natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The obligations, which Articles 16(1) PostPersRG imposed on Deutsche Post to contribute to the Pension fund, constitute therefore, as with the obligations under Article 54(2) PostVerfG 1989, only a relief for the public budget.
Tako kot obveznosti na podlagi člena 54(2) zakona PostVerfG iz leta 1989 tudi obveznosti na podlagi člena 16(1) zakona PostPersRG glede prispevanja v pokojninski sklad samo zmanjšujejo obremenitev javnega proračuna.
They do not change the federal government's sole liability with respect to the civil servants' pensions.
Ne spreminjajo izključne obveznosti zvezne vlade glede pokojnin javnih uslužbencev.
Furthermore, under private law, it would also not have been possible for the federal government to discharge its liability for the civil servants' pension rights to the newly set-up DPAG in 1995.
Zvezna vlada na podlagi zasebnega prava tudi ne bi mogla prenesti svoje obveznosti glede pokojninskih pravic javnih uslužbencev na novoustanovljeno podjetje DPAG v letu 1995.
According to general principles of private law, if existing liabilities were transferred to a legally independent subsidiary the parent company would nevertheless remain liable for those liabilities towards third parties.
V skladu s splošnimi načeli zasebnega prava matično podjetje tudi v primeru, ko so obstoječe pokojninske obveznosti prenesene na pravno neodvisno podružnico, še vedno ostane odgovorno za plačilo denarnih zahtevkov tretjih strank.
Secondly, Germany claims that Deutsche Post has never had enough own resources to effectively finance the pension costs.
Drugič, Nemčija trdi, da podjetje Deutsche Post nikoli ni imelo dovolj lastnih sredstev za financiranje stroškov pokojnin.
On the one hand, before 1995, POSTDIENST had incurred only losses that in turn had to be financed from the public transfers of EUR 5,6 billion. On the other hand, when POSTDIENST was transformed into DPAG in 1995, the accrued civil servants' pension liabilities amounted to approximately EUR […] billion. It would not have been possible to set up DPAG as a private-law company with those liabilities on its balance sheet because the federal government had not provided sufficient assets to make DPAG viable.
Pred letom 1995 je imelo podjetje Postdienst vedno izgube, ki jih je bilo treba financirati z javnimi nakazili v višini 5,6 milijarde EUR. Ko je podjetje Postdienst leta 1995 postalo podjetje DPAG, so odložene obveznosti glede pokojnin javnih uslužbencev znašale približno […] milijonov EUR. Podjetja DPAG s temi obveznostmi na bilanci stanja ne bi bilo mogoče ustanoviti kot podjetje zasebnega prava, ker zvezna vlada ni zagotovila dovolj kapitala, da bi bilo podjetje DPAG sposobno preživeti.
Pension subsidy as existing aid pursuant to Article 108(1)
Subvencija za pokojnine kot veljavna pomoč v skladu s členom 108(1) PDEU
According to Germany, Deutsche Post has neither before nor after 1995 been legally liable or economic capable to pay the civil servants' pensions.
Nemčija meni, da podjetje Deutsche Post niti pred letom 1995 niti po njem ni bilo zakonsko zavezano ali ekonomsko sposobno plačevati pokojnine javnih uslužbencev.
Furthermore, Germany refers to a statement by the Commission before the General Court in Case T-266/02.
Poleg tega je Nemčija navedla izjavo Komisije pred Splošnim sodiščem v zadevi T-266/02.
According to Germany, it becomes clear from paragraph 54 of the judgment that the Commission ‘had taken the view, for the purpose of the contested decision, that only the transfer payments made by DB-Telekom had conferred an advantage on it.’ [55]
Po trditvah Nemčije je iz uvodne izjave 54 sodbe razvidno, da je Komisija „[…] v izpodbijani odločbi [trdila], da so ji le plačila DB-Telekom podelila prednost“ [55].
