natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It also mooted the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and questioned the compatibility of compensation for costs linked to SGEIs pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU.
Zadevno podjetje se je spraševalo tudi o obstoju pomoči na podlagi člena 107(1) PDEU in združljivosti nadomestila za stroške, povezane s SSGP, na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU.
BD questioned whether the distribution of newspapers could be qualified as an SGEI, since in most Member States this activity is open to competition and does not involve the postal operator.
Spraševalo se je, ali je mogoče dostavo dnevnega tiska obravnavati kot SSGP, saj je v večini držav članic ta storitev odprta za konkurenco brez vključitve poštnega operaterja.
BD also questioned whether a subsidy reserved exclusively for the postal operator was the most appropriate way to support the distribution of newspapers, as opposed to granting aid to publishers, who could then purchase the distribution services on the open market, thereby allowing competition between different providers.
Podjetje BD se je še spraševalo, ali je subvencija, namenjena izključno poštnemu operaterju, najprimernejši način za podporo dostavi dnevnega tiska, in sicer v primerjavi s pomočjo založnikom, ki bi si lahko tako zagotovili dostavne storitve na svobodnem trgu, s čimer bi bila omogočena konkurenca med več ponudniki.
Even if approval were given for entrusting the distribution of newspapers to DPLP, BD questioned whether the costs were necessary.
Podjetje BD se je spraševalo, ali so bili stroški potrebni, tudi če bi bilo treba odobriti poveritev dostave dnevnega tiska podjetju DPLP.
According to BD, DPLP’s costs are significantly higher than those of other operators, which increases the level of subsidies required.
Po njegovem mnenju to podjetje nosi veliko večje stroške od stroškov, ki jih imajo drugi operaterji, kar zvišuje raven potrebnih subvencij.
In this regard, the subsidies were neither proportionate nor justified.
V tem smislu naj subvencije ne bi bile niti sorazmerne niti utemeljene.
Finally, BD suspects that the costs incurred by DPLP that are borne by the State could include investment costs that are not necessary for supplying the SGEI, since DPLP may have used the infrastructure in place for other services.
Nazadnje, podjetje BD še meni, da bi lahko stroški podjetja DPLP, ki jih je prevzela država, vključevali stroške naložb, ki naj ne bi bili potrebni za opravljanje SSGP, saj je podjetje DPLP vzpostavljene infrastrukture lahko uporabljalo za druge storitve.
The marketing campaigns for commercial products may also have been financed through the State subsidy.
Z državnimi subvencijami so se mogoče financirale tudi kampanje za oglaševanje komercialnih izdelkov.
COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE BELGIJSKIH ORGANOV
COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE PENSION RELIEF
PRIPOMBE BELGIJSKIH ORGANOV K PREVZEMU PLAČEVANJA POKOJNIN
The Belgian authorities claim that, following the approach adopted in the Combus judgment [29], the release from pension liabilities does not constitute State aid since it relieves the Belgian Post Office of an abnormal burden, which would not normally be borne from an undertaking’s budget.
Belgijski organi trdijo, da v skladu s pristopom iz sodbe v zadevi Combus [29] prevzem plačevanja pokojninskih obveznosti ni državna pomoč, saj je bilo s tem belgijsko podjetje La Poste razbremenjeno izrednega bremena in ne bremena, ki običajno nastane za proračun podjetja.
Such an abnormal burden results from higher payroll costs associated with statutory personnel and operational rigidities, which prevent DPLP from reducing the share of civil servants in its workforce as much as it would like.
Zadevno izredno breme naj bi nastalo zaradi večjih stroškov za plače, povezanih s stalnimi uslužbenci, in manjšo prožnostjo na operativni ravni, kar naj bi podjetje DPLP oviralo pri zmanjševanju števila zaposlenih javnih uslužbencev na število, ki bi se mu zdelo primerno.
The Belgian authorities identify three sources of rigidity:
Belgijski organi so opredelili tri razloge za nezadostno prožnost:
job security for civil servants;
varnost zaposlitve javnih uslužbencev;
no internal mobility;
neobstoj interne mobilnosti in
no access to temporary lay-offs.
nezmožnost uporabe ukrepa „čakanja na delo“.
