natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, according to Germany, such a benchmarking is in contradiction to the 2011 Extension decision, as the Commission uses adjusted gross wages of civil servants instead of market-average wages in order to calculate the amount of social contributions paid by competitors of Deutsche Post.
Vendar pa je po mnenju Nemčije takšna referenčna vrednost v nasprotju s sklepom o razširitvi iz leta 2011, saj je Komisija za izračun zneska prispevkov za socialno varnost, ki so jih plačevali konkurenti podjetja Deutsche Post, u porabila prilagojene bruto plače javnih uslužbencev in ne povprečnih plač na trgu.
Following the expert study by Prof. Weber, market-average wages only amount to approximately […] % of civil servants' gross wage.
V skladu s strokovno študijo prof. Webra povprečne plače na trgu znašajo samo približno […] % bruto plače javnih uslužbencev.
As such, it is not reasonable to use adjusted civil servants' gross wage as a benchmark to calculate social contribution rates.
Zato kot referenčno vrednost za izračun prispevkov za socialno varnost ni smotrno uporabiti prilagojene plače javnih uslužbencev.
According to Germany, BIEK's assumption that Deutsche Post uses agreed wages in the transport sector as a benchmark to calculate the differences in wage costs borne by Deutsche Post as compared to its competitors is ill-founded.
Po mnenju Nemčije je predpostavka združenja BIEK, da podjetje Deutsche Post kot referenčno vrednost za izračun razlik pri stroških plač, ki jih ima podjetje Deutsche Post v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenti, uporablja dogovorjene plače v sektorju prevoza, neutemeljena.
The expert study by Prof. Weber shows that Deutsche Post calculates market-average wages on basis of actual wages paid by its competitors.
Strokovna študija prof. Webra kaže, da podjetje Deutsche Post povprečne plače na trgu izračunava na podlagi dejanskih plač, ki jih plačujejo njegovi konkurenti.
AID ASSESSMENT OF PENSION SUBSIDY
OCENA POMOČI SUBVENCIJE ZA POKOJNINE
Assessment of existence of aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU
1 Obstoj pomoči v skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU
Article 107(1) TFEU provides that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami“.
In determining whether a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission has to apply the following criteria: the measure must be imputed to the State and use State resources, it must confer an advantage on certain undertakings or certain sectors which distorts competition and it must affect trade between Member States.
Pri oceni, ali ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, mora Komisija uporabiti naslednja merila: ukrep mora biti pripisan državi in odobren iz državnih sredstev, zagotavljati mora prednosti določenim podjetjem ali določenim sektorjem, kar izkrivlja konkurenco, vplivati pa mora tudi na trgovino med državami članicami.
As the pension subsidy is based on the Article 16 PostPersG 1994 and financed out of the public budget, it is imputable to the State and it is granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Ker subvencija za pokojnine temelji na členu 16 zakona PostPersG iz leta 1994 in je financirana iz javnega proračuna, je ukrep mogoče pripisati državi, odobren pa je iz državnih sredstev v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Moreover, as the pension subsidy has only been granted to the Pension fund to relieve Deutsche Post from the civil servants' pension costs and therefore ultimately benefits Deutsche Post, it is selective.
Poleg tega je selektiven, saj je bila subvencija za pokojnine odobrena samo pokojninskemu skladu za razbremenitev podjetja Deutsche Post pri plačevanju stroškov pokojnin javnih uslužbencev, zaradi česar koristi podjetju Deutsche Post.
Financial advantage from 1995 pension reform
Finančna prednost zaradi pokojninske reforme leta 1995
On the basis of the Combus judgment, Germany claims that the pension subsidy would not provide any financial advantage because it relieved Deutsche Post from excess social costs.
Na podlagi sodbe v zadevi Combus Nemčija trdi, da subvencija za pokojnine ne zagotavlja finančne prednosti, ker je podjetje Deutsche Post razbremenila dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost.
In order to ascertain whether the pension subsidy has provided a selective financial advantage, it needs to be determined whether it allowed Deutsche Post to avoid costs that would normally have had to be borne by the company and have thus prevented market forces from producing their normal effect [67].
Da bi ugotovili, ali je subvencija za pokojnine zagotovila selektivno finančno prednost, je treba preučiti, ali je podjetju Deutsche Post omogočila, da se izogne stroškom, ki bi jih podjetje običajno moralo kriti, in ali je tako preprečila, da bi prisotne tržne sile prišle do polnega izraza [67].
