natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fourth, as regards the fares that Simet could charge to passengers for the services it provided, while the Italian authorities acknowledge that until 2001 there were indeed national provisions setting broad principles for the pricing of bus transport services pricing as part of a wider national transport policy and a wider pricing policy [34], operators could submit a specific application to apply a different fare.
Četrtič, v zvezi s prevozninami, ki bi jih lahko družba Simet zaračunavala potnikom za opravljene storitve, italijanski organi priznavajo, da so se do leta 2001 dejansko uporabljali nacionalni predpisi, ki so določali splošna načela za določanje cen avtobusnih prevoznih storitev kot del širše nacionalne prometne politike in širše cenovne politike [34], vendar bi lahko izvajalci predložili poseben zahtevek za uporabo drugačne prevoznine.
This is clearly explained in the ministerial letter that Simet refers to [35].
To je jasno pojasnjeno v dopisu Ministrstva, na katerega se sklicuje družba Simet [35].
The Commission notes, however, that Simet has provided no evidence that it ever submitted such an application to the Italian authorities, nor that any applications for fare changes during the period 1987-2003 were ever rejected by the Ministry.
Vendar Komisija poudarja, da družba Simet ni predložila dokazov, da je italijanskim organom kadar koli predložila tak zahtevek ali da je Ministrstvo zavrnilo kakršen koli zahtevek za spremembo prevoznine v obdobju 1987–2003.
Contrary to Simet’s contention, the fact that long-distance scheduled transport fares were ‘approved’ by the Provincial Motor Vehicle Office of the Ministry [36] and the reference to ‘regulated’ fares in circular No 3/02 of 5 April 2002 [37] do not mean that those fares were not initially set by the operators.
V nasprotju s trditvijo družbe Simet dejstvo, da je prevoznine za linijski prevoz na dolge razdalje „odobrila“ pokrajinska enota Ministrstva za motorna vozila [36], in sklicevanje na „regulirane“ prevoznine v okrožnici št. 3/02 z dne 5. aprila 2002 [37] ne pomenita, da teh prevoznin niso prvotno določili izvajalci.
Rather, the use of these terms only means that the fares were set in advance in the interests of transparency and publicity for passengers and subsequently authorised by the competent ministerial services.
Nasprotno uporaba teh izrazov pomeni le, da so bile prevoznine določene vnaprej zaradi preglednosti in obveščanja potnikov, pozneje pa so jih odobrile pristojne ministrske službe.
In any event, such measures do not constitute a ‘tariff obligation’ within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 which would have been subject to the common compensation procedure.
Taki ukrepi v nobenem primeru ne pomenijo „tarifne obveznosti“ v smislu člena 2(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, za katero bi se uporabljal enotni postopek za plačilo nadomestila.
The latter is limited to ‘any obligation imposed upon transport undertakings to apply, in particular for certain categories of passenger, for certain categories of goods, or on certain routes, rates fixed or approved by any public authority which are contrary to the commercial interests of the undertaking and which result from the imposition of, or refusal to modify, special tariff provisions’.
Ta obveznost je omejena na „obveznosti, ki so uvedene za prevozna podjetja, da zlasti za določene skupine potnikov, določene skupine blaga ali na določenih voznih poteh, uporabljajo tarife, ki jih določi ali odobri državni organ in so v nasprotju s poslovnimi interesi podjetja ter so posledica uvedbe posebnih tarifnih določb ali posledica zavrnitve spremembe le-teh“.
The definition of tariff obligations ‘shall not apply to obligations arising from general measures of price policy applying to the economy as a whole or to measures taken with respect to transport rates and conditions in general with a view to the organisation of the transport market or of part thereof’.
Opredelitev tarifnih obveznosti „se ne uporablja za obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz splošnih ukrepov cenovne politike, ki velja za celotno gospodarstvo, ali ki izhajajo iz ukrepov na področju cen in splošnih pogojev prevoza, sprejetih z namenom vzpostavitve trga prometnih storitev ali njegovega dela“.
Finally, as regards the ministerial refusals submitted by Simet, the Commission observes that these were requests for expansion and did not concern changes in the manner of provision of existing services.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so zavrnitve Ministrstva, ki jih je predložila družba Simet, zadevale zahtevke za razširitev in ne zahtevkov za spremembe načina zagotavljanja obstoječih storitev.
