letih 2002, 2003 in 2004) znižala na 30 %.
That reduction in the rate of tax resulted in an unforeseen gain of DKK 43 million over the period.
To znižanje davčne stopnje je v zadevnem obdobju povzročilo nepredviden dobiček v višini 43 milijonov DKK.
Without that gain, there would have been a negative impact on the equity capital of DKK 178 million;
Če ne bi bilo tega učinka, bi lahko opazili negativen vpliv na lastniški kapital v višini 178 milijonov DKK,
The downwards revision of the equity capital on the initial balance sheet by an amount of DKK 36 million,
zmanjšanje lastniškega kapitala v otvoritveni bilanci stanja za leto 1999 v višini 36 milijonov DKK.
According to Denmark, those facts show that the increase in DSB’s equity capital was not due to high operating grants paid by the State and that it must be seen in relation to the financial, accounting and tax information referred to above.
Po mnenju Danske ti elementi dokazujejo, da povečanje lastniškega kapitala družbe DSB ni posledica velikih donacij za poslovanje, ki jih je nakazala država, in da ga je treba gledati z vidika zgoraj navedenih finančnih, računovodskih in davčnih dejavnikov.
DSB did not therefore use the aid received from the State to increase its equity capital to an extent greater than the amount provided for in the founding budget.
DSB torej donacij, ki jih je prejela od države, ni uporabila za povečanje lastniškega kapitala v deležih, večjih od zneska, določenega v ustanovitvenem proračunu.
Operating Results
Izid iz poslovanja
With regard to the projected operating results before distribution of profits, the Danish authorities point out that the observed improvements in results are not an indication of DSB receiving overcompensation.
Danski organi glede izida iz poslovanja, vknjiženega v proračun pred izplačilom dividend poudarjajo, da ugotovljeno izboljšanje izida ne kaže, da je DSB prejela čezmerna nadomestila.
Rather, the improvements are due to a range of factors – having both positive and negative effects – which could not be taken into consideration when the level of compensation was established.
To izboljšanje naj bi bilo predvsem posledica vrste dejavnikov – s pozitivnimi in negativnimi vplivi –, ki jih ni bilo mogoče upoštevati, ko je bila določena raven nadomestil.
Denmark considers that such variations with respect to the initial budget are inevitable in the case of multiannual contracts relating to the discharging of a public service obligation.
Danska meni, da so take spremembe glede na prvotni proračun neizogibne, ko gre za večletne pogodbe o izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe.
In such cases, it is not possible to fix the amount of compensation in a way which makes it possible to confirm, following an ex post examination, that it corresponded exactly to the real costs, minus the receipts and a reasonable profit.
V teh primerih zneska nadomestila ni mogoče določiti tako, da bi bilo po naknadni preučitvi mogoče trditi, da natančno ustreza dejanskim stroškom po odbitku prihodkov in razumnega dobička.
According to the Danish authorities, even in cases where a public service obligation results from the award of a tender, changes may occur in the market and in the situation of the undertaking concerned, such that the results actually obtained do not correspond to the results predicted by the successful bidder when the contract was concluded.
Po mnenju danskih organov lahko celo v primeru, ko obveznost javne službe izhaja iz dodelitve javnega naročila, pride do sprememb na trgu in v položaju zadevnega podjetja, kot je dejstvo, da dejansko ustvarjeni dobiček ne ustreza temu, kar je podjetje, ki mu je bilo naročilo dodeljeno, predvidelo ob sklenitvi pogodbe.
Denmark therefore takes the view that improvements or deteriorations in results attributable to such unforeseen factors cannot be used as an argument to claim that the compensation was fixed in a way such as to involve overcompensation or under-compensation.
Danska torej meni, da se ni mogoče sklicevati na izboljšanje ali poslabšanje nepričakovanega izida, ki ga je mogoče pripisati tej vrsti nepredvidenih dejavnikov, da bi trdili, da je bilo nadomestilo določeno tako, da zajema dodelitev čezmernih ali premajhnih nadomestil.
In this case, the observed improvements in results are due to the combined effects of several factors such as general economic trends, developments in the market concerned, productivity gains (for example, reductions in the cost of labour or of access to infrastructure following the sale of the cargo branch, reductions in depreciation or improvements in financial management).
V obravnavani zadevi so ugotovljena izboljšanja izida posledica hkratnega delovanja več dejavnikov, kot je splošni razvoj gospodarskih razmer, razvoj na zadevnem trgu, povečanje produktivnosti (na primer z znižanjem stroškov dela ali zmanjšanjem dostopa do infrastrukture po odstopu tovornega prometa, znižanjem amortizacije ali izboljšanjem finančnega poslovodenja).
