natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
public service compensations granted to certain transport undertakings for the provision of regional for bus services for 2004;
Komisija je glede ukrepov iz točk od (i) do (o) uvodne izjave 42 v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da so navedeni ukrepi temeljili na pogodbah, sklenjenih pred 1. majem 2004, tj. pred pristopom Češke republike k Uniji.
a guarantee for DP Ústí worth CZK 30 million;
Komisija je zato ugotovila, da ni pristojna za ocenjevanje navedenih ukrepov.
a guarantee for DP Chomutov worth CZK 5,2 million;
Ugotovila je tudi, da je bil ukrep iz točke (p) uvodne izjave 42 dodeljen v okviru obstoječe sheme pomoči.
a subsidy to DP Most of CZK 245000;
Komisija je glede ukrepa iz točke (f) uvodne izjave 42 ugotovila, da posojilo podjetju DP Chomutov v višini 3,5 milijona CZK ne pomeni državne pomoči.
the lease of bus station to DP Děčín;
Podobno je Komisija glede ukrepa iz točke (g) uvodne izjave 42 ugotovila, da nikakršna morebitna prednost v zvezi z upravljanjem parkirnih ur, ki bi jo imelo podjetje DP Děčín, ne more izkrivljati konkurence in vplivati na trgovanje med državami članicami, saj ukrep izpolnjuje pogoje za pomoč de minimis v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 [21].
a subsidy to DP Teplice of CZK 13,7 million;
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka pojasnila, da so se navedena vozila uporabljala le za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, zato bi bilo treba vse stroške na podlagi najemne pogodbe upoštevati kot del nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe.
the lease of vehicles to DP Teplice as of 2003;
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 27, so bili navedeni trolejbusi povezani izključno z občinskim javnim prevozom v občini Teplice, torej navedeni ukrepi niso povezani z nadomestili za opravljanje javne službe, ki jih je regija Ústí zagotovila za regionalni avtobusni prevoz in so od njih očitno ločeni, zato niso povezani z ukrepi, obravnavanimi v tem sklepu.
a subsidy to DP Most of CZK 455000.
Komisija je glede nadomestil za opravljanje javne službe iz točk (a), (b) in (c) uvodne izjave 42, ki so bila nekaterim prevoznim podjetjem dodeljena za različna obdobja, v sklepu o začetku postopka proučila, ali navedeni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč pod pogoji, ki jih je Sodišče določilo v sodbi v zadevi Altmark [22].
With respect to the measures listed in recital 42 under (i) to (o), the Commission found in the Opening Decision that those measures were based on contracts concluded before 1 May 2004, i.e. before the accession of the Czech Republic to the Union.
Komisija je izrazila pomisleke o tem, ali so drugi, tretji in četrti pogoj, opredeljeni v sodbi v zadevi Altmark, izpolnjeni, zato je sklenila, da ni mogoče izključiti, da nadomestila pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu Pogodbe.
In addition, the Commission found that the measure referred to in recital 42 under (p) was granted within the scope of an existing aid scheme.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da navedeni ukrepi niso v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, torej lahko pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu Pogodbe.
As regards the measure referred to in recital 42 under (f), the Commission concluded that the loan of CZK 3,5 million in favour of DP Chomutov does not entail State aid.
Komisija je nato proučila, ali bi se lahko ukrepe iz točk od (a) do (e) uvodne izjave 42 razglasilo za združljive z notranjim trgom.
Similarly, as regards the measure referred to in recital 42 under (g), the Commission concluded that any potential advantage involved in the operation of parking meters by DP Děčín cannot distort competition and affect trade between Member States as that measure meets the conditions for de minimis aid in line with Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 [21].
Komisija je glede nadomestil za opravljanje javne službe iz točk (a), (b) in (c) uvodne izjave 42 navedla, da v fazi sklepa o začetku postopka ni mogla ugotoviti, ali znesek nadomestila ob upoštevanju pomembnih ni presegal tega, kar je bilo potrebno za kritje stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in primernega dobička.