An expansion of services was not always possible, because of the way in which the operation of scheduled passenger transport services is regulated under Law No 1822/39.
Razširitev storitev ni bila vedno mogoča zaradi načina ureditve opravljanja linijskega potniškega prevoza z zakonom št. 1822/39.
Concessions to provide new services or to extend the scope of existing services could be granted only to the extent they did not impinge on the rights of other scheduled services operators, so that the refusals to start new services or extend existing services were the result of a balancing of interests of different economic operators, rather than the consequence of imposing public service obligations as alleged by Simet.
Koncesije za zagotavljanje novih storitev ali razširitev obsega obstoječih storitev bi bilo mogoče podeliti le, če ne bi posegale v pravice drugih izvajalcev linijskega prevoza, zato so bile zavrnitve v zvezi z uvedbo novih storitev ali razširitev obstoječih storitev posledica tehtanja interesov različnih gospodarskih subjektov in ne nalaganja obveznosti javnih služb, kot domneva družba Simet.
Consequently, Simet has not shown that the Italian authorities unilaterally imposed a public service obligation upon it.
Družba Simet torej ni dokazala, da so ji italijanski organi enostransko naložili obveznost javnih služb.
Does the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69?
Ali je nadomestilo, plačano v okviru zadevne obveznosti, v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69?
In any event, even if a unilateral imposition of public service obligations were shown to exist in some form, the compensation for those services, in order to be exempted from prior notification under Article 17(2) of that Regulation, would still need to comply with the common compensation procedure (Section IV) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Tudi če bi se v neki obliki dokazalo, da so bile obveznosti javnih služb enostransko naložene, bi bilo treba nadomestilo za te storitve, da bi bilo izvzeto iz predhodne priglasitve v okviru člena 17(2) navedene uredbe, v vsakem primeru plačati v skladu z enotnim postopkom za plačilo nadomestila (oddelek IV) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Commission does not consider this to be the case.
Komisija meni, da ta pogoj ni izpolnjen.
First, the Commission notes that Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provides, inter alia, that the amount of the compensation must, in the case of an obligation to operate or to carry, be equal to the difference between the reduction in financial burden and the reduction in revenue of the undertaking if the whole or the relevant part of the obligation in question were terminated for the period of time under consideration.
Prvič, Komisija poudarja, da člen 10 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 med drugim določa, da mora biti višina nadomestila pri obveznosti upravljanja ali izvajanja prevoza enaka razliki med zmanjšanjem finančne obremenitve in zmanjšanjem prihodka podjetja, če je celotni ali ustrezni del zadevne obveznosti za zadevno obdobje prenehal.
The Commission further notes that, according to the Court of Justice in the Antrop judgment, the requirement set out in that provision is not fulfilled where ‘it is not possible to ascertain on the basis of reliable data [from the company’s accounts] the difference between the costs imputable to the parts of [its] activities in the areas covered by the respective concessions and the corresponding income and consequently it is not possible to calculate the additional cost deriving from the performance of public service obligations by [that undertaking]’ [38].
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da v skladu s sodbo Antrop Sodišča Evropske unije zahteva iz te določbe ni izpolnjena, kadar „na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov [iz računovodskih izkazov podjetja] ni mogoče določiti razlike med stroški, ki se jih pripiše [njegovi] dejavnosti na področju, na katerem ima koncesijo, in ustreznimi prihodki ter zato ni mogoče izračunati povečanja stroškov, ki nastanejo zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti iz javne službe [s strani tega podjetja]“ [38].
Moreover, as of 1 July 1992, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, by virtue of Article 1(5)(a) thereof, requires transport undertakings which operate not only services subject to public service obligations but also engage in other activities to operate the public services as separate divisions, whereby: (i) the operating accounts corresponding to each of those activities are separate and the proportion of the assets pertaining to each is used in accordance with the accounting rules in force, and (ii) expenditure is balanced by operating revenue and payments from public authorities, without any possibility of transfer from or to another sector of the undertaking’s activity.