Denmark adds that the contracts concluded with DSB are characterised by the fact that the contracting partners agreed on payment on the basis of the usual considerations in a market economy, the level of payment having been determined in such a way as to cover DSB’s costs, taking account of the expected revenues and a reasonable profit.
Danska dodaja, da je za pogodbe, sklenjene z družbo DSB, značilno, da sta se pogodbeni stranki dogovorili za plačilo na podlagi običajnih tržnogospodarskih premislekov, saj je bila raven plačila določena tako, da pokriva stroške DSB ob upoštevanju pričakovanih prihodkov in razumnega dobička.
The fact that DSB ultimately achieved better results than budgeted for does not mean that the amounts of compensation fixed in the contracts was too high.
Dejstvo, da je imela družba DSB nazadnje boljši izid, kot je bilo predvideno v proračunu, ne pomeni, da je bil znesek nadomestila, določen v pogodbah, previsok.
Reduction in compensation and distribution of dividends
Zmanjšanje nadomestila in izplačilo dividend
The Danish authorities point out that, even though, in their opinion, there was no overcompensation, the risk of overcompensation is in any case ruled out by the Danish Government’s dividend policy as set out in Finance Act No 249/1999 and by the subsequent reduction in compensation in the agreement concluded with DSB.
Danski organi opozarjajo, da čeprav po njihovem mnenju nadomestila niso bila čezmerna, sta tveganje čezmernih nadomestil v vsakem primeru preprečila dividendna politika danske vlade, določena v zakonu o javnih financah št. 249/1999, in posledično zmanjšanje nadomestil v sporazumu, sklenjenem z družbo DSB.
Denmark takes the view that it has made sure, with its dividend policy, that DSB will not increase its equity capital beyond the level provided for and hence beyond the level that is necessary.
Danska namreč meni, da je z dividendno politiko zagotovila, da DSB ne bo povečala lastniškega kapitala čez določeno raven in posledično čez potrebno raven.
Although no binding legal rule was laid down, the dividend policy was designed to reconcile two considerations:
Čeprav ni bilo določeno nobeno zavezujoče pravno pravilo, je Danska s to dividendno politiko skušala uskladiti dva vidika:
the usual considerations in a market economy regarding what is economically justifiable taking account of the economic situation of the undertaking,
običajni tržnogospodarski premisleki, katerih namen je določiti, kaj je gospodarsko upravičeno ob upoštevanju finančnega položaja podjetja,
socioeconomic considerations and considerations relating to competition having regard to the size of DSB’s equity capital and its operating grants,
družbenoekonomski premisleki ali premisleki glede konkurence v zvezi z obsegom lastniškega kapitala in donacij za poslovanje družbe DSB.
The Danish authorities state that dividend payments to the State are to be used as a means of correcting the size of DSB’s equity capital in the years following its founding, and as a means of restoring the operating surplus if it were subsequently to emerge that DSB did indeed achieve better results than expected.
Danski organi pojasnjujejo, da je treba izplačila dividend državi uporabiti kot sredstvo za popravek obsega lastniškega kapitala družbe DSB v letih po ustanovitvi in kot sredstvo za vračilo poslovnega presežka, če bi se v nadaljevanju izkazalo, da je imela DSB v resnici večji dobiček od pričakovanega.
That principle follows from Finance Act No 249/1999.
To načelo izhaja iz zakona o javnih financah št. 249/1999.
The payment of dividends is to be used to regulate on an ongoing basis the structure of DSB’s capital and, hence, the real net operating grant.
Izplačilo dividend je treba uporabiti za stalno reguliranje strukture kapitala družbe DSB in s tem dejanskih neto donacij za poslovanje.
The dividend policy also meant that DSB had an incentive to improve its efficiency because the starting point was that the dividends should amount to half of DSB’s surplus after tax.
Dividendna politika predvideva tudi spodbujanje družbe DSB k izboljšanju učinkovitosti, saj je bilo izhodišče, da morajo dividende ustrezati polovici presežka družbe DSB po obdavčitvi.
Efficiency improvements would therefore benefit DSB to a certain extent and not solely result in a subsequent refund of the operating grant.
To izboljšanje učinkovitosti bo tako v določeni meri koristno za to družbo in se ne bo kazalo le v posledičnem vračilu donacij za poslovanje.
The Danish authorities consider that it is wholly in line with the general considerations of a market economy to be able to use incentives in determining what constitutes a reasonable profit, as advocated by the Commission [19].
Danski organi menijo, da je to v skladu s splošnimi tržnogospodarskimi premisleki, po katerih je mogoče uporabiti instrumente za spodbujanje, da bi določili to, kar je treba imenovati razumni dobiček, kot priporoča Komisija. [19].
Denmark points out that the application of this dividend policy led, for the period 1999-2006, in relation to the activities undertaken to fulfil the contracts, to the State being paid almost DKK 3 billion more than the figure initially predicted.
