natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner (criterion 2);
merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno (merilo 2);
the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations (criterion 3);
nadomestilo ne sme presega zneska, ki je potreben za kritje vseh stroškov ali dela stroškov, ki nastanejo pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti (merilo 3);
where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations (criterion 4).
če podjetje, ki naj bi izpolnjevalo obveznosti javne službe, v zadevnem primeru ni izbrano v skladu s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, je treba stopnjo potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi nastali v običajnem podjetju, ki je dobro vodeno in ima zagotovljena ustrezna prevozna sredstva, zato da lahko zadosti zahtevam javne službe, pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti, pri čemer je treba upoštevati realizirane prihodke in razumni dobiček pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti (merilo 4).
In its Communication on the application of State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of an SGEI [57] (‘the SGEI Communication’), the Commission provided guidance to clarify the requirements for compensation for services of general economic interest.
V svojem sporočilu o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za nadomestila, dodeljena za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [57] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporočilo SSGP), je Komisija navedla usmeritve za razjasnitev zahtev glede nadomestila za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
The communication addresses the various requirements set out in the Altmark judgment, i.e. the concept of service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106 TFEU, the need for a mandate, the obligation to define the parameters of the compensation, the principles relating to the need to avoid overcompensation and principles for selecting the service provider.
To sporočilo obravnava različne zahteve, določene v sodni praksi v zadevi Altmark, in sicer pojem storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena v smislu člena 106 PDEU, potrebo po aktu o pooblastitvi, obveznost določitve parametrov za nadomestila, načela glede izogibanja čezmernim nadomestilom in načela glede izbire izvajalca.
In the case in point, the Commission considers it appropriate to analyse the first and fourth Altmark criteria.
V tem primeru Komisija meni, da je primerno izvesti analizo prvega in četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark.
Definition of the service of general economic interest (criterion 1)
Opredelitev storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena (merilo 1)
Analysis framework
Okvir analize
It should be noted that the Commission's powers with regard to the definition of an SGEI are limited to ensuring that the Member State concerned has not committed a manifest error of assessment in characterising a service as being of general economic interest [58].
Opozoriti je treba, da je pristojnost Komisije v zvezi z opredelitvijo SSGP omejena na preverjanje, ali je zadevna država članica naredila očitno napako pri presoji, ker je storitev uvrstila med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena [58].
Furthermore, where there are specific rules at European Union level, they are binding on the discretion of Member States, without prejudice to the assessment made by the Commission to determine whether the SGEI was defined correctly for the purposes of monitoring State aid [59].
Če so poleg tega na ravni Unije sprejeta posebna pravila, jih morajo države članice upoštevati pri izvajanju diskrecijske pravice, kar pa ne vpliva na dolžnost Komisije, da oceni, ali je bila storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena pravilno uvrščena za namene nadzora državne pomoči [59].
In the opening decision, the Commission had essentially considered that, to be acceptable from the point of view of monitoring State aid, the scope of the public service had to respect Regulation 3577/92, as interpreted by the Court's case-law [60].
V sklepu o začetku postopka je Komisija v zvezi s tem ocenila, da je treba pri obsegu opravljanja javnih storitev upoštevati Uredbo št. 3577/92, kot se razlaga v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča, da je sprejemljiv glede na nadzor državne pomoči [60].
Accordingly, the Commission indicated that it would analyse whether the scope of the public service as defined by the public service delegation contract was necessary and proportionate to a real public service need, attested to by the shortage of regular transport services in a situation of free competition.
Posledično je Komisija navedla, da bi analizirala, ali je področje javnih storitev, kot je opredeljeno v pogodbi o PPJS, potrebno in sorazmerno z dejanskimi potrebami javnih storitev, kar dokazuje neustreznost rednih prevoznih storitev v primeru svobodne konkurence.
Here, in the event of non-compliance with the substantive criteria of Regulation 3577/92, as interpreted by case-law, the compensation in question could not be declared compatible on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU.
Tako zadevnih nadomestil v obravnavani zadevi v primeru neskladnosti z bistvenimi merili Uredbe št. 3577/92, kot se razlagajo v skladu s sodno prakso, ni mogoče razglasiti za združljive na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU.
