natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Danish authorities estimate that net positive effect during the period 2001-04 to be DKK 104 million as a result of the late delivery of the trains.
Ta pozitivni neto vpliv v obdobju 2001–2004 ocenjujejo na 104 milijone DKK zaradi zamude pri dobavi vlakov.
However, that direct effect does not cover the real economic consequences of the delay for DSB, which was unable to use the new trains (maintenance of the older trains, damage in terms of image and goodwill, and loss of income).
Vendar ta neposredni vpliv ne pokriva resničnih gospodarskih posledic zamude za DSB, ki ni mogla uporabljati novih vlakov (vzdrževanje starejših vlakov, škoda za podobo družbe, izguba prihodkov).
Denmark also states that the compensation received by DSB from Ansaldo Breda represents only provisional compensation for the economic losses resulting from the late delivery of the trains.
Danska poleg tega pojasnjuje, da so nadomestila, ki jih je DSB prejela od družbe AnsaldoBreda, le začasno nadomestilo za gospodarsko izgubo zaradi zamude pri dobavi vlakov.
The final amount of losses suffered by DSB will be determined at the time of delivery, and it will be possible to establish the total amount of compensation payable by Ansaldo Breda.
Ob dobavi bo določen dokončni znesek škode, nastale družbi DSB, mogoče pa bo določiti tudi skupni znesek nadomestila, ki ga bo plačala družba AnsaldoBreda.
The Danish authorities therefore consider that this compensation will correspond exactly to DSB’s economic losses and will therefore be neutral in terms of DSB’s accounting.
Danski organi torej menijo, da bo to nadomestilo natančno ustrezalo gospodarski izgubi, ki jo bo imela DSB, in bo torej nevtralno za računovodstvo te družbe.
For the same reason, the net effect of the compensation from Ansaldo Breda does not constitute overcompensation for DSB.
Iz istega razloga neto vpliv nadomestila, ki ga bo plačala družba AnsaldoBreda, ni čezmerno nadomestilo za DSB.
The late delivery of the trains did not therefore confer an economic advantage on DSB and nor will it do so in the future.
Zamude pri dobavi vlakov torej ne ustvarjajo in tudi v prihodnosti ne bodo ustvarjale gospodarske prednosti za družbo DSB.
Finally, the Danish authorities point out that, even if these factors are not taken into account, the Danish Government’s dividend policy ensures that any positive effect of the compensation received by DSB would be eliminated during the payment of dividends.
Nazadnje, danski organi opozarjajo, da dividendna politika danske vlade v vsakem primeru zagotavlja, da bo vsak morebiten pozitiven vpliv nadomestil, ki jih bo prejela DSB, odpravljen ob izplačilu dividend.
Specific case of the Copenhagen – Ystad link
Poseben primer povezave Köbenhavn–Ystad
Public transport service compensation
Nadomestila za javne prevozne storitve
The Danish authorities specify that it was only the operation of the route by DSB in the period 2005-14 which gave rise to compensation.
(1 22) Danski organi pojasnjujejo, da je družba DSB prejela nadomestilo le za opravljanje prevozov na tej progi v obdobju 2005–2014.
Three time periods should be differentiated regarding the operation of this route:
Pri opravljanju prevozov na tej progi je treba namreč razlikovati med tremi obdobji:
until 2002, the route was operated as a ‘free traffic activity’, that is to say in conditions of full competition, with no compensation paid and no obligation imposed by the State.
do leta 2002 so se prevozi na tej progi opravljali kot „dejavnost v prostem prometu“, to je pod popolnoma konkurenčnimi pogoji, ne da bi država izplačala nadomestilo ali določila obveznost.
DSB was therefore required to keep separate accounts for this route, which was to show a surplus over a total period, with only income derived directly from the route being taken into account;
DSB je tako morala voditi ločeno računovodstvo za to progo, ki je morala ustvariti presežek v celotnem obdobju le ob upoštevanju prihodkov od te proge,
in 2002, DSB decided to stop operating the route under the ‘free traffic’ scheme and a negotiated contract was concluded between the Ministry of Transport and DSB, for the operation of the route as ‘public traffic’ from 2002 to 31 December 2004 inclusive.
DSB se je leta 2002 odločila, da prevoza na tej progi ne bo več opravljala v „prostem prometu“, zato je z ministrstvom za promet sklenila pogodbo za opravljanje prevozov v „javnem prometu“ od leta 2002 do vključno 31. decembra 2004.
However, the contract did not provide that any separate or additional payment should be made to DSB for discharging public service obligations.