Danska opozarja, da je izvajanje te dividendne politike v povezavi z nalogami, opravljenimi na podlagi pogodb, v obdobju 1999–2006 privedlo do tega, da so bile državi nakazane dodatne skoraj 3 milijarde DKK v primerjavi s prvotno predvidenim zneskom.
According to the Danish authorities, the dividend policy therefore functioned de facto as a ‘refund mechanism’ making it possible to offset any overcompensation.
Po mnenju danskih organov je dividendna politika torej v resnici delovala kot „mehanizem vračila“, s katerim je bilo mogoče kompenzirati morebitna čezmerna nadomestila.
They emphasise that the part of DSB’s compensation which was repaid to the State in the form of dividends is, moreover, much greater than the difference between the surplus anticipated in DSB’s budget and that which was actually achieved.
Poudarjajo, da je delež nadomestila, nakazanega družbi DSB, ki je bil državi vrnjen v obliki dividend, poleg tega precej večji od razlike med presežkom, ki je bil predviden v proračunu družbe DSB, in presežkom, ki je bil v resnici ustvarjen.
As such, the dividend policy therefore helped to guarantee that DSB was not able to profit from the State operating grant in order to obtain a competitive advantage – for example, by increasing its equity capital beyond the specified level or by using annual surpluses.
Dividendna politika je tako torej pripomogla k zagotavljanju, da DSB ne more izkoristiti državnih donacij za poslovanje za pridobitev konkurenčne prednosti – na primer z razvojem svojega lastniškega kapitala nad predvideno ravnjo ali z uporabo letnega presežka.
Moreover, the Danish authorities consider that it is very difficult to establish rules relating to an a posteriori correction of the operating grant.
Poleg tega danski organi menijo, da je zelo težko določiti pogodbena pravila o naknadnem popravku donacij za poslovanje.
However, the State is able – as a result of the dividend policy, in accordance with Danish company law – to ensure that the net operating grant is effectively corrected, if the profits for the year exceed the level which was expected or anticipated when the contract was concluded.
Nasprotno pa država zaradi dividendne politike v skladu z danskim pravom gospodarskih družb lahko zagotovi, da je neto donacija za poslovanje dejansko popravljena, če je dobiček v zadevnem letu večji od tega, kolikor je bilo pričakovano ali predvideno ob sklenitvi pogodbe.
According to the Danish authorities, distributions of dividends are therefore, in practice, an extraordinarily effective tool to guard against overcompensation.
Po mnenju državnih organov je torej izplačilo dividend v praksi izredno učinkovit instrument za preprečevanje čezmernih nadomestil.
Moreover, the Danish authorities state that the Court of First Instance also established that Member States could have a wide discretion as to the determination of compensation where that compensation depends on an assessment of complex economic facts [20].
Poleg tega danski organi omenjajo, da je tudi Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da imajo lahko države članice široko diskrecijsko pravico pri določitvi nadomestil, kadar je odvisna od presoje zapletenih ekonomskih dejstev.
They also point out that Community law does not contain any obligation providing that a downwards revision of the net operating grant should always be carried out in a certain way, for example by applying contractual rules or in an equivalent manner.
Opozarjajo tudi, da pravo Skupnosti ne vsebuje nobene obveznosti, da je treba neto donacije za poslovanje vedno zmanjšati na določen način, na primer z uporabo pogodbenih pravil ali na podoben način.
What is important, according to the criteria laid down in the judgment in Altmark, is that the State truly ensures that there is no overcompensation.
V skladu z merili iz sodbe Altmark je namreč pomembno, da država dejansko zagotovi, da nadomestila niso čezmerna.
However, it is for the Member States to decide how to proceed in practice.
Vendar morajo države članice določiti, kako bodo ravnale v praksi.
Delays in the delivery of rolling stock
Zamude pri dobavi voznega parka
According to the Danish authorities, the late delivery of the IC4 and IC2 trains did not lead to an economic advantage for DSB.
Po mnenju danskih organov zamuda pri dobavi vlakov IC4 in IC2 ni ustvarila gospodarske prednosti za družbo DSB.
They confirm that the delivery of the new IC4 and IC2 trains, which were ordered before the conclusion of the transport contract for 2005-14 and should have been delivered from 2003, was affected by delays attributable to the manufacturer (Ansaldo Breda).
Potrjujejo, da so pri dobavi novih vlakov IC4 in IC2, ki so bili naročeni pred sklenitvijo pogodbe o prevozu za obdobje 2005–2014 in bi morali biti dobavljeni od leta 2003, nastale zamude, ki jih je mogoče pripisati proizvajalcu (družbi AnsaldoBreda).
The Danish authorities state that, if delivery had taken place as scheduled, DSB would have borne the net costs corresponding to the depreciation of the trains and to the interest, which were covered by the contractual payments.