Compliance with Regulation 3577/92 is therefore a necessary condition for the applicability of the SGEI Framework in this case [61].
Skladnost z Uredbo št. 3577/92 je torej nujen pogoj za veljavnost okvira SSGP v obravnavanem primeru [61].
In this regard, the Commission notes that the public service delegation contract is clearly a ‘public service contract’ within the meaning of Regulation 3577/92 [62].
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da pogodba o PPJS jasno pomeni „pogodbo o izvajanju gospodarske javne službe“ v smislu Uredbe št. 3577/92 [62].
It believes that the conditions set out in the Analir judgment, mentioned above, are of particular relevance to the analysis of such a public service contract.
V tem smislu ocenjuje, da so pogoji iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Analir posebej pomembni za analizo take pogodbe o javni službi.
Indeed, the compensation of specific obligations under a public service contract, subsidising a range of services, clearly constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of services [63].
Nadomestilo za posebne obveznosti v okviru pogodbe o javni službi s subvencioniranjem ponudbe storitev pomeni jasno oviro za prosti pretok storitev [63].
This obstacle may be justified only under restrictive conditions establishing the necessity and proportionality of the definition of all the services exempted from the scope of free competition in relation to a real need for transport, which is not met under conditions of free competition.
To oviro je mogoče upravičiti samo z omejevalnimi pogoji, ki dokazujejo potrebnost in sorazmernost opredelitve vseh storitev, izključenih iz svobodne konkurence v primerjavi z dejansko potrebo po prevozu, ki v primeru svobodne konkurence ni izpolnjena.
By analogy with the Analir judgment above, the Commission therefore considers that the scope of the public service remit as defined by a public service contract must be necessary and proportionate to a real public service need, as demonstrated by the lack of regular transport services under normal market conditions.
Komisija torej po analogiji z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Analir meni, da bi moralo biti področje javnih storitev, kot ga določa pogodba o javni službi, potrebno in sorazmerno z dejanskimi potrebami po javnih storitvah, kar dokazuje neustreznost rednih prevoznih storitev v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
Separate analysis of the basic and additional services
Analiza, ločena od osnovnih in dodatnih storitev
The French authorities argue first of all that the basic service and the additional service, as defined in the opening decision mentioned above, do not constitute separate services.
Francoski organi najprej trdijo, da se osnovne in dodatne storitve, kot so opredeljene v sklepu o začetku postopka in navedene zgoraj, ne štejejo za ločene storitve.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the distinction between the transport services to be provided throughout the year as part of the basic service and the additional capacity to be provided in peak periods is clearly reflected in the specifications of the public service delegation [64].
Pri tem pa Komisija kljub temu meni, da je razlikovanje med prevoznimi storitvami, ki se izvajajo celo leto v okviru osnovnih storitev, in dodatnimi zmogljivostmi, ki so na voljo v obdobju velikega povpraševanja, jasno izraženo v pogodbenih pogojih pogodbe o PPJS [64].
The French authorities also argue that the scope of the public service remit must be assessed overall for both services.
Francoski organi tudi trdijo, da se mora obseg opravljanja javnih storitev presojati celovito pri obeh storitvah.
To this end, they refer to the Council of State ruling of 13 July 2012, cited above, in which the national court held that Regulation 3577/92 did not preclude an overall assessment of the real public service need for each line, without it being necessary to examine whether this need is justified at all times.
Pri tem se sklicujejo na zgoraj navedeno sodbo državnega sveta z dne 13. julija 2012, v kateri je nacionalno sodišče presodilo, da zgoraj navedena Uredba št. 3577/92 ne pomeni ovire za celovito oceno dejanskih potreb po javnih storitvah za vsako linijo, pri čemer ni treba dokazovati, ali so te potrebe stalno upravičene.
The Council of State concluded that Regulation 3577/92 did not require the additional service to meet a real public service need different to the one already met by the basic service.
Državni svet je na podlagi tega sklenil, da Uredba št. 3577/92 ne določa, da bi morale dodatne storitve ustrezati dejanskim potrebam po javnih storitvah, ki so drugačne od potreb, pokritih z osnovnimi storitvami.