Nasprotno pa v pogodbi ni bilo določeno, da se družbi DSB nakaže ločeno ali dodatno plačilo za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe,
when the transport contract for the period 2005-14 was concluded, it became possible for the compensation paid to DSB also to apply to the Copenhagen-Ystad route,
ob sklenitvi pogodbe o prevozu za obdobje 2005–2014 je postalo mogoče, da nadomestilo za družbo DSB krije tudi progo Köbenhavn–Ystad.
Denmark therefore states that no public funds were paid for the operation of the route before 2005.
Danska tako pojasnjuje, da pred letom 2005 za opravljanje prevozov na tej progi niso bila nakazana nobena državna sredstva.
The Danish authorities also point out that this route made a loss when it was operated under the free traffic scheme, and the fact that a very small proportion of the revenues actually collected may be due to the indirect consequences of the start of operation of the Copenhagen-Ystad route by DSB cannot be used as an argument to claim that DSB must have received overcompensation.
Danski organi poleg tega opozarjajo, da je ta proga ustvarjala izgubo, ko se je prevoz po njej opravljal v prostem prometu, in da se ni mogoče sklicevati na dejstvo, da lahko majhen delež dejansko prejetih prihodkov izhaja iz posrednih posledic tega, da je DSB začela opravljati prevoz na progi Köbenhavn–Ystad, zato da bi trdili, da je DSB gotovo prejela čezmerna nadomestila.
In any event, DSB would have been naturally entitled to obtain a reasonable profit in the form of a return on the capital invested.
DSB je bila seveda v vsakem primeru upravičena do razumnega dobička v obliki donosnosti vloženega kapitala.
In the view of the Danish authorities, this is not sufficient to claim that the actual receipts resulted in overcompensation for DSB, if making a reasonable profit is taken into account.
Menijo, da to ni dovolj za trditev, da so dejansko prejeti prihodki povzročili čezmerna nadomestila za DSB, če se upošteva, da je družba imela razumni dobiček.
Ferry crossing
Trajektni prevoz
Regarding the question of DSB’s costs for the sale of tickets which include the ferry crossing between Ystad and Rønne (the port of arrival on the island of Bornholm), the Danish authorities have submitted explanations of the prices charged by Bornholmstrafikken, the ferry operator.
Kar zadeva vprašanje stroškov, ki jih je imela družba DSB pri prodaji vozovnic, ki vključujejo prevoz s trajektom med Ystadom in Rönnejem, pristaniščem prihoda na otoku Bornholm, so danski organi poslali tarife, ki jih zaračunava trajektni prevoznik Bornholmstrafikken.
According to the Danish authorities, those explanations show that there was no application of different prices in relation to DSB and Gråhundbus.
Po mnenju danskih organov iz tega izhaja, da se za družbi DSB in Grahundbus ne uporabljajo različne tarife.
The Danish authorities have also provided information about the conditions under which the Rønne-Ystad ferry connection is operated by Bornholmstrafikken A/S.
Navedli so tudi informacije o pogojih opravljanja trajektnih prevozov na progi Rönne–Ystad družbe Bornholmstrafikken A/S.
On the basis of a contract concluded with the Danish Government following a tendering procedure:
Na podlagi pogodbe, sklenjene z vlado po javnem razpisu:
the contract between the Danish Government and Bornholmstrafikken stipulates a general obligation requiring Bornholmstrafikken to coordinate its arrival and departure times with those of the operators of bus and train lines between Copenhagen and Ystad,
je v pogodbi med vlado in družbo Bornholmstrafikken določena splošna obveznost, po kateri mora Bornholmstrafikken uskladiti svoj vozni red prihodov in odhodov z voznim redom avtobusnih ali železniških prevoznikov, ki povezujejo Köbenhavn in Ystad,
it also contains clauses requiring Bornholmstrafikken to develop cooperation in terms of tickets with the bus or train line operator operating the Copenhagen-Ystad route by train or bus during the term of the contract, so that travellers can purchase a combined ferry and bus/train ticket at a discount;
pogodba vsebuje tudi klavzule, v skladu s katerimi mora Bornholmstrafikken razviti sodelovanje na področju vozovnic z avtobusnimi ali železniškimi prevozniki, ki med trajanjem pogodbe zagotavljajo avtobusno ali železniško povezavo Köbenhavn–Ystad, tako da lahko potniki kupijo kombinirano vozovnico za trajekt in avtobus/vlak in so upravičeni do popusta,
the maximum prices which Bornholmstrafikken is authorised to charge are fixed by the contract,
so najvišje tarife, ki jih ima pravico zahtevati Bornholmstrafikken, določene v pogodbi,
the contract does not contain any other provision relating to price requirements or the introduction of discounts, and the Danish Government has no reason to stipulate further requirements subsequently in that respect,
pogodba ne vsebuje nobene druge določbe o zahtevah glede tarif ali uvedbi popustov, vlada pa tudi nima razloga, da pozneje določi nove zahteve v zvezi s tem.