Germany concludes from that statement that the Commission had already declared the pension subsidy as not providing any financial advantage to Deutsche Post.
Nemčija je na podlagi te izjave ugotovila, da je Komisija za subvencijo za pokojnine že razglasila, da ne pomeni finančne prednosti za podjetje Deutsche Post.
It therefore had effectively taken a ‘decision not to raise objections’ within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Zato je dejansko sprejela „odločbo o nenasprotovanju“ v smislu člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 1(b)(ii) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, such a positive decision would mean that the pension subsidy must subsequently be qualified as existing aid.
Poleg tega bi v skladu s členom 1(b)(ii) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 takšna pozitivna odločba pomenila, da je bila subvencija za pokojnine opredeljena kot veljavna pomoč.
Pension subsidy as compatible compensation for legacy costs pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU
Subvencija za pokojnine kot združljivo nadomestilo za neposredne stroške v skladu s členom 107(3) PDEU
In light of the Commission's reasoning in the La-Poste decision, Germany is of the opinion that the pension subsidy is compatible aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU:
Ob upoštevanju utemeljitve Komisije v odločitvi iz zadeve La Poste Nemčija trdi, da je subvencija za pokojnine združljiva pomoč na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU iz naslednjih razlogov:
Germany points out that Deutsche Post has consistently paid a higher level of social costs than the employer's contribution to pension, health and nursing care.
Nemčija poudarja, da je podjetje Deutsche Post vedno plačevalo višje stroške za socialno varnost kot znaša prispevek delodajalca k pokojninskemu in zdravstvenemu zavarovanju ter zavarovanju za oskrbo.
Germany objects to the Commission's calculations of the comparative advantage insofar as it is considered that the price-regulated services cover the claimed burden #2 on excess social contributions.
Nemčija se ne strinja z izračunom primerjalne prednosti, ki ga je izvedla Komisija, ker temelji na predpostavki, da cenovno regulirane storitve krijejo navedeno obremenitev št. 2 (dodatni prispevki za socialno varnost).
Germany points out that La Poste — as any other postal incumbent — has also refinanced social costs through increased regulated letter prices but that the Commission did not take that fact into account in its La Poste decision.
Podjetje La Poste je, tako kot ostali prvotni poštni operaterji, svoje stroške za socialno varnost prav tako refinanciralo z zvišanimi reguliranimi cenami pisemskih pošiljk, vendar tega Komisija pri odločitvi v zadevi La Poste ni upoštevala.
Although Germany agrees in principle that the price-regulated revenues should cover the claimed burdens, the Commission has neither proven that the regulator effectively approved Deutsche Post's claim to finance the excess social costs out of the regulated revenues nor that the regulated revenues were effectively sufficiently high to finance those excess social costs.
Čeprav se Nemčija načeloma strinja, da bi morali cenovno regulirani prihodki kriti navedene obremenitve, Komisija ni dokazala, da je poštni regulator odobril zahtevek podjetja Deutsche Post glede financiranja dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost iz reguliranih prihodkov ali da so bili regulirani prihodki dejansko dovolj visoki za financiranje teh dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost.
Furthermore, Germany points out that the Commission in its 2007 Opening decision on Royal Mail [56] emphasised the need to assess pension costs of former public undertakings according to consistent criteria, which should lead to consistent decisions.
Poleg tega Nemčija poudarja, da je Komisija v svoji odločbi o začetku postopka iz leta 2007 v zadevi Royal Mail [56] poudarila pomen ocenjevanja stroškov pokojnin nekdanjih javnih podjetij z uporabo usklajenih meril, kar je v interesu ustaljene prakse odločanja.
Consequently, the Commission should take into account its La Poste decision and its preliminary assessment in Royal Mail.
Zato bi morala Komisija upoštevati svojo odločitev v zadevi La Poste in predhodno oceno v zadevi Royal Mail.
