natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fifth, the Court has held that the substantive rules of EU law must be interpreted as applying to situations existing before their entry into force only in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, their objectives or their general scheme that such effect must be given to them [42].
Petič, Sodišče je menilo, da je treba materialnopravne predpise EU razlagati tako, da se na položaje, nastale pred začetkom njihove veljavnosti, nanašajo samo, če iz njihovega besedila, ciljev ali sistematike jasno izhaja, da jim je treba pripisati tak učinek.
The latter condition is clearly fulfilled in the case of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, as indicated above.
Ta zadnji pogoj je očitno izpolnjen v primeru Uredbe št. (ES) 1370/2007, kot je navedeno zgoraj.
Sixth, the Commission also notes that in the aforementioned judgment the Court concluded as a consequence that, where the legal rules under which a Member State notified proposed aid have changed before the Commission takes its decision, the Commission must give its decision on the basis of the new rules [43].
Šestič, Komisija še ugotavlja, da je Sodišče v prej omenjeni sodbi ugotovilo, da iz tega sledi, da če se je pravna ureditev, med veljavnostjo katere je država članica priglasila načrtovano pomoč, spremenila, preden je Komisija sprejela odločbo, mora Komisija odločiti na podlagi novih predpisov.
The Court also stated that the notification by a Member State of a proposed aid scheme does not give rise to a definitively-established legal situation and does not confer any legitimate expectation which requires the Commission to rule on the aid’s or the scheme’s compatibility with the internal market by applying the rules in force at the date on which that notification took place.
Sodišče je še pojasnilo, da priglasitev načrtovane pomoči ali sheme pomoči, ki jo opravi država članica, ne ustvari dokončnega pravnega položaja, ki bi privedel do tega, da bi se Komisija izrekla o njihovi združljivosti s skupnim trgom, tako da bi uporabila predpise, ki veljajo na datum te priglasitve.
It would be contrary to this reasoning to allow a Member State which, conversely, had not complied with the notification requirement, to establish a definitively-established legal situation by awarding unlawful aid.
Zato bi bilo v nasprotju s tem sklepanjem državi članici, ki, nasprotno, ne bi upoštevala obveznosti priglasitve, dovoliti, da ustvari dokončen pravni položaj, tako da dodeli nezakonito pomoč.
Finally, the Commission considers that the judgment in SIDE is not relevant in this case [44].
Nazadnje, Komisija meni, da sodba SIDE ni pomembna v tej zadevi.
That judgment concerns the question of the application of a provision of primary law, namely Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
Ta sodba se nanaša na uporabo določbe primarnega prava, in sicer člena 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES.
As the Court of First Instance established in that case, the EC Treaty did not lay down transitional provisions for the application of that Article or give any indication of how it should be applied to situations which arose prior to the date when it entered into force [45].
Kot je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo v navedeni zadevi, Pogodba ES ne vsebuje nobene prehodne določbe za uporabo tega člena, niti nobene navedbe, da bi se lahko uporabljala za položaje, nastale pred začetkom njene veljavnosti.
That situation is consequently not comparable to the present case.
Ta položaj torej ni primerljiv z obravnavano zadevo.
Indeed, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides for transitional provisions on the basis of which the Commission is able to infer that the Regulation applies to public service contracts concluded before its entry into force, with the exception of the rules on the actual conclusion of contracts.
Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 namreč vsebuje prehodne določbe, na podlagi katerih Komisija lahko sklepa, da se ta uredba uporablja za pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, sklenjene pred začetkom njene veljavnosti, z izjemo pravil o dejanski sklenitvi pogodb.
Consequently, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is applicable in the present case.
Zato se Uredba št. (ES) 1370/2007 uporablja v tej zadevi.
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET ON THE BASIS OF REGULATION (EC) No 1370/2007
ZDRUŽLJIVOST Z NOTRANJIM TRGOM NA PODLAGI UREDBE št. 1370/2007
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that ‘where a competent authority decides to grant the operator of its choice an exclusive right and/or compensation, of whatever nature, in return for the discharge of public service obligations, it shall do so within the framework of a public service contract’.
