natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Infrastructure’ includes tram tracks, bus lanes, park and ride stations, bus stops, stations, garages and maintenance stations, and navigation and safety systems.
Pojem „infrastruktura“ vključuje tramvajske tire, ločene vozne pasove za avtobuse, parkirišča s povezavami z mestom (P + R, parkiraj in se pelji), avtobusne in železniške postaje, garaže in delavnice ter varnostne in navigacijske sisteme.
This category also includes the costs of the personnel required for carrying out these tasks.
Ta kategorija zajema tudi stroške osebja, potrebnega za izpolnjevanje teh nalog.
Management and marketing tasks imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘cost category 2’): This category contains all the additional costs resulting for transport undertakings from their participation in VRR.
Režijske in prodajne naloge, ki se nanašajo na združenje oziroma nosilce nalog (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kategorija stroškov 2): ta kategorija zajema vse dodatne stroške, ki prevoznikom nastanejo s članstvom v združenju VRR.
The additional costs result from centralised planning and coordination, marketing and financial management, product sales and control of operations.
Ti dodatni stroški nastanejo zaradi centraliziranega načrtovanja in koordinacije, trženja in finančnega poslovodenja, prodaje in nadzora nad zadevnimi storitvami.
Vehicle quality standards imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘cost category 3’): This category contains all the additional costs due to vehicle and rolling stock requirements.
Standardi kakovosti vozil, ki se nanašajo na združenje oziroma nosilce nalog (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kategorija stroškov 3): ta kategorija zajema vse dodatne stroške, ki nastanejo zaradi upoštevanja standardov kakovosti vozil.
The transport undertakings can apply for reimbursement of additional expenditure resulting from the purchase of vehicles with air conditioning, video surveillance, a low floor, a gas engine, a lift for handicapped persons or a more environmentally friendly engine.
Prevozniki lahko zahtevajo povračilo dodatnih stroškov za nakup klimatiziranih vozil, videonadzora, nizkopodnega sistema, plinskega pogona, dvižnega sistema za invalide ali okolju prijaznega motorja.
I. additional costs of unprofitable services in off-peak periods imposed directly by the competent local authority or by VRR (hereinafter referred to as ‘cost category 4a’);
I. dodatni stroški zaradi obveznosti, ki jih neposredno dodelijo nosilci nalog ali VRR, da se zagotavljajo nedobičkonosne storitve v urah redkega prometa (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kategorija stroškov 4a);
social obligations in connection with the activities imposed by the shareholder [14] (hereinafter referred to as ‘cost category 4b’); and
družbenopolitične obveznosti v povezavi z zahtevami delničarja na območju obratovanja [14] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kategorija stroškov 4b) in
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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘cost category 4c’).
zahteve za območje obratovanja oziroma sistemske zahteve – zahteve nosilcev nalog oziroma združenja na podlagi posebnega dokaza, ki pomenijo ekonomsko breme (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kategorija stroškov 4c).
According to the Financing Guidelines public transport operators may apply for compensation for discharging public transport services.
Javni prevozniki lahko v skladu z direktivo o financiranju zahtevajo nadomestilo za opravljanje storitev javnega prevoza.
The application needs to contain the mandatory elements as described in Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Financing Guidelines such as the underlying calculations for discharging the public service obligation and possible payments from third parties.
Zahteva mora vsebovati dokumente, predpisane v oddelkih 5, 7 in 8 direktive o financiranju, kot sta izračun stroškov za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe in navedba morebitnih finančnih sredstev drugih organov.
Transport undertakings need to submit their application for compensation at the latest on 31 October of the year that precedes the year for which they request compensation.
Prevozniki morajo zahtevo za nadomestila predložiti najpozneje 31. oktobra leta pred začetkom izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe.
On the basis of the information submitted by the transport undertakings pursuant to point 5.4.2 of, and Annex 2 to, the Financing Guidelines, VRR calculates the compensation, which must reflect the costs which an average, well-run undertaking would have incurred in discharging the same obligations.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so jih prevozniki posredovali v skladu z oddelkom 5.4.2 in Prilogo 2 k direktivi o financiranju, VRR izračuna nadomestila, v katerih je treba upoštevati stroške, ki bi povprečnemu, dobro vodenemu podjetju nastali pri izpolnjevanju enakih obveznosti.