In accordance with its practice in previous decisions, the Commission considers [65] that, to avoid ‘creaming off the market’ [66] as a practice that is detrimental not only to the economic efficiency of service delivery but to its quality and economic viability, it may be legitimate, in circumstances where transport demand shows a marked seasonality, to include services for both peak and off-peak periods within the public service remit.
V zvezi s tem Komisija v skladu s svojo prakso odločanja [65] meni, da se je praksi pobiranja smetane [66], ki škoduje gospodarski uspešnosti opravljanja storitev, njeni kakovosti in ekonomski učinkovitosti, mogoče izogniti tako, da se v okoliščinah, v katerih je povpraševanje po prevozu močno odvisno od sezone, v obseg opravljanja javnih storitev vključi storitve, ki so obenem na voljo v obdobjih velikega povpraševanja in zunaj sezone.
In the case in hand, the Commission therefore considers that it would only be legitimate to consider that the additional service may be justified by the real public service need met by the basic service if it can be determined, as the French authorities argue, that its operation is essential to the basic service, on the grounds of a set of technical and economic considerations.
Komisija v teh okoliščinah meni, da bi bilo mogoče dodatne storitve upravičiti z dejanskimi potrebami po javnih storitvah, ki so izpolnjene z osnovnimi storitvami, le, kadar je ugotovljeno, da je njihovo izvajanje, kot trdijo francoski organi, nujno potrebno za osnovne storitve na podlagi tehničnih in gospodarskih ugotovitev.
However, contrary to the claims by France, SNCM and CMN, the operation of the additional service in this case does not seem to be indispensable to the basic service.
Toda v nasprotju s trditvami Francije, SNCM in CMN izvajanje dodatnih storitev v obravnavanem primeru ni nujno potrebno za izvajanje osnovnih storitev.
The Commission notes that in certain circumstances, extending the scope of the public service may be justified in the presence of well-established complementary technical or economic efficiency considerations (synergies).
Komisija opozarja, da je razširitev obsega opravljanja javnih storitev v nekaterih primerih mogoče upravičiti z dobro uveljavljenim medsebojnim tehničnim dopolnjevanjem ali z upoštevanjem ugotovitev glede gospodarske učinkovitosti (sinergij).
However, in this case there is no technical complementarity between the basic service and the additional service.
V tem primeru med osnovnimi storitvami in dodatnimi storitvami ni zagotovljeno nobeno tehnično dopolnjevanje.
Indeed, the Commission points out that the requirements applied to them are distinct, particularly with regard to timetables and frequency.
Komisija dejansko ugotavlja, da so obveznosti, ki veljajo zanje, ločene, in se nanašajo zlasti na vozne rede in pogostost prevozov.
As regards timetables, while the definition of the basic service required a minimum daily schedule of departures and a strict range of arrival times [67], the definition of the additional service stipulated no timetable to be met.
Medtem ko sta pri opredelitvi osnovnih storitev strogo določena vozni red z najmanjšim številom odhodov in čas prihoda [67], pri opredelitvi dodatnih storitev ni določen noben vozni red, ki bi ga bilo treba upoštevati.
As far as frequency is concerned, the public service delegation contract imposes no obligation in respect of the additional service, with transport capacity defined annually on peak periods.
V pogodbenih pogojih pogodbe o PPJS v zvezi s pogostostjo za dodatne storitve ni določena nobena obveznost, ker je zmogljivost prevoza določena vsako leto glede na obdobja velikega povpraševanja.
In addition, services organised according to a similar distinction [68] were provided with different ships and crews from 2002 to 2006.
Poleg tega so bile storitve, ki so bile organizirane glede na podobno razlikovanje [68], v obdobju 2002-2006 opravljene z ločenimi ladjami in posadkami.
Here, it is worth noting that the French authorities' argument that the technical specifications did not require the use of different types of vessels does not undermine this conclusion insofar as the experience of the previous public service delegation over the period from 2002 to 2006 established that both these types of services could be provided with different ships [69].
V zvezi s tem je pomembno poudariti, da iz trditve francoskih organov, da pogodbeni pogoji ne določajo uporabe različnih vrst ladij, ne izhaja drugačna ugotovitev, če je na podlagi izkušenj pri predhodnem PPJS za obdobje 2002-2006 ugotovljeno, da je zadevni vrsti storitev mogoče izvajati z različnimi ladjami [69].