The Commission cannot accept Germany's claim based on the Combus case-law: It must be borne in mind that the Combus ruling has not been confirmed by the Court of Justice.
Komisija se ne more strinjati s trditvijo Nemčije, ki temelji na sodni praksi v zadevi Combus. Upoštevati je treba, da Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti sodbe v zadevi Combus ni potrdilo.
Several of the Court of Justice's rulings contradict the theory that compensation for a structural disadvantage exempts a measure from being qualified as aid.
Več sodb Sodišča nasprotuje teoriji, da se ukrepi nadomestil za strukturne pomanjkljivosti ne morejo šteti za pomoč.
In that regard, the Court of Justice has constantly held that the existence of aid is to be assessed in relation to the effects and not in relation to the causes or objectives of state intervention [68].
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti dosledno menilo, da je treba obstoj pomoči presojati na podlagi učinkov in ne vzrokov ali ciljev državnega posega [68].
The Court has also held that the concept of aid includes advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, reduce the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking [69].
Menilo je tudi, da pojem pomoči vključuje prednosti, ki jih podeljujejo državni organi in zaradi katerih se v različnih oblikah zmanjšajo redne obremenitve za proračun podjetja [69].
The Court of Justice has also clearly stated that the costs linked to remuneration of employees naturally place a burden on the budgets of undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those costs stem from legal obligations or collective agreements [70].
Sodišče je poleg tega še jasno navedlo, da stroški, povezani s plačilom zaposlenih, že po naravi bremenijo proračun podjetij, in sicer ne glede na to, ali izhajajo iz zakonskih obveznosti ali kolektivnih sporazumov [70].
In that context, the Court of Justice has considered that the fact that State measures aim to compensate for additional costs cannot constitute grounds for disqualifying them from the definition of aid [71].
V zvezi s tem je menilo, da samo dejstvo, da je namen državnih ukrepov nadomestiti dodatne stroške, še ne pomeni, da zadevnih ukrepov ni mogoče opredeliti kot pomoč [71].
The Commission takes the view that the liabilities a company bears under employment legislation or collective agreements with trade unions, such as pension costs, are part of the normal costs of a business which a firm has to meet from its own resources [72].
Komisija meni, da so stroški, ki jih ima podjetje zaradi finančne obveznosti na podlagi predpisov s področja delovnih razmerij ali kolektivnih pogodb s sindikati, na primer stroški pokojnin, redni izdatki podjetja, ki jih mora podjetje financirati iz lastnih sredstev [72].
Those costs are inherent to the economic activity of the undertaking [73].
Ti stroški so neločljivo povezani z gospodarsko dejavnostjo podjetja [73].
It does not matter in that regard whether the undertaking bears the pension costs by directly financing the pensions of its former staff (as is the case for the civil servants employed by Deutsche Post) or by paying a contribution to the private employees' pension insurance, which in turn uses the collected contributions to finance the pensions of all private employees.
Glede tega ni pomembno, ali podjetje stroške pokojnin krije z neposrednim financiranjem pokojnin svojega nekdanjega osebja (kot v primeru javnih uslužbencev podjetja Deutsche Post) ali s plačevanjem prispevka za pokojninsko zavarovanje zasebnih uslužbencev, pri čemer zbrane prispevke uporabi za financiranje pokojnin vseh zasebnih uslužbencev.
The decisive element is that, in one way or another, undertakings bear the full costs for pensions.
Odločilni element je, da podjetja tako ali drugače v celoti krijejo stroške pokojnin.
In addition, the Commission notes that since its establishment in 1950, Deutsche Bundespost had the legal form of a Sondervermoegen.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je imelo podjetje Deutsche Bundespost od svoje ustanovitve leta 1950 pravno obliko Sondervermögen.
A Sondervermoegen, while not enjoying independent legal personality, has to establish its own budget and its own accounting system (§ 3 PostVwG 1953 and § 48 HGrG [74]).
Sondervermögen, ki nima neodvisne pravne osebnosti, mora vzpostaviti lasten proračun in računovodski sistem (člen 3 zakona PostVwG iz leta 1953 in člen 48 zakona HGrG [74]).
According to the legal rules applicable to the budgets of public entities, the budget has to contain the costs for personnel, which include the costs for pensions of retired civil servants formerly employed by the public entity (§ 10 HGrG).
V skladu z zakonodajo, ki se uporablja za javne subjekte, mora proračun kriti stroške osebja, kar vključuje stroške za pokojnine upokojenih javnih uslužbencev, ki so bili zaposleni pri javnem subjektu (člen 10 zakona HGrG).