Člen 3(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 določa, da „[k]adar se pristojni organ odloči, da izvajalcu, ki ga izbere sam, dodeli izključno pravico in/ali nadomestilo, ne glede na vrsto nadomestila, v zameno za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe, to stori v okviru pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe“.
In the present case, the public transport service missions were entrusted to DSB by means of several public service contracts as indicated in recital 247 above.
V tej zadevi so bile naloge javne službe družbi DSB dodeljene z več pogodbami o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 247 zgoraj.
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 defines the mandatory content of public service contracts.
V členu 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007je opredeljena obvezna vsebina pogodb o izvajanju javne službe.
Below, the Commission will examine in turn each of the various aspects of that provision of the Regulation.
Komisija v nadaljevanju zaporedoma preučuje različne elemente, opisane v tej določbi Uredbe.
According to Article 4(1)(a), public service contracts shall ‘clearly define the public service obligations with which the public service operator is to comply, and the geographical areas concerned’.
V skladu s členom 4(1)(a) pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe „jasno opredeljujejo obveznosti javne službe, ki jih mora izvajalec javne službe izpolniti, in zadevno geografsko področje“.
It follows from the assessment of the contracts at issue made by the Commission in the light of the first criterion of the judgment in Altmark, both in its decision initiating the procedure and as described above (see recital 274), that this condition is fulfilled in this case.
Iz Komisijine ocene zadevnih pogodb z vidika prvega merila iz sodbe Altmark v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka in zgoraj (glej uvodno izjavo 274) izhaja, da je ta pogoj v tej zadevi izpolnjen.
In its assessment of the second criterion of the judgment in Altmark (see recital 269), the Commission concluded that the contractual payments were calculated on the basis of parameters established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, which allows it to consider that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is also fulfilled in this case.
Komisija je pri presoji drugega merila iz sodbe Altmark (glej uvodno izjavo 269) sklepala, da so bila pogodbena plačila izračunana na podlagi vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno določenih meril, zaradi česar sklepa, da je v tej zadevi izpolnjen tudi člen 4(1)(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
That provision provides that public service contracts shall ‘establish in advance, in an objective and transparent manner, i) the parameters on the basis of which the compensation payment, if any, is to be calculated, and ii) the nature and extent of any exclusive rights granted, in a way that prevent overcompensation’.
V tej določbi je namreč določeno, da pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe „vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način določajo: (i) parametre, na podlagi katerih se izračuna morebitno nadomestilo; in (ii) vrsto in obseg vseh dodeljenih izključnih pravic“.
The question of the existence or otherwise of overcompensation in the contracts under examination will be the subject of a detailed analysis below.
Vprašanje obstoja morebitnega čezmernega nadomestila v zadevnih pogodbah bo podrobno analizirano v nadaljevanju.
Similarly, the Commission would point out that these public transport service contracts define the arrangements for the allocation of costs relating to the provision of the services.
Komisija še opozarja, da so v teh pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe prevoza opredeljene ureditve za razporeditev stroškov, povezanih z opravljanjem storitev.
Regarding the existence of a reasonable profit, the Commission refers to the reasoning below.
Kar zadeva obstoj razumnega dobička, pa se sklicuje na spodnje sklepanje.
The Commission notes that the public transport service contracts at issue lay down how large a proportion of the revenues from the sale of tickets the operator of the public transport service may keep in accordance with Article 4(2).
Komisija ugotavlja, da so v zadevnih pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe prevoza opredeljene ureditve za razporeditev prihodkov od prodaje vozovnic v skladu z odstavkom 2 tega člena.
In this case, those revenues are kept by DSB.
Te prihodke v tej zadevi obdrži DSB.
Moreover, the public transport service contracts are limited in term to 5 and 10 years respectively, which is in accordance with the requirements in Article 4(3), which sets the maximum duration of contracts for passenger transport services by rail or other track-based modes at 15 years.
Poleg tega je tudi trajanje pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, in sicer pet oziroma deset let, v skladu z določbami člena 4(3), v katerem je najdaljše trajanje pogodb za prevoz po železnici ali druge vrste prevoza po tirih omejeno na petnajst let.