Poleg tega morajo v skladu s členom 1(5)(a) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 prevozna podjetja, ki ne izvajajo le storitev javnih služb, temveč opravljajo tudi druge dejavnosti, od 1. julija 1992 izvajati javne službe kot ločene dejavnosti, pri čemer: (i) so poslovni računi za vsako dejavnost ločeni, delež sredstev za vsako od teh dejavnosti pa se uporablja v skladu z veljavnimi računovodskimi pravili; in (ii) izdatki se izravnajo s prihodki iz poslovanja in s plačili javnih organov brez možnosti prenosa iz enega ali v drugi sektor dejavnosti podjetja.
In the present case, Simet failed to implement a proper account separation for the different services provided by it until 2002 and the robustness of the cost accounts as regards account separation for the years 2002 and 2003 can be called into question since there is no evidence that those cost accounts were used by the company’s governance bodies to exercise control over its operations.
V zadevnem primeru družba Simet do leta 2002 ni izvajala ustreznega ločevanja računov za različne storitve, ki jih je opravljala, poleg tega pa se lahko postavi pod vprašaj zanesljivost obračunov stroškov z vidika ločevanja računov za leti 2002 in 2003, saj ni dokazov, da so organi upravljanja družbe uporabljali te obračune stroškov za izvajanje nadzora nad svojimi dejavnostmi.
Article 10 has therefore not been complied with.
Družba torej ni upoštevala člena 10.
Second, Simet has not demonstrated that ‘economic disadvantages … were determined taking into account the effects of the obligation on the undertaking’s activities as a whole’ (Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69), nor was the requirement to fix the amount of compensation in advance (Article 13 of the Regulation) fulfilled, as explained in section 7.1.2.
Drugič, družba Simet ni dokazala, da je bila gospodarska izguba določena „ob upoštevanju učinkov obveznosti na dejavnost podjetja kot celote“ (člen 5(1) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69), niti ni izpolnila zahteve glede vnaprejšnje določitve zneska nadomestila (člen 13 Uredbe), kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 7.1.2.
The definition of ‘regional services’ provided in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (‘transport services operated to meet the transport needs of a region’) cannot be extended to cover all transport services serving the needs of the population of a region and therefore also to cover inter-regional routes.
Opredelitve „regionalnih prevozov“ iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 („prevozne storitve za zadovoljevanje potreb regije po prevoznih storitvah“) ni mogoče razširiti tako, da bi zajemala vse prevozne storitve, ki zadovoljujejo potrebe prebivalcev regije, torej tudi medregionalne proge.
This is because such a wide interpretation would have rendered the Regulation largely ineffective, as Member States were in any event allowed to exclude its application to undertakings whose activities were confined exclusively to the ‘operation of urban, suburban or regional services’ [40].
Tako široka razlaga bi namreč bistveno zmanjšala učinkovitost Uredbe, saj je bilo državam članicam v vsakem primeru dovoljeno, da iz uporabe te uredbe izvzamejo podjetja, ki so se ukvarjala izključno z „linijskimi mestnimi in primestnimi ali regionalnimi prevozi“ [40].
The Commission therefore finds that the notified compensation does not comply with the common compensation procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da priglašeno nadomestilo ni v skladu z enotnim postopkom za plačilo nadomestila iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Conclusion on the exemption from notification
Sklepne ugotovitve o izvzetju iz priglasitve
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the compensation the Council of State considers due to Simet for the provision of inter-regional bus transport services in the period 1987-2003 was not exempted from compulsory prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Komisija glede na navedeno ugotavlja, da nadomestilo, ki ga je določil državni svet in ki bi ga bilo treba plačati družbi Simet za opravljanje storitev medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza v obdobju 1987–2003, ni bilo izvzeto iz obvezne predhodne priglasitve na podlagi člena 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Since it has not been shown that the compensation payments were exempted from prior notification pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the compatibility of those payments with the internal market will need to be examined, as they constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, as explained in section 7.1 above.
Ker ni bilo dokazano, da so bila plačila nadomestila izvzeta iz predhodne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, bo treba preveriti združljivost teh plačil z notranjim trgom, saj pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 7.1.
The Commission considers that the examination of the compatibility of the notified measure should be conducted under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, which entered into force on 3 December 2009 and repealed Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, since that is the legislation in force at the time the present decision is being adopted [41].