VRR then issues a financing notice (Finanzierungsbescheid).
Nato izda odločbo o financiranju.
This legally binding act confirms the entrustment and establishes the compensation payments for each of the four categories of financing.
Ta pravno zavezujoča odločba potrjuje pooblastitev in določa nadomestila za vse štiri kategorije stroškov.
At the end of each year the public service operator has to prove in writing its income and costs for discharging the public service obligations.
Na koncu vsakega leta mora javni prevoznik predložiti pisne dokaze o prihodkih in stroških izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe.
THE FINANCING OF RBG AND BSM THROUGH CROSS-SUBSIDISATION
FINANCIRANJE PODJETIJ RBG IN BSM Z NAVZKRIŽNIM SUBVENCIONIRANJEM
The ZV VRR ordinance provides for the possibility that cities and districts which own a transport undertaking compensate directly their transport undertaking and deduct the corresponding amount from their levy due to ZV VRR.
V statutu ZV VRR je predvidena možnost, da mesta in okrožja, ki so lastniki posameznega prevoznika, temu neposredno izplačajo nadomestilo, ustrezni znesek pa odštejejo od svojih prispevkov za ZV VRR.
Paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance envisages five different forms of such direct payments, namely:
V členu 19 statuta ZV VRR je predvidenih pet različnih oblik takih neposrednih izplačil:
voluntary direct and indirect contributions by the city or district, including dividend payments on shares which the city or district places with the transport undertaking;
prostovoljne neposredne in posredne storitve mesta ali okrožja, vključno s prihodki od naložb v vrednostnih papirjih, ki jih mesto ali okrožje vloži v podjetje prevoznika,
voluntary contributions by third parties;
prostovoljne storitve tretjih oseb,
cross-subsidies in the form of a control and profit/loss transfer agreement, in situations where the transport undertaking forms part of a holding company and its losses are covered by the profits of other undertakings, for instance electricity and gas companies;
navzkrižno subvencioniranje s pogodbami o delitvi prihodkov, če je prevoznik del holdinške družbe in se njegove izgube krijejo z dobički drugih podjetij, na primer komunalnih,
dividend payments from undertakings in which the transport undertaking holds participations or shares;
izplačilo dobičkov podjetij, v katerih je prevoznik navzoč z udeležbo ali lastniškim deležem,
the difference between the levy and the total losses of the transport undertaking.
razlika med prispevki in skupno izgubo prevoznika.
The sums paid under the provisions of paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance are taken into account in the calculation of the compensation that VRR pays to the transport undertakings.
Zneski, izplačani v skladu s členom 19 statuta ZV VRR, se upoštevajo pri izračunu nadomestila, ki ga VRR izplača prevozniku.
Point 8 of the Financing Guidelines provides that an application by a transport undertaking for financing by VRR must be rejected where the (municipal) shareholder has made use of one or more of the options provided for by paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance.
V skladu z oddelkom 8 direktive o financiranju se zahteva prevoznika za financiranje s strani združenja VRR zavrne, če je (občinski) delničar izkoristil eno ali več možnosti, navedenih v členu 19 statuta ZV VRR.
This sum will be deducted from the payments to which the transport undertaking is entitled under the Financing Guidelines.
Ta znesek se odšteje od izplačil, do katerih je prevoznik upravičen po direktivi o financiranju.
Both the city of Düsseldorf and the city of Monheim have made use of the possibilities offered by paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance, concluding agreements with RBG and BSM respectively.
Mesti Düsseldorf in Monheim sta izkoristili možnosti po členu 19 statuta ZV VRR in sklenili pogodbe s podjetjem RBG oziroma BSM.
These are described in the following recitals.
Te so opisane v naslednjih uvodnih izjavah.
The alleged cross-subsidisation of RBG by Düsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH: According to the information provided by the initial complainant, it appeared that on the basis of profit and loss transfer agreements Düsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH transfers the profits made by its profitable holdings – Stadtwerke Düsseldorf AG and Umschlagsgesellschaft für Kraftwerkbrennstoffe mbH – to its loss-making subsidiaries RBG and Bädergesellschaft Düsseldorf.