Danski organi navajajo, da če bi bila dobava opravljena po predvidenem razporedu, bi imela družba DSB stroške, ki bi ustrezali amortizaciji vlakov in obrestim ter bi se krili s pogodbenimi plačili.
2005-14 transport contract
Pogodba o prevozu za obdobje 2005–2014
Since DSB did not bear those costs, the contractual payments were subject to a reduction under the transport contract for 2005-14.
Ker DSB ni imela takih izdatkov, so se pogodbena plačila zmanjšala v okviru pogodbe o prevozu za obdobje 2005–2014.
The exact amount of the costs avoided is calculated on the basis of the loans actually entered into by DSB and a depreciation period of 20 years, in accordance with DSB’s accounting practices (that is to say DKK 4 million saved on account of a 1-year delay on the IC4 train and DKK 2,7 million saved on account of a 1-year delay on the IC2 train).
Točen znesek izdatkov, ki se jim je družba izognila, je izračunan na podlagi posojil, ki jih je DSB res najela, in 20-letne amortizacijske dobe v skladu z računovodskimi praksami družbe DSB (oziroma prihranek 4 milijonov DKK za enoletno zamudo za vlak IC4 in prihranek 2,7 milijona DKK za enoletno zamudo za vlak IC2).
The payments to DSB were therefore reduced under the contract by DKK 645 million (DKK 252 million in 2005 and DKK 393 million in 2006).
Zato so se plačila družbi DSB v okviru pogodbe zmanjšala za 645 milijonov DKK (252 milijonov DKK leta 2005 in 393 milijonov DKK leta 2006).
Taking those facts into consideration, Denmark is of the view that the late delivery of the IC4 and IC2 trains cannot be regarded as having led to overcompensation for DSB as far as the 2005-14 transport contract is concerned.
Danska ob upoštevanju teh dejstev meni, da ni mogoče sklepati, da so zamude pri dobavi vlakov IC4 in IC2, kar zadeva pogodbo o prevozu za obdobje 2005–2014, povzročile, da je DSB prejela čezmerna nadomestila.
Additional contracts
Dodatne pogodbe
To have sufficiently modern rolling stock, DSB has been using hired rolling stock since 2001 (additional contracts). The term of those contracts had to be extended after 2006 due to the considerable delays on the part of the supplier, Ansaldo Breda (extension for up to 4 additional years).
Da bi DSB imela dovolj sodoben vozni park, uporablja najeti vozni park – dodatne pogodbe, katerih trajanje je bilo treba po letu 2006 podaljšati zaradi velikih zamud dobavitelja, družbe AnsaldoBreda (podaljšanje za dodatna štiri leta).
The Danish authorities state firstly that the contractual payment made to DSB under the negotiated contract did not cover the costs of putting the trains into service (depreciation and interest) where those trains were not actually put into service, and, secondly that the negotiated contract did not provide for any obligation on the part of DSB to deploy replacement rolling stock on the aforementioned lines.
Danski organi pojasnjujejo, da pogodbeno plačilo, nakazano družbi DSB v skladu s pogodbo, sklenjeno po postopku s pogajanji, ne bi pokrivalo izdatkov za začetek obratovanja vlakov (amortizacija in obresti), če ti vlaki ne bi dejansko začeli obratovati, in da v tej pogodbi ni bila določena nobena obveznost za DSB, da začne uporabljati nadomestni vozni park na zgoraj navedenih progah.
According to the Danish authorities, the additional contracts therefore impose additional public service obligations on DSB (putting into service of modern replacement stock on certain lines) at the same time as compensating it for the hire costs.
Takó so po mnenju danskih organov družbi DSB z dodatnimi pogodbami torej naložene dodatne obveznosti javne službe (začetek obratovanja sodobnega nadomestnega voznega parka na nekaterih progah), hkrati pa ji je dodeljeno še nadomestilo za stroške najema.
2000-04 transport contract
Pogodba o prevozu za obdobje 2000–2004
The Danish authorities consider that the net positive economic impact due to the delay is attributable to the fact that the initial 5-year contract, like the additional contract for 2001-04, did not contain any provisions relating to a reduction in compensation in the event of late delivery of the IC4 trains.
Danski organi menijo, da se neto pozitivni gospodarski vpliv zaradi zamude lahko pripiše dejstvu, da v prvotni petletni pogodbi in v dodatni pogodbi za obdobje 2001–2004 ni bilo določb o zmanjšanju nadomestila v primeru zamude pri dobavi vlakov IC4.
Conversely, the 2005-14 transport contract currently in force does contain provisions relating to a reduction in compensation in the event of delay.
Nasprotno pa veljavna pogodba o prevozu za obdobje 2005–2014 vsebuje prav določbe o zmanjšanju nadomestila v primeru zamude.