Komisija meni, da bi bilo treba preverjanje združljivosti priglašenega ukrepa izvesti v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, ki je začela veljati 3. decembra 2009 in ki je razveljavila Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, saj je to zakonodaja, ki se uporablja v času sprejemanja tega sklepa [41].
It notes in this respect that the compensation awarded to Simet by the Council of State has not yet been paid, so that the date on which the effects of the planned aid would occur is the same as that on which the Commission adopts the decision ruling on the compatibility of the aid with the internal market [42].
V zvezi s tem poudarja, da nadomestilo, ki ga je družbi Simet dodelil državni svet, še ni bilo plačano, zato bo datum, ko bo načrtovana pomoč začela učinkovati, enak datumu, ko bo Komisija sprejela odločitev o združljivosti pomoči z notranjim trgom [42].
Moreover, it is questionable that an entitlement to that compensation was irrevocably granted to Simet prior to judgment 1405/2010, delivered by the Council of State on 9 March 2010, which effectively obliges the Italian State to make those payments to that undertaking.
Poleg tega je vprašljivo, da je bila družba Simet nepreklicno upravičena do nadomestila pred sodbo št. 1405/2010, ki jo je 9. marca 2010 izdal državni svet, ki Italijo dejansko obvezuje k izplačilom tej družbi.
As explained in (94) above, the concession specifications upon which Simet relies to demonstrate that a public service obligation was imposed upon it stipulate that the operation of the services does not give the company any right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the provision of those services was operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 94, specifikacije koncesij, na podlagi katerih družba Simet dokazuje, da ji je bila naložena obveznost javnih služb, določajo, da opravljanje storitev družbi ne daje nikakršne pravice do subvencije ali nadomestila in da je družba opravljala storitve v celoti na lastno odgovornost.
Finally, it should be stressed that the amount of the compensation to be paid to Simet has not yet been decided by the Council of State.
Treba je še poudariti, da državni svet še ni določil zneska nadomestila, dolgovanega družbi Simet.
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 governs the award of public service contracts, as defined in Article 2(i) thereof, in the field of public passenger transport by road and by rail.
Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 ureja sklepanje pogodb o izvajanju javne službe, kot je opredeljeno v členu 2(i) Uredbe, na področju javnega cestnega in železniškega potniškega prevoza.
Under to Article 9(1) of that Regulation, ‘public service compensation for the operation of public passenger transport services … paid in accordance with this Regulation shall be compatible with the [internal] market. Such compensation shall be exempt from the prior notification requirement laid down in Article [108(3)] of the Treaty.’
V skladu s členom 9(1) te uredbe so „[z notranjim] trgom […] združljiva nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe, namenjena opravljanju storitev javnega potniškega prevoza […], […] ki se plačujejo v skladu s to uredbo. Ta nadomestila so oproščena obveznosti predhodnega obvestila iz člena [108(3)] Pogodbe.“
For the reasons set out below, the Commission considers that the notified compensation does not comply with the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, and so it cannot be declared compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 9(1) of that Regulation.
Komisija iz razlogov, navedenih v nadaljevanju, ugotavlja, da priglašeno nadomestilo ni v skladu s pogoji iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, zato ga ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivega z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 9(1) navedene uredbe.
In particular, the Commission notes that even if the concession specifications met the requirements under Article 2(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/07 for the definition of a public service contract, not all the provisions of Article 4 of that Regulation, which establishes the mandatory content of public service contracts and general rules, have been complied with.
Komisija zlasti poudarja, da specifikacije koncesij, tudi če so izpolnjevale zahteve iz člena 2(i) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/07 za opredelitev pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, niso upoštevale vseh določb iz člena 4 te uredbe, ki določa obvezno vsebino pogodb o izvajanju javne službe in splošnih pravil.
For instance, Article 4(1)(b) requires that the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner in a way that prevents overcompensation, while Article 4(1)(c) and Article 4(2) lay down the arrangements with regard to the allocation of costs and revenues.
Člen 4(1)(b) na primer zahteva, da se parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna morebitno nadomestilo, določijo vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način tako, da se prepreči čezmerna kompenzacija, člen 4(1)(c) in (2) pa določa ureditve za razporeditev stroškov in prihodkov.