According to the Danish authorities, it follows therefore that the Danish Government cannot exert any influence over Bornholmstrafikken’s operations other than ensuring that Bornholmstrafikken complies with the provisions of the contract.
Po mnenju danskih organov iz tega torej sledi, da vlada nima možnosti izvajati vpliv na poslovanje družbe Bornholmstrafikken, razen da zagotavlja, da Bornholmstrafikken upošteva določbe pogodbe.
Bornholmstrafikken applies identical prices in relation to DSB and Gråhundbus respectively (and has always done so throughout the period in question since 2000), so DSB has not received an advantage.
Bornholmstrafikken zaračunava – in je v celotnem zadevnem obdobju od leta 2000 zaračunavala – enake cene za družbi DSB in Grahundbus, torej DSB ni imela prednosti.
The Danish authorities state, nevertheless, that the only price which applies only to DSB is the special price for DSB Orange with Great Belt crossing.
Danski organi vseeno sporočajo, da je edina cena, ki se uporablja le za DSB, posebna cena za DSB Orange za prečkanje Velikega Belta.
This price concerns a very specific type of DSB ticket which can be used only by customers who purchase a DSB Orange ticket when leaving Jutland for Bornholm.
Gre za ceno, ki se nanaša na čisto posebno vrsto vozovnice družbe DSB, ki jo lahko uporabljajo le stranke, ki ob odhodu z Jutlanda kupijo vozovnico družbe DSB Orange za Bronholm.
According to the Danish authorities, Bornholmstrafikken gives a discount on this particular type of ticket because it wants to attract more custom from Jutland to Bornholm.
Po mnenju danskih organov Bornholmstrafikken daje popust za to posebno vrsto vozovnic, ker želi na Bornholm privabiti stranke z Jutlanda.
This special discount is not imposed by the contract between the Danish State and the ferry operator.
Ta poseben popust ni določen v pogodbi, ki sta jo sklenila Danska in trajektni prevoznik.
It is therefore the result of a commercial intention to develop business in Jutland and thereby to develop business as a whole.
Torej je posledica poslovne volje razviti bazo strank na Jutlandu in s tem celotno bazo strank.
In this respect, the Danish authorities regard it as a general commercial measure which involves giving discounts with the aim of growing the business.
Danski organi glede tega menijo, da gre za splošen komercialni ukrep, ki zajema odobritev popustov zaradi širjenja baze strank.
They specify that Gråhundbus operates the Copenhagen-Ystad route, and so does not cross the Great Belt.
Pojasnjujejo, da družba Grahundbus opravlja prevoze na progi Köbenhavn–Ystad in zato ne prečka Velikega Belta.
In their view, therefore, it is obvious that the discount relating to this journey should not appear in the prices charged by Gråhundbus.
Zato je po njihovem mnenju očitno, da popust za to pot ni naveden v cenah, ki jih zaračunava Grahundbus.
The Danish authorities also specify that this offer was taken up by only around […] [21] passengers during the period 2003-08.
Danski organi še pojasnjujejo, da je ta ponudba zadevala le približno […] [21] potnikov v obdobju 2003–2008.
Since the initiative was taken by the operator, this offer could have been opened up to bus companies wishing to offer the same service.
Ta ponudba, ki temelji na pobudi prevoznikov, bi lahko bila dana na voljo avtobusnim prevoznikom, ki bi želeli ponujati enako storitev.
The Danish authorities also indicate that this commercial offer was withdrawn in 2009.
Poleg tega navajajo, da od leta 2009 te komercialne ponudbe ni več.
Denmark therefore considers that DSB did not receive an advantage associated with the operation of the Copenhagen-Ystad route, either in the form of overcompensation or in the form of particularly low prices for the Rønne-Ystad ferry crossing.
Danska zato meni, da DSB ni imela prednosti, povezane z opravljanjem prevozov na progi Köbenhavn–Ystad, niti v obliki čezmernega nadomestila niti v obliki posebno nizke cene za trajektni prevoz na progi Rönne–Ystad.
The fourth criterion in the judgment in Altmark
Četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark
Regarding the question of whether the compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which would be incurred by a typical, well-run undertaking, the Danish authorities take the view, in the context of DSB’s formation as an independent undertaking, that all the necessary and practically feasible analyses were carried out.