As regards the measure referred to in recital 42 under (h), the Commission concluded that it did not have the competence to assess the lease of trolley-buses to DP Teplice by the Municipality of Teplice on the basis of the original agreement of 10 December 2003.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem izrazila tudi pomisleke, ali je bil v cene vključen dobiček, ki bi ga bilo mogoče šteti za primernega.
However, since that lease agreement has been twice amended — on 5 May 2006 and 18 October 2006 — to cover the lease of additional trolley-buses, the Commission could assess the lease resulting from those amendments.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju navedenega ugotovila, da obstajajo pomisleki, ali so bila nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe združljiva s Pogodbo.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission explained that since those vehicles were only used for fulfilling public service obligations, all the costs resulting from the lease contract should be considered as being part of the public service compensation.
Komisija je zahtevala dodatne informacije, zlasti v zvezi z metodologijo, ki se je uporabila za izračun nadomestil (v zvezi z določitvijo višine pričakovanih cen, izračunom primernega dobička in pojmom „nepredvidenih stroškov“).
However, as indicated in recital 27, those trolley-bus leases related exclusively to the municipal public transport within the Municipality of Teplice, so that those measures are unrelated to and clearly separate from the public service compensations for regional bus transport provided by the Ústí Region and thus do not relate to the measures analysed under this Decision.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka glede ukrepov iz točk (d) in (e) uvodne izjave 42 pojasnila, da češki organi niso predložili dovolj informacij, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali so bili povečanje kapitala in obe poroštvi potrebni in sorazmerni za doseganje cilja skupnega interesa ter kot takšni niso pomenili neupravičenega izkrivljanja konkurence.
As regards the public service compensations granted to certain transport operators for different periods listed in recital 42 under (a), (b) and (c), the Commission examined in the Opening Decision whether those measures entailed State aid under the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice in the Altmark judgment [22].
Komisija je zato izrazila pomisleke v zvezi s tem, ali bi se navedene ukrepe lahko razglasilo za združljive s Pogodbo.
As regards the measures listed in recital 42 under (d) and (e), the Commission analysed whether the guarantees and the increase of equity capital for DP Ústí constituted State aid and, in particular, whether they could be considered to be in line with the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’).
Češki organi so skupaj s svojim odzivom na sklep o začetku postopka predložili naslednje tri dokumente:
In the Opening Decision, the Commission concluded that it could not be excluded that those measures do not comply with the MEIP and therefore that they may constitute State aid within the meaning of the Treaty.
izjavo regije Ústí, izjavo občine Teplice in izjavo podjetja DP Ústí (enega od domnevnih upravičencev).
The Commission then examined whether the measures listed in recital 42 under (a) to (e) could be considered compatible with the internal market.
To priložnost je izkoristila tudi za popravek informacij iz preglednic 1, 3, 6 in 7 iz sklepa o začetku postopka.
With respect to the public service compensations referred to in recital 42 under (a), (b) and (c), the Commission stated that it could not conclude at the stage of the Opening Decision that the amount of compensation did not exceed what was necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations.
Do napak v navedenih tabelah je prišlo zaradi nevključitve nekaterih prevoznih storitev in napačnega prepisa podatkov.
In particular, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the notion of unforeseeable costs and the methodology used for its calculation, especially since it led to payments exceeding the expected limit of remuneration for DP Teplice and DP Ústí in 2005 and 2006.
Popravljeni podatki so v preglednicah 1, 3, 6 in 8.
Furthermore, the Commission expressed doubts concerning the methodology applied to verify whether the level of prices expected by the operators corresponded to the specificities of the services provided.
PRIPOMBE O OBSTOJU POMOČI V ZVEZI Z NADOMESTILI ZA OPRAVLJANJE JAVNE SLUŽBE
In that regard, the Commission also expressed doubts whether the prices included a profit which could be considered reasonable.