Furthermore, and also with regard to the French authorities' argument that the inclusion of the additional service is justified by financial equalisation with the basic service, suffice it to say that SNCM's cost accounts show an operating deficit for this latter service month after month [70].
Poleg tega v zvezi s trditvijo francoskih organov, da je vključitev dodatnih storitev upravičena s finančno izravnavo z osnovnimi storitvami, zadošča ugotovitev, da je bilo pri analitičnem računovodstvu SNCM v zvezi s temi storitvami razkrit primanjkljaj [70].
This argument can therefore not be upheld.
Te trditve torej ni mogoče sprejeti.
It follows that in the specific circumstances of the case, the implementation of the additional service cannot be considered essential to the proper performance of the basic service, and none of the arguments put forward by the French authorities and the concession holders in this regard invalidate that conclusion.
Iz tega sledi, da glede na posebne okoliščine v tem primeru opravljanja dodatnih storitev ni mogoče obravnavati kot nujno potrebno za dobro opravljanje osnovnih storitev in da nobena trditev, ki jo v zvezi s tem navajajo francoski organi in pooblaščena izvajalca, ne more ovreči te ugotovitve.
The Commission therefore considers that the characterisation as a service of general economic interest should be assessed separately for both types of service in question.
Komisija zato meni, da je treba opredelitev storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena obravnavati ločeno za obe vrsti zadevnih storitev.
Analysis of the basic service
Analiza osnovnih storitev
The Commission notes first that, in accordance with case-law [71] and with Commission decision-making practice in this field [72], the territorial continuity policy applied by the French authorities stems from a legitimate public interest, i.e. to provide an adequate level of transport services to meet the economic and social development needs of Corsica.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da v skladu s sodno prakso [71] in prakso svojega odločanja na tem področju [72] politika ozemeljske povezanosti, ki jo vodijo francoski organi, pomeni del legitimnega javnega interesa, in sicer da se zagotovijo zadostne prevozne storitve, ki ustrezajo potrebam gospodarskega in socialnega razvoja Korzike.
It follows therefore that providing a minimum territorial continuity service between Marseille and the five Corsican ports concerned meets a clearly defined public service need.
Iz tega je razvidno, da opravljanje storitev za zagotavljanje minimalne ozemeljske povezanosti med Marseillem in petimi zadevnimi korziškimi pristanišči zadošča jasno določenim potrebam za opravljanje javnih storitev.
As for the shortage of private initiative with regard to the basic service, the other market operators admit they have been unable to provide such a service [73].
Glede obstoja pomanjkanja zasebnih pobud v zvezi z osnovnimi storitvami drugi izvajalci na trgu sami priznavajo, da niso bili sposobni zagotoviti te storitve [73].
In particular, for the period in which such a shortage was observed, the Commission considers that the shortage of private initiative on each line in relation to a clearly identified need for transport during the off-peak periods of the year alone is sufficient to justify the inclusion of the basic service within the scope of the public service for the whole year for all these lines.
Kar zadeva obdobje, v katerem je ugotovljeno to pomanjkanje, Komisija zlasti meni, da ugotovitev glede pomanjkanja zasebnih pobud za vsako zadevno linijo zunaj sezone glede na dobro opredeljeno potrebo po prevozu zadostuje za utemeljitev vključitve osnovnih storitev v okvir javnih storitev za celo leto in za vse linije.
Indeed, clear considerations of technical and economic efficiency justify the permanent nature of the basic service without the need for a shortage of transport services over the year as a whole to be shown.
Očitne ugotovitve glede tehnične in gospodarske učinkovitosti upravičujejo stalnost osnovnih storitev, ne da bi bilo pri tem treba opredeliti, da je pomanjkanje prevoznih storitev značilno za celo leto.
In this regard, redeploying some vessels during the year would have imposed an additional economic burden on the concession holders, while depriving them of significant revenue during peak periods.
Prerazporejanje nekaterih ladij med letom bi v zvezi s tem pomenilo dodatno gospodarsko breme za pooblaščena izvajalca, pri čemer bi ju prikrajšalo za pomembne prihodke v obdobjih velikega povpraševanja.