In consequence, since 1950, Deutsche Post has financed those costs from its revenues.
V skladu s tem je podjetje Deutsche Post od leta 1950 te stroške financiralo iz svojih prihodkov.
§ 15 PostVwG 1953 explicitly prohibits any subsidy from the federal budget to Deutsche Bundespost.
Člen 15 zakona PostVwG iz leta 1953 izrecno prepoveduje vsakršno subvencioniranje podjetja Deutsche Bundespost iz državnega proračuna.
That rule has been taken over in § 37(1) PostVerfG 1989.
To pravilo je bilo vključeno v člen 37(1) zakona PostVerfG iz leta 1989.
The PostVerfG 1989 restates that obligation in its chapter on personnel.
Zakon PostVerfG iz leta 1989 to obveznost ponovno navaja v poglavju o osebju in stroških za socialno varnost.
Deutsche Post was required, pursuant to Article 54(2) PostVerfG 1989, to finance out of its own resources all costs, including the pensions of its civil servants.
V skladu s členom 54(2) zakona PostVerfG iz leta 1989 je moralo podjetje vse stroške, tudi pokojnine svojih javnih uslužbencev, financirati iz lastnih sredstev.
After the second postal reform in 1995, Deutsche Post continued to assume the responsibility to finance all pecuniary claims of civil servants under the terms of Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994 but was partly relieved from the payment of the civil servants' pension costs.
Po drugi reformi poštnega sektorja leta 1995 je bilo podjetje Deutsche Post še naprej odgovorno za financiranje vseh denarnih zahtevkov javnih uslužbencev v skladu s členom 2(3) zakona PostPersRG iz leta 1994, vendar je bilo delno razbremenjeno plačila stroškov za pokojnine javnih uslužbencev.
Pursuant to Article 16(1) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post paid for the years 1995 to 1999 a yearly lump sum of EUR 2045 million to the Pension fund. Pursuant to Article 16(2) PostPersRG 1994, the annual lump-sum payments were replaced as of 2000 by a contribution which is calculated as 33 % of the salary mass of the civil servants.
V skladu s členom 16(1) zakona PostPersRG iz leta 1994 je podjetje Deutsche Post za obdobje 1995–1999 v pokojninski sklad vplačalo letni pavšalni znesek v višini 2,045 milijarde EUR. V skladu s členom 16(2) zakona PostPersRG iz leta 1994 je letna pavšalna plačila od leta 2000 naprej nadomestil prispevek, ki se izračuna kot 33 % vseh plač javnih uslužbencev.
Article 16(2) PostPersRG 1994 furthermore sets out that the remainder of the pension costs was to be borne by the Federal Budget from 1995 onwards.
Poleg tega člen 16(2) zakona PostPersRG iz leta 1994 določa, da se preostali stroški za pokojnine od leta 1995 naprej prenesejo na zvezni proračun.
Figure 1 shows the annual payments from the Federal Budget for each year since 1995, starting with EUR 151 million in 1995.
Na sliki 1 so prikazana letna plačila iz zveznega proračuna za vsako leto od leta 1995 naprej, ko je bilo vplačanih 151 milijonov EUR.
It follows that the arguments raised by Germany aiming at demonstrating that DPAG supported pension costs higher than those of its private competitors are irrelevant for the purpose of finding whether the pension subsidy constitutes a State aid, but will be assessed in the context of the analysis of the compatibility of that measure.
Iz tega sledi, da trditve Nemčije, ki naj bi dokazale, da je moralo podjetje DPAG kriti stroške za pokojnine, višje od stroškov zasebnih konkurentov, niso pomembne za ugotavljanje, ali subvencija za pokojnine pomeni državno pomoč, ampak bodo ocenjene v okviru analize združljivosti tega ukrepa.
In particular, Germany has argued that in order to identify an advantage in favour of Deutsche Post deriving from the pension subsidy, the contribution made by Deutsche Post to the pension fund should be compared to private employers' share of the pension contributions excluding the employees' share.
Nemčija je trdila, da bi bilo treba za namene ocenjevanja, ali je imelo podjetje Deutsche Post korist od subvencije za pokojnine, prispevek podjetja Deutsche Post v pokojninski sklad primerjati z deležem prispevka za pokojnine, ki ga morajo plačati zasebni delodajalci, brez prispevka uslužbencev.
That argument relates to the compatibility of the measure, but for the sake of completeness the Commission will note, on the one hand, that the employer has the obligation to pay the total contribution rate to the social insurances on behalf of the employee and out of the employee's gross salary.