In the latter, the Commission did not object to the compensation of pension deficits even though the Hopper-Report 2008 shows that Royal Mail's pension costs had partly been covered by increased regulated letter prices.
V slednjem primeru Komisija ni ugovarjala nadomestilu primanjkljaja za pokojnine, čeprav Hooperjevo poročilo iz leta 2008 kaže, da so bili stroški družbe Royal Mail za pokojnine delno kriti z zvišanimi reguliranimi cenami pisemskih pošiljk.
Benchmark to be based on ‘competitive’ social costs
Referenčna vrednost, ki temelji na konkurenčnih stroških za socialno varnost
Germany argues, based on the expert study by Professor Ehlermann of 19 July 2011 [57], that the Commission made two mistakes in the calculation of the benchmark for Deutsche Post's social costs.
Nemčija na podlagi strokovne študije profesorja Ehlermanna z dne 19. julija 2011 [57] trdi, da je Komisija pri izračunu referenčnih stroškov podjetja Deutsche Post za socialno varnost naredila dve napaki.
The employee's share should not be included in the benchmark because a private employer would not be legally liable for the payment of the employee's share.
Pri izračunu ne bi smel biti upoštevan delež uslužbenca, ker delodajalec iz zasebnega sektorja ne bi bil pravno odgovoren za plačilo deleža uslužbenca.
It would only be for administrative reasons that the employer executes the payment of the total social contribution but it does not make him legally liable to carry the total burden of the social contributions.
Delodajalec izvede plačilo celotnega prispevka za socialno varnost iz upravnih razlogov, vendar k temu ni zakonsko zavezan.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the employee's share in the benchmark would also contradict previous decisional practice, as in the La Poste decision.
Poleg tega je upoštevanje deleža uslužbenca pri referenčni vrednosti tudi v nasprotju s prejšnjo prakso odločanja v zadevi C 265/02 (glej odločitev v zadevi La Poste).
The calculation of the benchmark social costs should be based on the ‘competitive’ wage benchmark [58] because the civil servants' wages have significantly been higher than the market average.
Izračun referenčnih stroškov za socialno varnost bi moral temeljiti na „konkurenčni“ referenčni plači [58], ker so bile plače javnih uslužbencev bistveno višje od povprečja na trgu.
Insufficient level of price-regulated revenues to cover excess social costs
Cenovno regulirani prihodki ne zadoščajo za kritje dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost
First of all, Germany emphasises that the consideration of a full coverage of burden #2 by the price regulated revenues would only be hypothetical because it would not be possible to establish whether the regulated prices were effectively increased to compensate the excess social costs.
Prvič, Nemčija poudarja, da je bila predpostavka glede popolnega kritja obremenitve št. 2 s cenovno reguliranimi prihodki samo hipotetična, ker ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali so bile regulirane cene dejansko zvišane zaradi izravnave dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost.
On the one hand, it is not retrievable from the 2002 Price cap decision whether and to which extent the Postal regulator had taken the claimed burdens for excess social costs into account.
Iz sklepa o najvišjih cenah iz leta 2002 ni razvidno, ali in v kolikšni meri je poštni regulator navedene obremenitve upošteval pri dodatnih stroških za socialno varnost.
On the other hand, until 2002, the prices were kept at the approved 1997 level and it is not possible to establish whether those prices included a compensation for the non-regulated services' excess social costs.
Do leta 2002 so bile cene na ravni, odobreni v letu 1997, in ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali so te cene vključevale nadomestilo za dodatne stroške za socialno varnost pri storitvah, ki niso cenovno regulirane.
According to Germany, it would not be sufficient to show that the non-price regulated services have benefited from lower social contributions than competitors.
Po mnenju Nemčije ni dovolj prikazati, da so imele storitve, ki niso cenovno regulirane, korist od prispevkov za socialno varnost, nižjih od tistih, ki so jih plačevali konkurenti.