Since the other provisions are not relevant in this case, the Commission concludes that the public transport service contracts concluded between the Danish Ministry and DSB comply with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Ker druge določbe v tem primeru niso upoštevne, Komisija sklepa, da sta pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza, ki sta ju sklenila dansko ministrstvo in družba DSB, skladni s členom 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 lays down rules on the award of public transport service contracts.
Člen 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007določa pravila o sklepanju pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza.
However, Article 8 of the Regulation lays down certain transitional rules in this respect.
Vendar so v členu 8 te uredbe določena nekatera prehodna pravila za ta namen.
The Commission points out that all of the public transport service contracts under consideration concern passenger transport services by rail and that they were all awarded directly to DSB by the Danish Ministry of Transport.
Komisija opozarja, da se obe zadevni pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza nanašata na storitve železniškega potniškega prevoza in da ju je dansko ministrstvo za promet sklenilo neposredno z družbo DSB.
That provision also states that ‘during this transitional period Member States shall take measures to gradually comply with Article 5 in order to avoid serious structural problems in particular relating to transport capacity’.
V tej določbi je poleg tega določeno, da „[d]ržave članice v tem prehodnem obdobju sprejmejo ukrepe za postopno uskladitev s členom 5, da bi preprečile resne strukturne težave, zlasti v zvezi s prevoznimi zmogljivostmi“.
It should be noted that Article 5(6) maintains the option for the competent authorities to make direct awards of public service contracts concerning transport by rail.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, da je v členu 5(6) ohranjena možnost, da pristojni organi neposredno sklenejo pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe za železniški prevoz.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the public transport service contracts in question are in accordance with the rules on the award of contracts laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Zato Komisija meni, da sta zadevni pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe prevoza v skladu s pravili o sklepanju pogodb, določenimi v členu 5 Uredbe št. 1370/2007.
Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that ‘all compensation connected with a general rule or a public service contract shall comply with the provisions laid down in Article 4, irrespective of how the contract was awarded.
Člen 6(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007določa, da so „[v]sa nadomestila, povezana s splošnim pravilom ali pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, […] ne glede na način sklenitve pogodbe v skladu z določbami člena 4.
All compensation, of whatever nature, connected with a public service contract awarded directly in accordance with Article 5(2), (4), (5) or (6) or connected with a general rule shall also comply with the provisions laid down in the Annex’.
Vsa nadomestila ne glede na svojo naravo, povezana s pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, ki je bila v skladu s členom 5(2), (4), (5) ali (6) neposredno sklenjena, ali povezana s splošnim pravilom, so poleg tega v skladu z določbami iz Priloge“.
Consequently, the compatibility of the public service compensation should be assessed in the light of the provisions of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, because the contracts in question were awarded directly in accordance with Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Zato je treba združljivost nadomestil za javne storitve presojati z vidika določb Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007, ker sta bili zadevni pogodbi sklenjeni neposredno v skladu s členom 5(6) Uredbe št. 1370/2007.
The Annex states that ‘the compensation may not exceed an amount corresponding to the net financial effect equivalent to the total of the effects, positive or negative, of compliance with the public service obligation on the costs and revenue of the public service operator’.
V tej prilogi je natančneje določeno, da „[n]adomestilo ne sme preseči zneska, ki ustreza finančnemu neto učinku, ki ustreza vsoti pozitivnih ali negativnih posledic upoštevanja obveznosti javne službe na stroške in prihodke izvajalca javne službe“.
This means essentially that the Commission must check that the contractual payments have not given rise to overcompensation, taking account of a reasonable profit for DSB.
To v bistvu pomeni, da mora Komisija preveriti, ali pogodbena plačila niso privedla do čezmernih nadomestil ob upoštevanju razumnega dobička družbe DSB.
In so doing, it relies on the criteria laid down in the Annex.
Pri tem se opira na merila, opredeljena v Prilogi.
In this case, the Commission points out that the calculation of costs and revenue was carried out in accordance with the tax and accounting rules in force.
Komisija v tej zadevi opozarja, da se stroški in prihodki izračunajo v skladu z veljavnimi računovodskimi in davčnimi pravili.
It notes that the legal framework applicable to DSB in terms of accounting standards and national rules on competition requires the undertaking to keep separate accounts for its different activities.