Job security for civil servants: DPLP claims that its statutory personnel have de facto permanent employment contracts.
Varnost zaposlitve javnih uslužbencev: podjetje DPLP trdi, da so njegovi stalni uslužbenci de facto zaposleni za nedoločen čas.
Moreover, the Belgian Conseil d’État (administrative court which has jurisdiction over statutory personnel whereas labour courts are competent for contractual personnel) has shown a tendency to favour statutory personnel by setting a strict standard for establishing ‘good cause’.
Poleg tega se je Conseil d’État (belgijsko upravno sodišče, pristojno za stalne uslužbence, medtem ko spadajo pogodbeni uslužbenci v pristojnost delovnih sodišč) že izreklo v korist stalnih uslužbencev, saj je določilo strog standard za opredelitev „upravičenega razloga“.
As a result, DPLP is unable to dismiss statutory personnel, whether individually or collectively, on economic or technical grounds.
Zato podjetje DPLP svojih stalnih uslužbencev ne more odpustiti iz ekonomskih ali tehničnih razlogov, niti posamično niti kolektivno.
Accordingly, termination of employment is not a management tool for adjusting staffing to actual operational needs.
Torej je prikrajšano za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi kot sredstvo upravljanja, s katerim bi lahko preoblikovalo sestavo zaposlenih glede na dejanske operativne potrebe.
Also, the impossibility of dismissal for economic reasons significantly limits DPLP’s leverage to address such issues as inadequate mobility and above-market salaries and benefits of statutory personnel.
Dalje, ker podjetje DPLP ne more odpuščati iz ekonomskih razlogov, so precej omejena njegova sredstva za razreševanje težav, kot so nezadostna mobilnost ali plače in ugodnosti stalnih uslužbencev, ki so višje od plač in ugodnosti na trgu.
Furthermore, statutory personnel are not entitled to transfer automatically to the public administration, nor can DPLP impose such a transfer.
Poleg tega stalni uslužbenci ne morejo zaprositi za samodejno premestitev v javno upravo, niti take premestitve ne more zahtevati podjetje DPLP.
This means that a reduction in the number of DPLP’s statutory personnel is essentially limited to voluntary departures, which are insignificant in number, and to natural wastage.
To pomeni, da je zmanjševanje števila stalnih uslužbencev večinoma omejeno na maloštevilne prostovoljne in „naravne“ prekinitve delovnega razmerja.
No internal mobility: in addition to its inability to reduce the number of statutory personnel in areas where the demand for their services has diminished, DPLP’s ability to reallocate statutory personnel within its organisation according to business needs is subject to severe constraints.
Neobstoj interne mobilnosti: poleg tega, da podjetje DPLP ne more zmanjšati števila stalnih uslužbencev na področjih, na katerih se je zmanjšalo povpraševanje po storitvah, veljajo stroge omejitve tudi v zvezi z možnostmi, ki jih ima za prerazporeditev takih uslužbencev znotraj organizacije glede na svoje potrebe.
On account of factors such as language group, qualifications, seniority level and functional classification, DPLP is largely unable to move statutory personnel from areas in which staffing needs are diminishing, e.g. as a result of the decline in the volume of the traditional mail business, to areas which are understaffed, inter alia, because of retirement or increased demand.
Dejavniki, kot so jezikovna pripadnost, kvalificiranost, delovna doba in funkcijska razvrstitev, podjetju DPLP v veliki meri onemogočajo prerazporeditev uslužbencev s področij, na katerih se potrebe po delovni sili zmanjšujejo, na primer zaradi manjše uporabe tradicionalne pošte, v sektorje, v katerih primanjkuje delovne sile zlasti zaradi upokojitev ali povečanega povpraševanja.
In other words, as a result of the rigidities of their status, DPLP is largely unable to reallocate statutory personnel according to its needs or to address a mismatch between overstaffed and understaffed activity segments.