It must also be established whether the price-regulated services have effectively been able to finance the claimed burdens of excess social costs out of their revenues.
Preučiti je treba tudi, ali so lahko cenovno regulirane storitve dejansko financirale navedene obremenitve zaradi dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost iz svojih prihodkov.
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 incurred for the civil servants.
Finančna prednost za podjetje Deutsche Post na podlagi nadomestila njegovih dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost bi obstajala samo, če bi bilo odobreno nadomestilo višje od skupnih stroškov za socialno varnost, ki jih je podjetje Deutsche Post plačevalo za svoje javne uslužbence.
Consequently, Germany deplores the lack of a comprehensive calculation to establish whether Deutsche Post was in total over- or under-compensated for the civil servants' excess social costs.
Zato Nemčija obžaluje, da ni bil narejen celovit izračun, s katerim bi ugotovili, ali je podjetje Deutsche Post skupno prejelo previsoko ali prenizko nadomestilo za dodatne stroške za socialno varnost za javne uslužbence.
It emphasises the necessity of such a calculation in order to establish a financial advantage with the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Poudarja, da je tak izračun potreben zaradi ugotavljanja obstoja finančne prednosti v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Under-compensation of excess social costs based on expert study
Prenizko nadomestilo za dodatne stroške za socialno varnost na podlagi strokovne študije
To remove that defect, Germany submitted the expert study by Professor Weber [59] to establish Deutsche Post's financial advantage in social cost from the employment of civil servants.
Zato je Nemčija predložila strokovno študijo prof. Webra [59], da bi ugotovili, kolikšna je bila finančna škoda za podjetje Deutsche Post v zvezi s stroški za socialno varnost zaradi zaposlovanja javnih uslužbencev.
First, the expert study establishes by how much Deutsche Post's incurred social costs for civil servants exceed those that a private competitor has to carry for a private employee (hereinafter referred to as excess social costs).
Prvič, strokovna študija ugotavlja, za koliko stroški podjetja Deutsche Post za socialno varnost javnih uslužbencev presegajo stroške zasebnega konkurenta za zasebne uslužbence (v strokovni študiji so ti stroški imenovani „dodatni stroški podjetja DPAG za socialno varnost“ ali „strukturna pomanjkljivost“).
Second, the expert study compares those excess social costs to the compensation under burden #2.
Drugič, strokovna študija te dodatne stroške za socialno varnost primerja z nadomestilom za obremenitev št. 2.
As shown in Table 5, the expert study includes in the incurred social costs due to the employment of civil servants: Deutsche Post's contribution to the Pension fund and other social costs as Deutsche Post's contribution to the health expenses, accident insurance, further miscellaneous insurance payments.
Kot je prikazano v preglednici 5, strokovna študija v stroške za socialno varnost zaradi zaposlovanja javnih uslužbencev vključuje prispevek podjetja Deutsche Post za pokojninski sklad in druge stroške za socialno varnost, na primer prispevek podjetja Deutsche Post k stroškom zdravstvenega varstva, nezgodnega zavarovanja in raznim zavarovalnim premijam.
The expert study defines as social costs from the employment of a private employee: the employer's share of the contribution rate for the statutory pension, unemployment, health and nursing insurance multiplied by allegedly ‘competitive’ wages (e.g. the 2007 minimum for the majority of the civil servants).the
V strokovni študiji so stroški za socialno varnost zaradi zaposlovanja zasebnih uslužbencev opredeljeni kot delež prispevka, ki ga plača delodajalec za sheme obveznega pokojninskega zavarovanja, zavarovanja za primer brezposelnosti, za zdravstveno varstvo in oskrbo, pomnožen s „konkurenčnimi“ plačami (npr. minimalna plača iz leta 2007 za večino javnih uslužbencev).
The excess social costs are the result of the excess of Deutsche Post's incurred social costs for civil servants over the defined benchmark of social costs based on the employer's share of social contributions for a private employee.