Domnevno navzkrižno subvencioniranje podjetja RBG s strani podjetja Düsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH: po informacijah, ki jih je predložil prvotni pritožnik, Düsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH očitno na podlagi sporazumov o nadzoru in prenosu dobička prenaša dobiček svojih dobičkonosnih holdingov – Stadtwerke Düsseldorf AG in Umschlagsgesellschaft für Kraftwerkbrennstoffe mbH – na hčerinski družbi RBG in Bädergesellschaft Düsseldorf, ki izkazujeta izgubo.
The alleged cross-subsidisation of RBG by the City of Düsseldorf: In addition, according to the information provided by the initial complainant, the Commission also made reference to directly granted subsidies from the city of Düsseldorf to RBG.
Domnevno navzkrižno subvencioniranje podjetja RBG s strani mesta Düsseldorf: poleg tega se je Komisija na podlagi navedb, ki jih je predstavil prvotni pritožnik, sklicevala na neposredne subvencije, ki jih je podjetje RBG prejelo od mesta Düsseldorf.
It appeared that these subsidies were granted from the dividends which Düsseldorf received from its 1,1 % shareholdings in RWE AG.
Te subvencije očitno izhajajo iz dividend, ki jih mesto Düsseldorf prejme na podlagi 1,1-odstotnega lastniškega deleža v družbi RWE AG.
Yearly payments from Düsseldorf to RBG: Germany stated in its reply to the opening decision that there has never been a control and profit/loss transfer agreement between Stadtwerke Düsseldorf AG and Düsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH (as of 18 June 2007: Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH – ‘the holding company’).
Letna izplačila mesta Düsseldorf podjetju RBG: Nemčija je v odgovoru na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka razjasnila, da med podjetjema Stadtwerke Düsseldorf AG in Düsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH (od 18. junija 2007: Holding der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf GmbH; v nadaljnjem besedilu: holdinška družba) nikoli ni bil sklenjen sporazum o nadzoru in prenosu dobička.
However, yearly payments to RBG were made by the holding company for the provision of the public service obligation, and such payments are taken into account for the calculation of compensation for the public service obligation by VRR.
Vendar je holdinška družba izvajala letna izplačila podjetju RBG za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe; ta izplačila se upoštevajo pri izračunu nadomestila, ki ga združenje VRR izplača za obveznosti javne službe.
The German authorities further stated that the dividends from the shareholdings in RWE are paid to the budget of the city and not transferred to RBG.
Nemčija še navaja, da se dividende od delnic podjetja RWE izplačajo mestu, ne pa podjetju RBG.
The cross-subsidisation of BSM: According to the information provided by the initial complainant, on the basis of a contract between Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH and Elektrizitätswerke der Stadt Monheim GmbH the profits of the latter are used to finance BSM’s annual losses.
Navzkrižno subvencioniranje podjetja BSM: po informacijah, ki jih je predložil prvotni pritožnik, se dobički navedenega podjetja na podlagi pogodbe med podjetjema Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH in Elektrizitätswerken der Stadt Monheim GmbH uporabljajo za financiranje letnih izgub podjetja BSM. BSM je hčerinska družba v 100-odstotni lasti podjetja Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH.
DOUBTS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION AS REGARDS COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO RBG AND BSM BASED ON THE NEW FINANCING SYSTEM
DVOMI KOMISIJE O NADOMESTILIH, KI SE PODJETJEMA RBG IN BSM IZPLAČUJEJO NA PODLAGI „NOVEGA SISTEMA FINANCIRANJA“
With regard to the existence of State aid, the Commission concluded in opening the formal investigation procedure that both of the measures in question involved state resources and were imputable to the State.
Komisija je glede obstoja pomoči ob sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave sklenila, da se zadevna ukrepa nanašata na državna sredstva in da ju je mogoče pripisati državi.