As explained in relation to the Commission’s examination of the second criterion of the Altmark judgment in section 7.1.2, the concession specifications at issue stipulated that the operation of the services does not give Simet any right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the service is operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
Kot je v oddelku 7.1.2 pojasnjeno v zvezi z proučitvijo, ki jo je Komisija opravila za drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark, so zadevne specifikacije koncesij določale, da opravljanje storitev družbi Simet ne daje nikakršne pravice do subvencije ali nadomestila in da družba opravlja storitve v celoti na lastno odgovornost.
Such an exclusion of compensation necessarily entails that the compensation parameters have not been established in advance, so that Article 4 of the Regulation has not been complied with.
Taka izključitev nadomestila očitno pomeni, da parametri za nadomestilo niso bili določeni vnaprej, torej ni bil upoštevan člen 4 Uredbe.
Furthermore, Article 6(1) provides that in the case of directly awarded public service contracts, compensation must comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and with the provisions laid down in the Annex to ensure that the compensation does not go beyond what is necessary to carry out the public service obligation.
Poleg tega člen 6(1) določa, da mora biti nadomestilo pri neposredno sklenjenih pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 in z določbami iz priloge, da ne bi preseglo zneska, potrebnega za izvajanje obveznosti javnih služb.
That Annex requires, inter alia, a separation of accounts (point (5) and specifies how the maximum amount of compensation should be determined.
Ta priloga med drugim zahteva ločevanje računov (točka 5) in določa, kako je treba določiti najvišji znesek nadomestila.
As noted in recital 115 above, for most of the notified period (between 1987 and 2001), Simet did not apply a proper account separation, while the robustness of the analytical accounts for 2002 and 2003 can also be questioned.
Kot je že bilo poudarjeno v uvodni izjavi 115, družba Simet skoraj celotno priglašeno obdobje (med letoma 1987 in 2001), ni izvajala ustreznega ločevanja računov, vprašljiva pa je lahko tudi zanesljivost obračunov.
Consequently, it is impossible to demonstrate that whatever compensation is ultimately awarded does not exceed an amount corresponding to the net financial effect equivalent to the total of the effects, positive or negative, of compliance with the public service obligation on the costs and revenue of the public service operator (point 2 of the Annex).
Zato ni mogoče dokazati, da nadomestilo, v kakršnem koli že znesku bo dodeljeno, ne bo preseglo zneska, ki ustreza finančnemu neto učinku, enakemu vsoti pozitivnih ali negativnih posledic upoštevanja obveznosti javne službe na stroške in prihodke izvajalca javne službe (točka 2 priloge).
Moreover, in the absence of compensation parameters laid down in advance, any cost allocation must necessarily be conducted ex post on the basis of arbitrary assumptions, as was done in both the initial report and the majority report.
Ker parametri za nadomestilo niso bili določeni vnaprej, je treba stroške nujno razporediti naknadno na podlagi samovoljnih predpostavk, kot so bili razporejeni v začetnem poročilu in poročilu večine.
The Commission cannot accept, however, the assumptions made in the majority report that each service provided by the company should necessarily represent the same proportion of revenues and costs in a given year.
Vendar Komisija ne more sprejeti predpostavk iz poročila večine, in sicer da mora vsaka storitev, ki jo opravlja podjetje, nujno predstavljati enak delež prihodkov in stroškov v zadevnem letu.
Moreover, since an ex post calculation will necessarily result in full compensation of the costs incurred in the provision of the service, the Commission considers that a rate of return on equity exceeding the relevant swap rate plus 100 basis points, as employed in both the initial report and the majority report, would normally not be viewed as a suitable reference for calculating the reasonable profit.
Ker bo naknadni izračun nedvomno prispeval k popolnem nadomestilu stroškov, ki so nastali zaradi opravljanja storitve, Komisija meni, da se stopnja donosnosti lastnega kapitala, ki presega seštevek ustrezne menjalne obrestne mere in 100 bazičnih točk ter ki jo upoštevata začetno poročilo in poročilo večine, običajno ne bi obravnavala kot ustrezna podlaga za izračun razumnega dobička.