Povedano drugače, podjetje DPLP svojih stalnih uslužbencev zaradi togosti „statuta“ pogosto ne more prerazporediti glede na svoje potrebe oziroma izravnati neravnovesja med področji dejavnosti s preveč in premalo zaposlenimi.
Paradoxically, to meet needs in understaffed areas, DPLP needs to hire interim or contractual personnel, while keeping on its payroll excess statutory personnel in overstaffed areas.
Tako mora zadevno podjetje, paradoksalno, za zadovoljitev potreb v sektorjih, v katerih primanjkuje delovne sile, zaposlovati uslužbence za določen čas ali pogodbene uslužbence, vendar mora hkrati obdržati tudi presežne stalne uslužbence v sektorjih s preveč zaposlenimi.
No access to temporary lay-offs: in addition, DPLP cannot temporarily lay off statutory personnel like private-sector operators can in case of shortage of work.
Nezmožnost uporabe ukrepa „čakanja na delo“: poleg tega podjetje DPLP svojih stalnih uslužbencev ne more „poslati na čakanje“ (odpust iz ekonomskih razlogov), kot lahko to storijo operaterji v zasebnem sektorju, ko jim primanjkuje dela.
Higher payroll costs: when the Régie des Postes became an autonomous public undertaking in 1992 and was renamed DPLP, the statutory personnel had significantly higher salaries and benefits than contractual personnel in the private sector.
Višji stroški za plače: ko je agencija Régie des postes leta 1992 postala samostojno državno podjetje in je bila preimenovana v podjetje DPLP, so stalni uslužbenci prejemali precej višje plače in ugodnosti kot pogodbeni uslužbenci v zasebnem sektorju.
Since 1992, automatic seniority-linked salary increases and a strong union bargaining position have helped to keep salaries and benefits at their comparatively higher levels.
Po letu 1992 so samodejna povišanja plač zaradi delovne dobe in velike pogajalske moči sindikatov pripomogla k ohranitvi plač in ugodnosti na sorazmerno višji ravni.
In addition to higher salaries and benefits compared with contractual personnel, statutory employees are entitled to between 4 and 11 additional days of paid leave [30], giving rise to an additional cost to DPLP.
Stalni uslužbenci imajo poleg višjih plač in ugodnosti kot pogodbeni uslužbenci še od 4 do 11 dodatnih dni plačanega dopusta [30], s čimer se še bolj povečujejo stroški, ki jih mora nositi podjetje DPLP.
These features of statutory personnel have made it difficult for DPLP to manage its unit staff cost, which is substantially higher than that of contractual employees in the private sector.
Navedene lastnosti stalnih uslužbencev so otežile upravljanje podjetja DPLP, kar zadeva stroške za posameznega stalnega uslužbenca, ki so precej višji od stroškov pogodbenih uslužbencev v zasebnem sektorju.
Since taking over the statutory personnel of the Régie des Postes in 1992, the DPLP management has recognised that these staff, with their significantly higher payroll costs and operational rigidities, represented a structural handicap that was increasingly difficult to bear as postal market liberalisation progressed.
Podjetje DPLP je že od leta 1992, ko je od agencije Régie des postes prevzelo stalne uslužbence, priznavalo, da so ti zaradi višjih stroškov za plače in operativne togosti strukturna pomanjkljivost, ki jo je bilo z vse večjo liberalizacijo poštnega trga vse težje prenašati.
Accordingly, DPLP stopped hiring statutory workers in 1998.
Zato je to podjetje leta 1998 prenehalo sklepati taka delovna razmerja.
Attrition, predominantly through retirement, then reduced these staff in absolute numbers to 23538 in 2008.
Zaradi „naravnih“ prekinitev delovnega razmerja, kamor spadajo zlasti upokojitve, se je število zaposlenih do leta 2008 skupaj zmanjšalo na 23538.
As the reduction in the number of statutory personnel is primarily dependent on the natural attrition rate in the context of the existing age pyramid, its progress has been slow and is likely to remain so until 2030, long after full liberalisation of the postal market, as portrayed below.