In the decision opening the investigation, the Commission explained that Germany was of the opinion that the financing measures in question did not confer a selective economic advantage as they met all four Altmark criteria and as they were not likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave navedla, da se po mnenju Nemčije z zadevnima ukrepoma financiranja ne zagotavlja selektivna ekonomska prednost, saj naj bi bila vsa štiri merila Altmark izpolnjena, ukrepa financiranja pa ne moreta povzročiti izkrivljanja konkurence ali vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
However, on the basis of the information provided by Germany in the course of the preliminary examination, the Commission expressed the following doubts in this regard:
Vendar je Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki jih je Nemčija podala med predhodno preučitvijo, v zvezi s tem izrazila naslednje dvome:
With regard to the first Altmark criterion, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that undertakings operating in VRR did have a public service obligation imposed by the means of licences for operating bus and tram routes, which were granted to them by the relevant regional authority.
Komisija je glede prvega merila Altmark začasno sklenila, da so bile podjetjem, ki delujejo v okviru združenja VRR, z dovoljenji za upravljanje avtobusnih in tramvajskih prog, ki jih je dal pristojni regionalni organ, naložene obveznosti javne službe.
In relation to the second Altmark criterion, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether all four cost categories themselves indeed constituted a public service obligation, and whether the public service obligations had been clearly defined.
Glede drugega merila Altmark je dvomila, ali vse štiri kategorije stroškov v resnici pomenijo obveznosti javne službe in ali so bile obveznosti javne službe jasno opredeljene.
It was also unclear as to whether at least a part of the costs of the measures in question should be paid by the undertakings in their own commercial interest, and therefore should be covered solely by ticket revenue.
Poleg tega ni bilo jasno, ali naj zadevna podjetja vsaj del stroškov obravnavanih ukrepov plačajo zaradi lastnega komercialnega interesa, tako da bi se ta del stroškov pokrival le s prihodki od prodaje vozovnic.
The Commission also noted that Germany had not transmitted detailed information on the parameters and method of calculating the compensation.
Komisija je še navedla, da Nemčija ni predložila podrobnih informacij o parametrih in metodi za izračun nadomestil.
In the opening decision the Commission was not in a position to exclude the possibility that the compensation might exceed what was necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging public service obligations (third Altmark criterion).
Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka ni mogla izključiti, da nadomestilo presega znesek, potreben za popolno ali delno pokritje stroškov izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe (tretje merilo Altmark).
As the licences for transport undertakings in VRR were awarded directly without a public tendering procedure, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the fourth Altmark criterion had been complied with.
Ker so bila dovoljenja za prevoznike v okviru združenja VRR dana neposredno brez javnega razpisa, je Komisija dvomila, ali je izpolnjeno četrto merilo Altmark.
It did not have sufficient information to be able to evaluate whether the calculation of the compensation established on the basis of average costs of all undertakings subject to financing by VRR corresponded to the level of costs of a typical well-run undertaking providing means of transport.
Na razpolago ni imela dovolj informacij, da bi lahko presodila, ali nadomestilo, izračunano na podlagi povprečnih stroškov vseh podjetij, ki jih financira VRR, ustreza stroškom dobro vodenega podjetja, ki omogoča dostop do prevoznih sredstev.
In the opening decision the Commission considered that the financing of the measures in question might affect inter-State trade and distort or threaten to distort competition within the internal market.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka trdila, da financiranje zadevnih ukrepov vpliva na trgovino med državami in ogroža konkurenco na notranjem trgu ali bi jo lahko ogrožalo.
Having concluded that it could not exclude the existence of State aid, the Commission examined its possible compatibility with the internal market on the basis of Article 93 TFEU.
Ker Komisija ni mogla izključiti obstoja državne pomoči, je preverila morebitno združljivost te pomoči z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 93 PDEU.
According to the Altmark judgment, Article 93 TFEU could not be applied directly but only through the three Council Regulations adopted on the basis thereof [16].
Člena 93 PDEU v skladu s sodbo Altmark ni mogoče uporabiti neposredno, temveč le prek treh uredb Sveta, sprejetih na podlagi tega člena.
Accordingly, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligation inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway [17] and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway [18] were considered to form the legal framework applicable for the assessment of the compatibility of the public service obligations.
Zato se domneva, da Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 z dne 26. junija 1969 o ukrepanju držav članic glede obveznosti javne službe v železniškem in cestnem prometu ter prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh [17] in Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1107/70 z dne 4. junija 1970 o dodeljevanju pomoči v železniškem in cestnem prevozu ter prevozu po celinskih plovnih poteh [18] opredeljujeta pravni okvir za presojo združljivosti obveznosti javne službe z notranjim trgom.