Finally, as the Commission noted in its Interpretative Communication [74] on Regulation 3577/92, grouping together several routes within a single service is not, in itself, contrary to the Regulation.
Komisija je v svojem razlagalnem sporočilu [74] o Uredbi št. 3577/92 ugotovila, da združevanje linij znotraj ene storitve samo po sebi ni v nasprotju z navedeno uredbo.
Instead, in this case, grouping together these five routes made it possible to pool shipping resources to improve the quality of the service in question [75] and to reduce costs, to the extent that the technical requirements that were set for connections to the five ports of Corsica in the basic service are particularly comparable in terms of timetables, journey time and the capacity-sharing between freight and passengers [76].
Nasprotno pa v obravnavanem primeru združevanje petih linij omogoča združevanje obstoječih navtičnih sredstev, da se izboljša kakovost zadevne storitve [75] in da se znižajo stroški, kadar so zahtevane tehnične zahteve za linije do petih korziških pristanišč v okviru osnovnih storitev zlasti primerljive glede na vozne rede, čase potovanja in razdelitev zmogljivosti med tovor in potnike [76].
In fact, the public service delegation contract [77] covers the use of some ships on several different lines of the basic service, and the use of several different ships on the same line [78].
Pogodba o PPJS [77] obenem določa uporabo nekaterih ladij na več ločenih povezavah z osnovnimi storitvami in uporabo več različnih ladij na isti povezavi [78].
Finally, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation 3577/92, the public service delegation contract and its annexes set clear standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing that concession holders must fulfil to ensure the service (see section 2.5).
V skladu s členom 4 Uredbe št. 3577/92 pogodba o PPJS in njene priloge določajo natančne standarde neprekinjenosti, rednosti, zmogljivosti in zaračunavanja prevoznih tarif, ki jih morajo pooblaščeni izvajalci spoštovati, če želijo zagotavljati osnovne storitve (glej oddelek 2.5).
It follows that the inclusion of basic services in the scope of the public service delegation contract is necessary and proportionate to the real public service need.
Iz tega izhaja, da je vključevanje osnovnih storitev v obseg pogodbe o PPJS potrebno in sorazmerno glede na dejanske potrebe po javnih storitvah.
Analysis of the additional service
Analiza dodatnih storitev
The Commission considers that including the additional service in the public service remit is in breach of the requirement of necessity and proportionality of the definition of the public service remit in relation to the real public service need (see section 8.1.1 below).
Komisija meni, da je v zvezi z dodatnimi storitvami vključitev te storitve v okvir javnih storitev v nasprotju z obveznostjo po potrebnosti in sorazmernosti opredelitve področja javnih storitev glede na dejanske potrebe po javnih storitvah (glej oddelek 8.1.1 spodaj).
In this regard, the Commission notes that the three lines of the additional service, i.e. Marseille - Ajaccio, Marseille - Bastia and Marseille - Propriano, were operated in an inseparable way by SNCM using two car ferries, the Danielle Casanova and the Napoleon Bonaparte, to provide services on the three lines [79].
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da so tri linije dodatnih storitev, in sicer Marseille-Ajaccio, Marseille-Bastia in Marseille-Propriano, ki jih je izvajala družba SNCM z dvema trajektoma, tj. Danielle Casanova in Napoléon Bonaparte, neločljivo povezane z zagotavljanjem storitev na teh treh linijah [79].
The Commission further notes that the weak nature of the obligations imposed on the provision of the additional services in this case [80] further justified pooling the shipping resources to provide the service, fostering technical and economic complementarities to operate the services on the three routes in question.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je v tem primeru zaradi šibke obveznosti za zagotavljanje dodatnih storitev [80] združevanje obstoječih navtičnih sredstev še bolj pomembno za opravljanje storitev, saj spodbuja tehnično in gospodarsko dopolnjevanje za izvajanje storitev na zadevnih treh linijah.
The Commission considers therefore that the validity of including the additional service within the scope of the public service delegation contract must be considered in its entirety.
Komisija tako ugotavlja, da je treba veljavnost vključitve dodatnih storitev v obseg pogodbe o PPJS oceniti celovito.