Opozarja, da pravni okvir, ki se za družbo DSB uporablja na področju računovodskih standardov in nacionalnih pravil o konkurenci, podjetju nalaga, da vodi ločeno računovodstvo za različne dejavnosti.
Those rules therefore make it possible to avoid any form of cross-subsidisation.
Ta pravila tako preprečujejo navzkrižno subvencioniranje.
Although the public transport service contracts contain provisions on the monitoring and review of compensation, the Commission points out however that those mechanisms do not enable any overcompensation to be avoided and that the contracts do not contain any mechanism allowing for refunds of overcompensation.
Čeprav pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe prevoza vsebujejo določbe o nadzoru in popravku nadomestil, Komisija vseeno opozarja, da ti mehanizmi ne omogočajo preprečevati morebitnih čezmernih nadomestil in da pogodbe ne vsebujejo mehanizma, ki bi omogočal vračilo takega nadomestila.
The Commission considers that overcompensation can be avoided only by establishing a refund mechanism.
Komisija namreč meni, da se čezmerna nadomestila lahko preprečijo le z uvedbo mehanizma vračila.
Consequently, the public service contracts concluded between the Danish Ministry of Transport and DSB should be amended so that they comply with the conditions mentioned above, particularly by introducing a refund mechanism.
Zato je treba pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe, ki sta ju sklenila dansko ministrstvo za promet in družba DSB, spremeniti tako, da bosta v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi pogoji, zlasti z uvedbo mehanizma vračila.
In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the level of compensation was limited to the amount needed to cover the costs entailed by fulfilling a public service obligation.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila dvom o tem, ali je bil znesek nadomestil omejen na to, kar je potrebno za kritje stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe.
Those doubts were based on the reasons set out in the assessment of compliance or otherwise with the third criterion established in the Altmark case-law, that is to say:
Njen dvom je temeljil na razlogih, predstavljenih v presoji upoštevanja tretjega merila, določenega v sodni praksi Altmark, to je na:
The Copenhagen–Ystad link
povezavi Köbenhavn–Ystad.
The Commission will examine these three aspects in turn in order to assess the existence or otherwise of overcompensation in the discharging of the public transport service contracts and to assess the measures needed in order to avoid any overcompensation in the future.
Komisija bo te tri vidike preučila zaporedoma, da bi ocenila obstoj čezmernih nadomestil v okviru izvajanja pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza in potrebne ukrepe za preprečevanje vsakršnih čezmernih nadomestil v prihodnosti.
To do so, the Commission takes account of the definition of reasonable profit given in point 6 of the Annex, namely ‘a rate of return on capital that is normal for the sector in a given Member State and that takes account of the risk, or absence of risk, incurred by the public service operator by virtue of public authority intervention’.
Komisija zato upošteva opredelitev razumnega dobička v točki 6 Priloge, in sicer da je to „stopnj[a] donosnosti kapitala, ki je običajna za sektor v določeni državi članici in ki mora upoštevati tveganje – ali odsotnost tveganja – izvajalca javne službe zaradi posegov javnega organa“.
The Commission has examined the changes in DSB’s equity capital and profits, as far as its public service activities are concerned, for the term of the contracts in question.
Komisija je preučila gibanje lastniškega kapitala in poslovne izide družbe DSB, kar zadeva njene dejavnosti javne službe, med trajanjem zadevnih pogodb.
That examination is based essentially on the detailed analysis of DSB’s financial situation over the period 1999-2006 carried out by KPMG on 30 January 2008 on behalf of the Danish State.
Ta preučitev temelji predvsem na podrobni analizi finančnega položaja družbe DSB v obdobju 1999–2006, ki jo je družba KPMG za Dansko opravila 30. januarja 2008.
The Danish authorities have also provided additional information concerning the 2007 and 2008 financial years, as well as clarification in the context of the formal investigation procedure.
Danski organi so poleg tega predložili dodatne informacije za poslovni leti 2007 in 2008 ter pojasnila v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave.
The Commission takes note in particular of the information provided by the Danish authorities to explain these changes in relation to the 10-year budgets, particularly with regard to the establishment of DSB’s founding budget in 1999 and the modification of certain accounting rules and of the level of taxation.