Ta trditev se nanaša na združljivost ukrepa z notranjim trgom, vendar je treba za dodatno pojasnilo opozoriti, da mora delodajalec po eni strani plačati celoten prispevek v shemo socialnega zavarovanja v imenu uslužbenca in iz bruto plače uslužbenca.
On the other hand, and more fundamentally, when a Member State relieves the employees of a certain undertaking from a burden otherwise due, it translates into an advantage for the employer, because such a measure will reduce the difference between the gross salary and the net salary.
Po drugi strani, kar je še pomembneje, ko država članica uslužbence podjetja razbremeni bremena, ki ga morajo v nasprotnem primeru kriti, to pomeni prednost za delodajalca, ker tak ukrep zmanjša razliko med bruto in neto plačo.
It will make it possible for the employer to hire or retain employees by paying a lower gross salary.
Tako lahko delodajalec zaradi plačila nižje bruto plače zaposli ali obdrži uslužbence.
Therefore, the advantages concerning the employee's share of the social contribution also constitute an advantage for the employer.
Zato prednosti v zvezi z deležem prispevkov za socialno varnost, ki ga mora plačati uslužbenec, pomenijo prednost tudi za delodajalca.
Germany has also argued that a financial advantage for Deutsche Post from the compensation of its excess social costs would only exist if the granted compensation was higher than the total excess social costs that Deutsche Post has had to incur for the civil servants working in the price regulated and in the non-price regulated sector.
Nemčija je trdila tudi, da bi finančna prednost za podjetje Deutsche Post zaradi nadomestila njegovih dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost obstajala le, če bi bilo dodeljeno nadomestilo višje od skupnih dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost, ki jih je podjetje Deutsche Post imelo za uslužbence, zaposlene v cenovno reguliranem sektorju in sektorju, ki ni cenovno reguliran.
The Commission recalls that the compensatory nature of a measure does not rule out its qualification as State aid and further makes reference to recitals 262.
Komisija poudarja, da izravnalna narava ukrepa ne izključuje njegove opredelitve kot državna pomoč in se sklicuje na uvodno izjavo 262.
Moreover, Germany maintains that the civil servants' pension rights have always been a genuine liability of the federal government.
Poleg tega Nemčija trdi, da so bile pokojninske pravice javnih uslužbencev dejansko vedno finančna obveznost zvezne vlade.
Consequently, as the 1995 pension reform did not change the federal government's liability towards the civil servants, the pension subsidy does not provide any financial advantage to Deutsche Post.
Ker pokojninska reforma iz leta 1995 obveznosti zvezne vlade do javnih uslužbencev ni spremenila, subvencija za pokojnine podjetju Deutsche Post ne zagotavlja nobene finančne prednosti.
It is not disputed that the federal government was the ultimate guarantor of civil servants' pensions before and after 1995, even if the Commission observes in that regard that § 3 PostVwG 1953 and § 2 PostVerfG 1989 clearly state that the only the Sondervermoegen, and not the Federal State, are liable for the debts of the Sondervermoegen.
Ni sporno, da je bila zvezna vlada zadnji porok za pokojnine javnih uslužbencev pred letom 1995 in po njem, čeprav Komisija opozarja, da člen 3 zakona PostVwG iz leta 1953 in člen 2 zakona PostVerfG iz leta 1989 jasno navajata, da za dolgove Sondervermögen ni odgovorna zvezna država, ampak samo Sondervermögen.
However, until 1995, pursuant to the applicable postal and general legislation, the pension payments were included in the budget of the Sondervermoegen Deutsche Bundespost.
Vendar pa so do leta 1995 plačila pokojnin v skladu z veljavno poštno in splošno zakonodajo sodila v proračun Sondervermögen Deutsche Bundespost.
Those payments had to be covered in their entirety by the revenues realised by the Sondervermoegen.
Ta plačila so morala biti v celoti krita s prihodki, ki jih je ustvaril Sondervermögen.
For the State aid assessment, who is the ultimate guarantor of the civil servants' pensions is not decisive.
Za oceno državne pomoči ni odločilni dejavnik to, kdo je zadnji porok za pokojnine javnih uslužbencev.
The key question is who had, pursuant to the applicable legislation, the obligation to finance them in the ordinary course of events.
Ključno vprašanje je, kdo je bil v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo odgovoren za financiranje pokojnin v običajnih razmerah.