Ker je zmanjševanje števila stalnih uslužbencev odvisno zlasti od deleža „naravnih“ prekinitev delovnega razmerja, se je to število glede na trenutno starostno piramido zmanjševalo počasi, kar se bo najverjetneje nadaljevalo še do leta 2030, torej precej po popolni liberalizaciji poštnega trga, kar je razvidno iz spodnje preglednice.
Figure 2
Preglednica 2
Evolution of DPLP’s statutory workforce
Razvoj števila stalnih uslužbencev pri podjetju DPLP
Historical and projected statutory personnel headcount
Nekdanje in načrtovano število stalnih uslužbencev
DPLP stopped hiring statutory personnel in 1998
Podjetje DPLP je prenehalo zaposlovati stalne uslužbence leta 1998
Historical headcount
Nekdanje število uslužbencev
Projected headcount (1)
Načrtovano število uslužbencev (1)
The Belgian authorities therefore consider that DPLP’s statutory personnel represents a serious operational and cost handicap vis-à-vis private operators, and that the State has relieved DPLP of an abnormal burden not borne by its competitors.
Belgijski organi zato menijo, da so stalni uslužbenci podjetja DPLP na operativni ravni in z vidika stroškov velika pomanjkljivost v primerjavi z zasebnimi operaterji ter da je država podjetje DPLP razbremenila izrednega bremena, ki ga njegovim konkurentom ni treba nositi.
They claim that the measure does not constitute State aid and, therefore, the approach adopted by the Commission in the decision initiating the procedure, in conformity with previous pension scheme cases (EDF [31], La Poste (France) [32], Royal Mail [33]), is not necessary in the case of DPLP.
Menijo, da ta ukrep ni državna pomoč, zato naj v primeru podjetja DPLP ne bi bilo treba uporabiti smernic Komisije iz odločitve o začetku postopka v skladu s predhodnimi zadevami v zvezi s pokojninskimi sistemi (EDF [31], La Poste (Francija) [32], Royal Mail [33]).
However, the Belgian authorities claim that, if such a method were applied to DPLP, it would lead to the conclusion that the share of social security costs, as a percentage of wage costs, borne by DPLP is the same as that of its competitors.
Vendar belgijski organi kljub temu trdijo, da bi, če bi za podjetje DPLP uporabili tako metodo, ugotovili, da se delež stroškov za socialno varnost, ki jih nosi podjetje DPLP, v odstotkih stroškov za plače, ujema z zadevnim deležem pri njegovih konkurentih.
COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COSTS
PRIPOMBE BELGIJSKIH ORGANOV K LETNEMU NADOMESTILU STROŠKOV JAVNIH STORITEV
The Belgian authorities submitted DPLP’s accounting data [34] and described the principles of its cost accounting system.
Belgijski organi so predložili računovodske podatke [34] podjetja DPLP in predstavili načela stroškovnega računovodstva, ki ga uporablja to podjetje.
The Belgian authorities claim, first of all, that the annual public service compensation does not constitute aid since it complies with the Altmark judgment.
Najprej so trdili, da nadomestilo za javne storitve, ki se izplačuje vsako leto, ni pomoč, ker se sklada s sodno prakso v zadevi Altmark.
Secondly, the Belgian authorities argue that, if the public service compensation were aid, it would be compatible since it does not overcompensate DPLP for the net costs it incurs when discharging its public service missions.
Dalje, trdili so še, da je nadomestilo za javne storitve – tudi če je pomoč – združljivo, saj z njim niso bili prekomerno nadomeščeni neto stroški, ki jih je nosilo podjetje DPLP pri opravljanju nalog javne službe.
They claim that the calculations they have presented show that DPLP is undercompensated for the costs it incurs.
Po njihovem mnenju je iz izračunov, ki so jih predložili, razvidno, da stroški podjetja DPLP niti niso bili v celoti nadomeščeni.
Lastly, the Belgian authorities point out that some of the measures constitute existing aid.
Nazadnje, belgijski organi so še navedli, da so nekateri ukrepi veljavna pomoč.