Danski organi glede tega, ali je bilo nadomestilo določeno na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje moralo imeti, menijo, da so bile v okviru ustanovitve družbe DSB kot neodvisnega podjetja opravljene vse potrebne in v praksi izvedljive analize.
In the context of DSB’s formation, the Danish authorities established a 10-year budget, based on several initial assumptions including an improvement in productivity, which was used to fix DSB’s operating grant for the period 1999-2004.
Danski organi so v okviru ustanovitve družbe DSB pripravili desetletni proračun, ki je temeljil na več predpogojih, med katerimi je bilo izboljšanje produktivnosti, in na podlagi katerega je bila določena donacija za poslovanje za družbo DSB za obdobje 1999–2004.
The budget, which was contained in Act No 249 of 11 June 1999, was based on the assumptions of a 6 % return on equity after tax, which the Danish authorities had deemed to constitute a reasonable profit.
Ta proračun, ki je bil vnesen v zakon št. 249 z dne 11. junija 1999, je temeljil na pričakovanju 6-odstotne donosnosti lastniškega kapitala po obdavčitvi, za katero so danski organi menili, da je razumni dobiček.
According to the Danish authorities, the operating grant was therefore the result of an overall assessment of costs, receipts and a reasonable profit carried out on the basis of the information which was available in 1999 and in accordance with market economy principles.
Po mnenju danskih organov je donacija za poslovanje torej izhajala iz splošne ocene stroškov, prihodkov in razumnega dobička, opravljene na podlagi podatkov, ki so bili na voljo leta 1999, in v skladu z načeli tržnega gospodarstva.
They claim that the establishment of the 10-year budget and the subsequent calculation of the contractual payments made to DSB were carried out in compliance with the fourth criterion in the judgment in Altmark.
Priprava desetletnega računa in poznejši izračun pogodbenih plačil za DSB sta bila tako opravljena ob upoštevanju četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark.
The Danish authorities also refer to EU case-law [23] and emphasise the difficulty, in this case, of making a specific comparison with another operator.
Danski organi poleg tega opozarjajo na sodno prakso EU [23] in poudarjajo težave pri izvedbi konkretne primerjave z drugim prevoznikom v tej zadevi.
Should the Commission conclude nonetheless that State aid was granted to DSB, the Danish authorities are of the opinion that this compensation is in any case compatible with the internal market.
Če bi Komisija vseeno sklenila, da je bila družbi DSB dodeljena državna pomoč, pa danski organi menijo, da je to nadomestilo v vsakem primeru združljivo s skupnim trgom.
It is their view that, in the context of the conclusion of the negotiated contracts, the most exhaustive analyses and calculations possible in practice were carried out with a view to guaranteeing the correct calculation of the compensation.
Z njihovega stališča so bile v okviru sklenitve pogodb, sklenjenih po postopku s pogajanji, opravljene najtemeljitejše analize in izračuni, ki jih je bilo mogoče opraviti v praksi, da bi se zagotovil točen izračun nadomestila.
The Danish authorities are in agreement with the Commission’s reasoning in its decision initiating the procedure, according to which the compensation may be deemed compatible with the internal market if it fulfils the third criterion in the judgment in Altmark.
Danski organi se strinjajo s sklepanjem Komisije v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, da je nadomestilo dejansko mogoče šteti za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če se je upoštevalo tretje merilo iz sodbe Altmark.
As indicated above, the Danish authorities believe that everything that could reasonably be required to guarantee that DSB did not receive any overcompensation was done, and that it should be concluded – at the very least – that the contractual payment received by DSB under the negotiated contracts constitutes aid compatible with the internal market.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, danski organi menijo, da je bilo storjeno vse, kar je bilo mogoče razumno zahtevati za zagotovitev, da DSB ne bi prejela čezmernega nadomestila, in da je treba vsaj sklepati, da je pogodbeno plačilo, ki ga je DSB prejela na podlagi pogodb, sklenjenih po postopku s pogajanji, pomoč, ki je združljiva z notranjim trgom.
On the other hand, as stated above, the Danish authorities do not agree with the Commission’s reasoning concerning the distinction between public transport service contracts and public service obligations as regards the legality of the aid.
Nasprotno pa se danski organi, kot je navedeno zgoraj, ne strinjajo s sklepanjem Komisije glede razlikovanja med pogodbama o izvajanju javne službe prevoza in obveznostmi javne službe, kar zadeva zakonitost pomoči.
They consider that if DSB received State aid, that aid would not have had to be notified.