Komisija upošteva predvsem informacije, ki so jih danski organi predložili v pojasnitev tega razvoja v primerjavi z desetletnima proračunoma, zlasti kar zadeva pripravo ustanovitvenega proračuna družbe DSB leta 1999, spremembo nekaterih računovodskih pravil ali raven obdavčitve.
The changes in depreciation, financial management or interest rates are also explained.
Pojasnila so tudi gibanje stroškov amortizacije, razvoj finančnega poslovodenja ali gibanje obrestne mere.
The Danish authorities accept that DSB could have achieved efficiency gains enabling it to improve its results and its financial situation.
Komisija poleg tega priznava, da je lahko DSB povečala učinkovitost, zaradi katere je lahko izboljšala poslovni izid in finančni položaj.
The Commission considers, however, that all of those factors were such as to modify the level of DSB’s costs or charges for the operation of the transport services provided for in the different public transport service contracts.
Vendar Komisija meni, da so vsi ti dejavniki lahko spremenili raven stroškov ali izdatkov družbe DSB za opravljanje prevoznih storitev, določenih v različnih pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe prevoza.
Consequently, the improvement in DSB’s financial situation should have resulted in a decrease in the costs to the Danish State for the operation of those services compared with the forecasts in the 10-year budgets.
Izboljšanje finančnega položaja družbe DSB je zato moralo privesti do znižanja stroškov države za opravljanje navedenih storitev v primerjavi z napovedmi v desetletnih proračunih.
That decrease implied an overall reduction in the public service compensation.
To znižanje je torej pomenilo splošno zmanjšanje nadomestil za javne storitve.
In the absence of a corresponding correction to the contractual payments, the Commission considers that these different factors reflect the fact that DSB received compensation in excess of the costs incurred in discharging a public service obligation plus a reasonable profit set at 6 %.
Ker ni bilo enakovrednega popravka pogodbenih plačil, Komisija meni, da ti različni dejavniki kažejo, da je DSB prejela nadomestila, ki so bila večja od stroškov, nastalih zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe in povečanih za razumni dobiček, določen na 6 %.
The Commission notes that the contractual payments were reduced only for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, by a total of DKK 1018 billion.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so se pogodbena plačila zmanjšala le za leta 2002, 2003 in 2004, in sicer za 1018 milijarde DKK.
However, the Commission observes that it is not disputed by the Danish authorities that, taking all of these factors into account, DSB had higher levels of profitability than had initially been predicted in the 10-year budgets on which the calculation of the public service compensation was based.
Komisija vseeno opozarja, da danski organi ne zanikajo, da je imela DSB ob upoštevanju vseh teh elementov višje ravni donosnosti, kot je bilo najprej predvideno v desetletnih proračunih, ki sta bila podlaga za izračun nadomestil za javne storitve.
That finding also follows from the observations submitted by the interested parties, even though the basis for comparing the performances of rail undertakings in Denmark and the rest of Europe remains insecure, as indicated above (see recitals 290-292).
Ta ugotovitev izhaja tudi iz pripomb, ki so jih poslale zainteresirane strani, čeprav primerljivost uspešnosti železniških podjetij na Danskem in v Evropi ostaja majhna, kot je navedeno zgoraj (glej uvodne izjave od 290 do 292).
The Commission also notes that the results of DSB s-tog a/s, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSB SV, are consolidated at the level of the parent company and that the level of reasonable profit expected is the same for both companies.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da je poslovni izid DSB S-tog a/s, hčerinske družbe v 100-odstotni lasti DSB SV, konsolidiran na ravni matične družbe in da je raven pričakovanega razumnega dobička enaka za obe družbi.
Consequently, the Commission conducts an examination of the surplus profits under the different public transport service contracts as a whole at the level of DSB.
Zato Komisija skupaj preučuje presežke dobička na podlagi različnih pogodb o izvajanju javne službe prevoza na ravni DSB.
The Commission notes that DSB’s accounts show that its after-tax profits over the period 1999-2006 were DKK 2,715 billion more than projected in the 10-year forward budget.
Komisija tako opozarja, da računovodski izkazi družbe DSB prikazujejo povečanje dobička po obdavčitvi družbe DSB v obdobju 1999–2006 za 2,715 milijarde DKK v primerjavi s predvidenim proračunom.