Po trditvah čeških organov so nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe, ki jih je regija Ústí dodelila regionalnim prevoznikom iz točk (a), (b) in (c) uvodne izjave 42, v skladu s štirimi merili iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark in torej ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
In light of the above, the Commission concluded that there were doubts whether the public service compensations were compatible with the Treaty.
Češki organi so glede prvega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark trdili, da je Komisija že v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da je pogoj izpolnjen pri vseh pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe, ki se proučile.
The Commission requested additional information, in particular as regards the methodology used to calculate the compensations (as regards establishing the level of expected prices, the calculation of a reasonable profit and the notion of ‘unforeseeable costs’).
Češki organi so glede drugega pogoja iz sodbe Altmark pojasnili, da je regija Ústí na podlagi vseh pogodb o izvajanju javne službe, ki so se proučile, krila dokazljivo izgubo prevoznikov, izračunano kot razlika med (a) stroški prevozne storitve na podlagi pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe in (b) prihodki prevoznika.
With respect to the measures referred to in recital 42 under (d) and (e), the Commission explained in the Opening Decision that the Czech authorities had not provided it with sufficient information to allow it conclude whether the capital increase and the two guarantees were necessary and proportionate to attain a common interest objective, and as such did not entail an undue distortion of competition.
Stroški prevoznih storitev so vključevali (i) stroške prevoznika v skladu s stroški povprečnega podjetja in (ii) primeren dobiček.
The Commission therefore expressed doubts whether those measures could be considered compatible with the Treaty.
Navedena merila so bila določena vnaprej na pregleden in objektiven način, najvišja raven nadomestila pa je bila na začetku omejena s strokovnim mnenjem.
COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Regionalni organi so bili tudi pooblaščeni za preverjanje, ali so podatki, uporabljeni za zadevne ocene, pravilni in ustrezajo položaju določenega prevoznika.
Along with its reply to the Opening Decision, the Czech authorities submitted the following three documents:
Glede različnih cen na kilometer posameznega operaterja, v zvezi s čemer je Komisija izrazila pomisleke v sklepu o začetku postopka, so češki organi odgovorili, da so navedene cene povezane s stroški različnih avtobusnih prevoznikov, zadevno linijo in časom izvajanja storitev ter drugimi posebnostmi, povezanimi s posamezno linijo.
a statement by the Ústí Region, a statement by the Municipality of Teplice and a statement by DP Ústí (one of the alleged beneficiaries).
Češki organi so nadalje predložili rezultate običajnih dolgoročnih koncesij, v katerih se ponujena cena giblje od 25,48 CZK/km v mestnih območjih do 45,79 CZK/km v predmestjih.
It also used the opportunity to correct the information provided in tables 1, 3, 6 and 7 of the Opening Decision.
Češki organi so zato menili, da je bil drugi pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark izpolnjen v zvezi z vsemi pogodbami o izvajanju javne službe.
The mistakes in those tables were due to the non-inclusion of certain transport services and due to an incorrect transcription of data.
Češki organi so glede tretjega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark opozorili, da je bila pri pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe, ki jih je sklenila regija Ústí, podana predhodna objektivna ocena dokazljive izgube.
The corrected data is now provided in tables 1, 3, 6 and 8 above.
V skladu z oddelkom 19b(3) Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu mora regija povrniti dokazljivo izgubo do zneska, ki ne presega navedene ocene in ki se poveča le za nepredvidene dokazljive stroške.
COMMENTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF AID AS REGARDS THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPENSATIONS
Če je znesek dejanskih izgub v zadevnem obdobju višji od predhodne ocene, regija Ústí razen nepredvidljivih stroškov povrne izgube le do zneska ocene.
According to the Czech authorities, the public service compensations granted by the Ústí Region to regional transport operators listed in recital 42 under (a), (b) and (c) comply with the four Altmark criteria and thus do not constitute State aid.
Iz dokumentov, ki so jih predložili češki organi, je razvidno, da so navedeni trije prevozniki od regije Ústí poskušali dobiti dodatno nadomestilo.