Dodatni stroški za socialno varnost so stroški podjetja Deutsche Post za socialno varnost za javne uslužbence, ki presegajo opredeljene referenčne stroške za socialno varnost na podlagi deleža socialnih prispevkov, ki jih delodajalec plača za zasebne uslužbence.
Calculation of net result following Germany's expert study
Izračun neto rezultata v skladu s strokovno študijo Nemčije
Contribution to Pension fund
Prispevek za pokojninski sklad
other social costs
Dodatni stroški za socialno varnost
‘Competitive’ social cost benchmark (based on employer's share of social contribution rate and ‘competitive’ wage (e.g. 2007 minimum wage))
Referenčni „konkurenčni“ stroški za socialno varnost (na podlagi deleža prispevka za socialno varnost, ki ga plača delodajalec, in „konkurenčnih“ plač (npr. minimalne plače iz leta 2007))
Compensation from regulated revenues (burden #2 on excess social contributions)
Nadomestilo iz reguliranih prihodkov (obremenitev št. 2 – dodatni prispevki za socialno varnost)
Net result (under- or over-compensation)
Neto rezultat (prenizko ali previsoko nadomestilo)
For the period 1995-2007, the calculations arrive at the conclusion that burden #2 was insufficient to cover the excess social costs.
Izračuni za obdobje 1995–2007 kažejo, da obremenitev št. 2 ni zadoščala za kritje dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost.
In fact, the expert claims that Deutsche Post has been under-compensated by EUR […] million. The expert concludes that, even if it was considered that the price-regulated revenues include burden #2, Deutsche Post would remain under-compensated for its excess social costs.
Pravzaprav strokovnjak trdi, da bi moralo podjetje Deutsche Post prejeti nadomestilo, višje za […] milijard EUR. Strokovnjak je sklenil, da bi bilo nadomestilo za podjetje Deutsche Post tudi v primeru, če bi cenovno regulirani prihodki vključevali obremenitev št. 2, še vedno prenizko za kritje njegovih dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost.
2009 regulatory accounts confirm insufficiency of price-regulated revenues to cover excess social costs
Regulativni izkazi iz leta 2099 potrjujejo, da cenovno regulirani prihodki niso zadoščali za kritje dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost
Germany argues that in any case, as long as the price-regulated services incur losses that are higher than the excess social costs, it cannot be established that the regulated revenues effectively compensated the excess social costs.
Nemčija trdi, da dokler cenovno regulirane storitve ustvarjajo izgube, višje od dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost, ni mogoče dokazati, da so regulirani prihodki dejansko krili dodatne stroške za socialno varnost.
In that context, Germany submitted an expert study by CTcon based on the 2009 regulatory accounts [60] to show that the losses of the price-regulated services have consistently been higher than the excess social costs.
V tem okviru je Nemčija predložila strokovno študijo, ki je temeljila na regulativnih izkazih iz leta 2009 [60], da bi dokazala, da so bile izgube cenovno reguliranih storitev vedno višje od dodatnih stroškov za socialno varnost.
The calculations are based on the 2009 regulatory accounts and assume that the price-regulated services should earn a reasonable profit of ROS of 7 % (based on the Deloitte-II study that is discussed in more detail in Section VI.3.2).
Izračuni temeljijo na regulativnih izkazih iz leta 2009 in predpostavljajo, da bi morale cenovno regulirane storitve ustvariti zmeren dobiček s stopnjo donosa iz poslovanja v višini 7 % (na podlagi študije Deloitte-II, ki je podrobneje obravnavana v oddelku VI.3.2).
Comments on universal service compensation
2 Pripombe glede nadomestila za univerzalne storitve
Germany argues that the public transfers have not provided any economic advantage to Deutsche Post because the public transfers of EUR 5666 million only compensated for the Ablieferungen of EUR 5838 million that Deutsche Post had to pay until 1995.