The Commission considered in the decision opening the procedure that Germany had excluded the relevant transport services from the scope of application of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, and that therefore only Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 was the applicable legal framework.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izhajala iz tega, da je Nemčija zadevne storitve prevoza izvzela iz področja uporabe Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, zato naj bi zadevni pravni okvir določala edino Uredba (EGS) št. 1107/70.
In relation to the compatibility of the aid on the basis of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the obligations for which BSM and RBG received compensation constituted public service obligations and whether the amounts paid corresponded to the costs incurred in discharging those obligations.
V zvezi z združljivostjo pomoči s členom 3(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1107/70 Komisija dvomi, ali obveznosti, za katere podjetji BSM in RBG prejemata nadomestila, pomenijo obveznosti javne službe in ali izplačani zneski ustrezajo stroškom, ki nastanejo iz teh obveznosti.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY [19]
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE [19]
Germany began its observations by providing background information on the implementation of the new financing system.
Nemčija je najprej podala osnovne informacije o izvajanju novega sistema financiranja.
It indicated in particular that the old financing system had remained in force until the end of 2005 (31 December 2005).
Zlasti je pojasnila, da je stari sistem financiranja veljal do konca leta 2005 (do 31. decembra 2005).
The new financing system, which had been decided on 28 June 2005, had been put into effect as from 1 January 2006.
Novi sistem financiranja, sprejet 28. junija 2005, je začel veljati 1. januarja 2006.
It argued that, in the absence of a complaint specifically pertaining to the new financing system applying from 2006 onwards, the Commission had not carried out a sufficiently detailed preliminary assessment and that, consequently, Germany had not had the opportunity to clarify the questions that were still open.
Navaja, da Komisija ob neobstoju pritožbe, ki bi se nanašala posebej na novi sistem financiranja, veljaven od leta 2006, ni podala dovolj podrobne predhodne ocene, s tem pa Nemčija ni imela priložnosti za pojasnitev še odprtih vprašanj.
THE NEW FINANCING SYSTEM APPLYING FROM 2006 ONWARDS
NOVI SISTEM FINANCIRANJA, VELJAVEN OD LETA 2006
Germany explained that the new financing system was designed to ensure that the four Altmark criteria were respected.
Po mnenju Nemčije je novi sistem financiranja oblikovan tako, da je izpolnitev štirih meril Altmark zagotovljena.
In order to do this, all financial flows – be they direct payments or cross-subsidies – were taken into account in the calculation of the public service compensation payments to the transport undertakings made by VRR.
V ta namen se pri izračunu nadomestil, ki jih združenje VRR prevoznikom izplača za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, upoštevajo vsi finančni tokovi – neposredna plačila in navzkrižne subvencije.
DEFINITION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS (FIRST ALTMARK CRITERION)
OPREDELITEV OBVEZNOSTI JAVNE SLUŽBE (PRVO MERILO ALTMARK)
Germany replied to the Commission’s doubts with regard to the definition of the public service obligations and the act of entrustment (recital 61 of the opening decision), and with regard to cost categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 (recitals 62 to 71 of the opening decision).
Nemčija je predstavila stališče do pomislekov Komisije v zvezi z opredelitvijo obveznosti javne službe in aktom o pooblastitvi (uvodna izjava 61 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka) ter v zvezi s kategorijami stroškov 1, 2, 3 in 4 (uvodne izjave od 62 do 71 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka).
ACT OF ENTRUSTMENT
AKT O POOBLASTITVI
With regard to the question whether transport undertakings in VRR are actually required to discharge clearly defined public service obligations, Germany stated that the licences [20] issued for the operation of bus and tram routes under the terms of the Passenger Transportation Act (Personenbeförderungsgesetz – PBefG) are not the sole legal basis in this respect.
V zvezi z vprašanjem, ali morajo prevozniki v okviru združenja VRR dejansko izpolnjevati jasno opredeljene obveznosti javne službe, Nemčija pojasnjuje, da na podlagi PBefG dana dovoljenja [20] za upravljanje avtobusnih in tramvajskih prog ne pomenijo edine zadevne pravne podlage.