See section on existing aid (recitals 224 et seq.).
V zvezi s tem glej oddelek, v katerem so obravnavane veljavne pomoči (odstavek 6.3.2 in naslednje uvodne izjave).
COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE CAPITAL INJECTIONS
PRIPOMBE BELGIJSKIH ORGANOV H KAPITALSKIM INJEKCIJAM
Capital injections in 1997
Kapitalski injekciji iz leta 1997
In a letter to the Commission dated 12 August 2009, the Belgian authorities indicate that the 1997 capital injections totalling EUR 62 million should be considered deferred compensation for public service obligations.
Belgijski organi so v dopisu, poslanem Komisiji 12. avgusta 2009, navedli, da je treba kapitalski injekciji iz leta 1997 v skupni višini 62 milijonov EUR obravnavati kot naknadno nadomestilo za obveznosti javne službe.
Capital injections in 2003 and 2006
Kapitalski injekciji iz let 2003 in 2006
According to the Belgian authorities, the 2003 and 2006 capital increases were both made on the basis of a strategic plan [35] whose ultimate goal was to enhance the company’s competitiveness and profitability in the context of the progressive liberalisation of the postal market.
Belgijski organi trdijo, da sta kapitalski injekciji iz let 2003 in 2006 temeljili na strateškem načrtu [35], katerega končni cilj je bil izboljšati konkurenčnost in donosnost podjetja v okviru postopne liberalizacije poštnega trga.
The strategic plan had two main objectives:
Ta načrt je imel dva glavna cilja:
improving productivity to ensure competitiveness and profitability in a more liberalised market environment;
izboljšati storilnost, da bi tako zagotovili konkurenčnost in donosnost v okolju bolj liberaliziranega trga;
moving DPLP towards market logic by opening up its share capital to private investors, in other words achieving and maintaining the requisite levels of return to attract private investors and unlocking the company’s potential in terms of profitability.
usmeriti podjetje DPLP k tržni logiki z odprtjem njegovega kapitala zasebnim vlagateljem, to je doseči in vzdrževati zahtevane ravni donosnosti, potrebne za pritegnitev zasebnih vlagateljev in sprostitev potenciala donosnosti podjetja.
2003 capital injection: according to the Belgian authorities, the 2003 capital increase was aimed at strengthening DPLP’s equity capital with regard to the major financing commitments it had undertaken, in particular for the construction of four new sorting centres and the upgrade of an existing one, the optimisation of mail distribution routes and automation.
Kapitalska injekcija iz leta 2003: belgijski organi so navedli, da je bil namen kapitalske injekcije iz leta 2003 okrepiti lastniški kapital podjetja DPLP glede na velike finančne obveznosti, ki jih je to sprejelo zlasti za zgraditev štirih novih centrov za razvrščanje, posodobitev obstoječega centra, izboljšanje dostave pošte in avtomatizacijo.
Moreover, the Belgian authorities argue that the funds injected also covered personnel costs arising from a reduction in the number of employees as a result of an early retirement scheme, a reduction in working time and an increase in the salaries of new postal workers.
Poleg tega so še trdili, da so ta sredstva krila tudi izdatke za uslužbence, ki so nastali zaradi zmanjšanja števila zaposlenih v povezavi s sistemom predčasnega upokojevanja, skrajšanjem delovnega časa in povišanjem plač na novo zaposlenim.
These measures offered a reasonable assurance of increasing profitability over the period 2003-2007 to the levels expected by private investors.
S temi ukrepi naj bi se zagotovilo razumno jamstvo, kar zadeva povečano donosnost v obdobju 2003–2007, da bi tako izpolnili pričakovanja zasebnih vlagateljev.
Thus, when it decided to make an equity investment, the Belgian State as the sole shareholder in DPLP in 2003 was guided by the prospect of profitability, in full compliance with the MEIP.