V tej zadevi menijo, da če bi DSB prejela državno pomoč, te pomoči ne bi bilo treba priglasiti.
If the Commission were to maintain its reasoning, this would be tantamount to making a fundamental and unwarranted distinction according to whether or not a Member State which imposes an obligation on a wholly State-owned undertaking to discharge transport activities falls under the description of the scope, quality and price of the services in a contract.
Če bi Komisija vztrajala pri tem sklepanju, bi to namreč pomenilo, da temeljito in neupravičeno razlikuje glede na to, ali država članica, ki podjetju, ki je v njeni 100-odstotni lasti, naloži obveznost opravljanja nalog prevoza, v pogodbi navede obseg, kakovost in ceno storitev ali ne.
In the light of the above, the Danish authorities are of the view that there is no reason to require a refund of State aid which could be regarded as incompatible with the internal market.
Glede na zgornje danski organi menijo, da ni nobenega razloga, da se zahteva povračilo državne pomoči, ki bi se lahko štela za nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom.
Payroll tax
Davek na izplačane plače
The Danish authorities point out that the Commission, having been informed that the exemption from payroll tax was due to be abolished, had not examined the issue of that tax in this procedure.
Danski organi ugotavljajo, da Komisija na podlagi informacij o napovedih odprave davka na izplačane plače v tem postopku ni preučila vprašanja tega davka.
For information, the Danish authorities have stated that the changes to payroll tax were introduced by Act No 526 of 25 June 2008 and that they entered into force on 1 January 2009.
Danski organi so, kolikor je potrebno, pojasnili, da so bile spremembe davka na izplačane plače uvedene z zakonom št. 526 z dne 25. junija 2008 in so začele veljati 1. januarja 2009.
The legal basis for the review of compatibility
Pravna podlaga za preučitev računovodstva
The Danish authorities stated by letter of 8 January 2010 that they had no particular comments concerning the Commission’s determination of the applicable legal basis (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007).
Danski organi so v dopisu z dne 8. januarja 2010 navedli, da nimajo posebnih pripomb glede tega, katero od uredb (EGS) št. 1191/69 in (ES) št. 1370/2007 je Komisija določila za pravno podlago, ki se uporablja.
COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES FOLLOWING THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA
Comments have been submitted by DSB, the beneficiary of the measures in question, and by DKT, the second complainant.
Pripombe sta poslala družba DSB, ki je upravičenec zadevnih ukrepov, in združenje DKT, ki je drugi pritožnik.
It should be emphasised that Gråhundbus, the first complainant, has not submitted any comments.
Treba je opozoriti, da Grahundbus, prvi pritožnik, ni poslal pripomb.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY DSB
PRIPOMBE DRUŽBE DSB
By letter of 30 December 2008, DSB submitted its comments on the Commission’s decision initiating the procedure.
Družba DSB je v dopisu z dne 30. decembra 2008 predložila pripombe o odločitvi Komisije, da sproži postopek.
DSB indicates that it agrees with all of the Danish authorities’ comments and confines itself to examining whether the Commission may require recovery of the aid if it were to conclude that the public transport service contracts involve State aid that is incompatible with the internal market.
DSB trdi, da se popolnoma strinja s pripombami danskih organov, in le preučuje, ali Komisija lahko zahteva vračilo pomoči, če bi ugotovila, da pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza pomenita državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
DSB considers that the recovery of such aid, in this case, would be contrary to the principle of legitimate expectations, thus obstructing the application of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [24].
DSB meni, da bi bilo vračilo take pomoči v tem primeru v nasprotju z načelom zaupanja v pravo, saj bi tako preprečevalo uporabo člena 14(1) Uredbe Sveta št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [24].
First, DSB considers that it could legitimately take the view that the contractual payments from the Danish Government relating to the 5-year and 10-year contracts did not constitute State aid.
Prvič, DSB meni, da je lahko upravičeno verjela, da pogodbena plačila danske vlade v zvezi s pet- in desetletnima pogodbama niso državna pomoč.
It considers that the situation was not clear regarding the controls to be carried out to verify the existence of State aid in the field of land transport.
Meni namreč, da položaj ni bil jasen, kar zadeva nadzor, ki bi ga bilo treba izvajati za preverjanje obstoja državne pomoči na področju kopenskega prometa.
DSB takes the view that it is necessary to go back to the time when the transaction took place to assess whether the Danish Government granted an advantage to DSB.
DSB poleg tega meni, da se je treba postaviti v obdobje, ko je bila transakcija izvedena, da se presodi, ali je vlada podelila prednost družbi DSB.