In that regard, the PostVwG 1953, the HGrG and the PostVerfG 1989 establish clearly that the obligation lies in its entirety with Deutsche Post.
Zakon PostVwG iz leta 1953, zakon HGrG in zakon PostVerfG iz leta 1989 jasno določajo, da je za to v celoti odgovorno podjetje Deutsche Post.
Furthermore, the financing of pension costs is a normal operating cost for any undertaking, public or private, be it incorporated or not.
Poleg tega je financiranje stroškov pokojnin običajni izdatek za vsako podjetje, javno ali zasebno, z ločeno pravno osebnostjo ali brez nje.
Both between Member States and within Member States, a broad variety of financing mechanisms for pensions has developed.
Razviti so številni mehanizmi financiranja pokojnin, tako med državami članicami kot znotraj njih.
Often, different systems apply depending on when a person has been hired.
Pogosto se uporabljajo različni sistemi, odvisno od tega, kdaj je bil nekdo zaposlen.
Therefore, Deutsche Post has to carry pension costs for the people it employs, including its civil servants, in the same way as any other undertaking.
Zato mora podjetje Deutsche Post kriti stroške pokojnin za osebje, ki ga zaposli, vključno z javnimi uslužbenci, kot mora storiti vsako drugo podjetje.
The fact that the way of financing the pensions of civil servants is different from the way of financing the pensions of private employees has no impact on the obligation of Deutsche Post to include the financing of their pension costs in its normal operating expenditures.
Dejstvo, da se metoda financiranja pokojnin javnih uslužbencev razlikuje od metode financiranja pokojnin zasebnih uslužbencev, ne vpliva na obveznost podjetja Deutsche Post, da mora v svoje običajne izdatke iz poslovanja vključiti financiranje stroškov njihovih pokojnin.
Accepting the argument of Germany would be tantamount to saying that the State could relieve public undertakings from a major cost item linked to their ordinary operations.
Če bi bila trditev Nemčije sprejeta, bi bilo to enako izjavi, da lahko država javno podjetje razbremeni pomembne stroškovne postavke, povezane z njegovim običajnim poslovanjem.
Finally, when Germany puts forward that Deutsche Post never has had enough own resources to finance the civil servants' pension liabilities, that argument overlooks the fact that the assessment of a financial advantage is independent of the economic capabilities of an undertaking.
Ko Nemčija trdi, da podjetje Deutsche Post nikoli ni imelo dovolj lastnih sredstev za financiranje pokojninskih obveznosti javnih uslužbencev, v tej trditvi ni upoštevano dejstvo, da ocena finančne prednosti ni povezana z gospodarsko zmožnostjo podjetja.
As the 1995 pension reform relieved Deutsche Post partially from the obligation to finance the pension costs of its civil servants, the pension subsidy has provided a financial advantage to Deutsche Post.
Ker je pokojninska reforma iz leta 1995 podjetje Deutsche Post delno razbremenila obveznosti financiranja stroškov pokojnin njegovih javnih uslužbencev, je subvencija za pokojnine podjetju Deutsche Post zagotovila finančno prednost.
When aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.
Če pomoč, ki jo odobri država članica, krepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo na notranjem trgu Unije, je treba ta podjetja obravnavati kot podjetja, na katera vpliva navedena pomoč.
In accordance with settled case-law [75], for a measure to distort competition and affect trade between Member States it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [75] za to, da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco, zadostuje, da prejemnik pomoči konkurira z drugimi podjetji na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco na domačem trgu.
In Germany, the markets for parcels, newspapers and periodicals have never been closed to competition.
V Nemčiji so bili trgi za pakete, časopise in periodični tisk vedno odprti za konkurenco.
On those markets, POSTDIENST has always been in competition with other companies, including undertakings from other Member States (such as UPS, FedEx, TNT Express, GLS, or DPD).
Na teh trgih je podjetje Postdienst vedno konkuriralo z drugimi podjetji, tudi s podjetji iz drugih držav članic (kot so podjetja UPS, FedEx, TNT Express, GLS ali DPD).
From 1998 to 2007, DPAG gradually lost its exclusive right for letters.
V obdobju 1998–2007 je podjetje DPAG postopoma izgubilo svojo izključno pravico do pisemskih pošiljk.
As the market opened up for competition, competitors also entered that market.
Ko se je trg odprl za konkurenco, so na ta trg vstopila nova podjetja.
Therefore, the aid affects trade between Member States and is liable to distort competition.
Zato pomoč vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in lahko izkrivlja konkurenco.