Tako naj bi belgijska država kot edina delničarka podjetja DPLP leta 2003 s svojim ravnanjem želela zagotoviti donosnost, saj naj bi ob sprejetju odločitve o kapitalski naložbi v celoti upoštevala načelo zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
On 5 August 2009 the Belgian authorities further argued that the profitability forecasts showed that the capital injection was in line with the MEIP, because the expected level of return was above what a private investor would have required.
Belgijski organi so 5. avgusta 2009 še trdili, da so napovedi dobička pokazale, da je bila kapitalska injekcija zagotovljena pod pogoji, ki se skladajo z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, saj je bil pričakovani dobiček večji od dobička, ki bi ga zahteval zasebni vlagatelj.
These forecasts were not unrealistic since actual profitability between 2003 and 2008 had been consistently above predicted profitability.
Te napovedi so bile realne, saj je bil dejanski dobiček med letoma 2003 in 2008 še precej večji od pričakovanega.
The Belgian authorities have clarified that there is no link between the 2003 capital injection and the 2005 cancellation of receivables from the State in DPLP’s accounts.
Belgijski organi so pojasnili, da kapitalska injekcija iz leta 2003 nikakor ni bila povezana z odpisom državnih terjatev v računih podjetja DPLP iz leta 2005.
The cancellation, which took place at a different time, was a normal accounting operation, since the State had clearly indicated that those receivables were not going to be paid to DPLP.
Ta odpis, ki ni bil izveden istočasno, je bil običajen računovodski postopek, saj je država jasno navedla, da te terjatve podjetju DPLP ne bodo plačane.
The final amounts cancelled in the 2005 balance sheet clean-up were different from the amounts of capital injection in 2003 and accumulated losses at the end of 2002.
Končni zneski, odpisani v okviru sanacije bilance za leto 2005, so se razlikovali od zneskov kapitalske injekcije iz leta 2003 in akumuliranih izgub ob koncu leta 2002.
According to the Belgian authorities, the implementation of the strategic plan made DPLP one of the most efficient operators in Europe.
Belgijski organi menijo, da se je podjetje DPLP zaradi izvedbe strateškega načrta uvrstilo med najučinkovitejše operaterje v Evropi.
It achieved significant improvements in profitability, efficiency [37] and quality, while maintaining prices to customers at an affordable level.
To podjetje naj bi precej napredovalo z vidika donosnosti, učinkovitosti [37] in kakovosti ter naj bi pri tem ohranilo primerno raven cen, ki jih zaračunava strankam.
COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE TAX EXEMPTIONS
PRIPOMBE BELGIJSKIH ORGANOV K DAVČNIM OPROSTITVAM
Corporate tax exemption
Oprostitev plačila davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb
In their submission of 12 August 2009, the Belgian authorities acknowledge that DPLP was not subject to a corporate tax regime, but to a tax on profits (i.e. a tax on legal persons) until 27 December 2005.
Belgijski organi so v izjavi z dne 12. avgusta 2009 priznali, da podjetje DPLP do 27. decembra 2005 ni bilo vključeno v sistem plačevanja davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, je pa plačevalo davek na dobiček (torej davek, ki ga plačujejo pravne osebe).
They nonetheless claim that during the period 2003-2005, DPLP did not benefit from this tax regime because, if it had been subject to corporate tax, it would have been able to carry over past losses, and would not have had to pay corporate tax during that period.
Vendar so hkrati trdili, da ta davčni sistem podjetju DPLP v obdobju 2003–2005 ni prinesel nobene koristi: če bi namreč moralo plačevati davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb, bi lahko preneslo izgube iz preteklih let in mu torej v tem obdobju zadevnega davka ne bi bilo treba plačevati.
In addition it is claimed that DPLP had to pay taxes on profits in the order of EUR 2 million during the period 2003-2005.
Hkrati so še trdili, da je moralo podjetje DPLP v obdobju 2003–2005 plačati davke na dobiček v višini 2 milijonov EUR.
From the fiscal year 2006, DPLP paid corporate taxes without being able to carry over past losses.
Zadevno podjetje je moralo od poslovnega leta 2006 plačevati davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ne da bi mu bil omogočen prenos predhodnih izgub.