Nemčija trdi, da državna nadomestila podjetju Deutsche Post ne zagotavljajo nobene finančne prednosti, ker so državna nadomestila v višini 5,666 milijarde EUR povrnila samo povračila v višini 5,838 milijarde EUR, ki jih je moralo podjetje Deutsche Post plačati do leta 1995.
As explained in the 2007 Extension decision, the Ablieferungen had their origins with the former postal administration that was obliged to transfer about 10 % of the annual operating revenue to the public budget.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v sklepu o razširitvi iz leta 2007, so povračila izvirala iz prejšnje poštne uprave, ki je morala približno 10 % svojega prihodka iz poslovanja prenesti v javni proračun.
Article 63(4) PostVerfG 1989 provided that any dividends paid were to be subtracted from the Ablieferungen.
Člen 63(4) zakona PostVerfG iz leta 1989 je določal, da je treba morebitne dividende odbiti od povračil.
Based on that provision and the exemption from any direct or indirect taxes, the Commission contended in the 2007 Extension decision that the Ablieferungen were to be considered as a substitute for indirect and direct taxes as well as to provide a remuneration to the State as shareholder for the provided capital.
Na podlagi te določbe in oprostitve plačila neposrednih ali posrednih davkov je Komisija v sklepu o razširitvi iz leta 2007 trdila, da je treba povračila obravnavati kot nadomestilo za posredne in neposredne davke, pa tudi kot povračilo državi za kapital, ki ga je zagotovila kot delničar.
In response to that contention, Germany submitted the KPMG study that comes to the conclusion that the Ablieferungen could neither be considered as a substitute for taxes nor for dividends for a number of reasons.
V odgovor na to trditev je Nemčija predložila študijo družbe KPMG, v kateri je bilo ugotovljeno, da povračil iz več razlogov ni mogoče šteti za nadomestilo za davke ali dividende.
First, the Ablieferungen would not qualify as a corporate tax because the Ablieferungen had been calculated as a percentage of the realised revenues since 1931.
Po navedbah iz študije družbe KPMG povračil ne bi bilo mogoče šteti za davek od dobička pravnih oseb, ker so bila izračunana kot odstotek prihodkov iz poslovanja od leta 1931.
As a result, they had to be paid even in years where Deutsche Post incurred a loss.
Zato jih je moralo podjetje Deutsche Post plačevati tudi v letih, v katerih je imelo izgubo.
In contrast, corporate tax is based on the realised annual profit.
Davek od dobička pravnih oseb pa temelji na dejanskem letnem dobičku.
A qualification of the Ablieferungen as a corporate tax would also contradict the legal practice of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, according to which a corporate tax must be based on the economic performance (‘Leistungsfähigkeit’) of a company.
Opredelitev povračil kot davek od dobička pravnih oseb bi bila tudi v nasprotju z zahtevo ustavnega prava, da mora davek od dobička pravnih oseb temeljiti na zmožnosti plačevanja.
Furthermore, the Ablieferungen would also not qualify as a value-added tax.
Poleg tega je v študiji ugotovljeno, da povračila ni mogoče primerjati z davkom na dodano vrednost.
Since there was no possibility to deduct the value-added tax paid on the inputs from the Ablieferungen, the calculation of the Ablieferungen differed substantially from the usual calculation of the value-added tax liabilities.
Ker ni bilo mogoče odbiti davka na dodano vrednost, plačanega na vložke od povračil, je bil izračun povračil precej drugačen od običajnih obveznosti podjetja glede davka na dodano vrednost.
Second, Germany argues that the Ablieferungen could not be qualified as a dividend.
Drugič, Nemčija trdi, da povračil ni bilo mogoče opredeliti kot dividende.
The distribution of dividends usually requires that profits were earned in the corresponding financial year or the years before.
Izplačilo dividend je povezano z dobičkom iz prejšnjega finančnega leta ali let poprej.