As regards the first Altmark condition, the Czech authorities claimed that the Commission already concluded in the Opening Decision that that condition was fulfilled for all of the public service contracts under examination.
Regija Ústí dodatnega nadomestila ni dodelila, zato so morali navedeni prevozniki sami nositi svoja poslovna tveganja.
As regards the second Altmark condition, the Czech authorities explained that, under all the public service contracts under examination, the Ústí Region covered the provable loss of the operators calculated as a difference between (a) the cost of the transport service stemming from the public service contract and (b) revenues obtained by the transport provider.
Češki organi so nadalje opozorili, da se prevoznik ne more enostransko odločiti o prenehanju zagotavljanja prevoznih storitev na določenih linijah ali vplivati na obseg in pogostost storitve, ki jo nudi.
The cost of transport services included (i) the costs of the transport provider in line with the costs of a typical undertaking, and (ii) a reasonable profit.
Če prevoznik ne bi zagotovil osnovne prevozne storitve, določene v pogodbi, bi mu lahko regija Ústí naložila pogodbene kazni.
Those criteria were established in advance in a transparent and objective manner, with the maximum level of compensation being limited at the outset by the expert opinion.
Češki organi so priznali, da Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu ne zagotavlja natančnejše opredelitve „nepredvidljivih stroškov“, zato je opredelitev tega pojma prepuščena posameznim kupcem prevoznih storitev.
The regional authorities also had powers to check that the data used for such estimates are correct and correspond to the situation of that particular operator.
Pojem nepredvidljivih stroškov je bil natančneje določen v pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe, ki jih je regija Ústí sklenila s posameznimi prevozniki.
As a further argument, the Czech authorities presented results of the standard long-term concessions where the offered price varies between CZK 25,48/km in rural areas and CZK 45,79/km in suburban areas.
Glede četrtega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark so češki organi v zvezi z vsakim od treh ukrepov za nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe podali nekoliko drugačno obrazložitev, zato se bodo pojasnili ločeno.
The Czech authorities therefore believe that the second Altmark condition has been fulfilled as regards all of the public service contracts.
Češki organi so glede pogodb za izvajanje javne službe za leti 2005 in 2006 (ukrep iz točke (a) uvodne izjave 42) trdili, da bi bilo treba ob primerjanju cene prevoznih storitev v regiji Ústí leta 2005 in prevoznih storitev, ki so se na podlagi javnih razpisov za koncesije nudile leta 2007 in naprej, za navedene pogodbe šteti, da izpolnjujejo navedeni pogoj.
As regards the third Altmark condition, the Czech authorities recalled that the public service contracts concluded by the Ústí Region provided for a preliminary objective estimate of the provable loss.
Javni razpisi za koncesije leta 2007 so bili pregledni, odprti in nediskriminatorni, zato so bile cene, ponujene v okviru navedenih razpisov, tržne cene, pri katerih je cena prevoze storitve vključevala le stroške povprečnega razumnega prevoznika in primeren dobiček.
According to section 19b(3) of the Road Transport Act, the region must reimburse the provable loss up to an amount not exceeding that estimate, augmented only by unforeseeable costs.
Leta 2007, po končanem izboru za podelitev dolgoročne koncesije, so se cene gibale med 25,48 CZK/km in 45,79 CZK/km.
Thus, if the amount of the actual losses for the period in question is higher than the preliminary estimate, the Ústí Region reimburses losses only up to the amount of the estimate, with the exception of unforeseeable costs.
Češki organi so predložili tudi strokovno mnenje, ki so ga izvedli profesorji praške tehnične univerze (České vysoké učení technické v Praze) in iz katerega je razvidno, da so bili stroški izvajalcev storitev stroški skrbnih prevoznikov.
In that regard, the Czech authorities noted that no transport provider received compensation for its basic transport services higher than the level of the preliminary objective estimate of the provable loss included in the public service contracts in 2005 and 2006.
Edine izjeme so bili pritožnik DPÚK, katerega cena regionalnih prevoznih storitev je bila neustrezno visoka, in dva lokalna prevoznika, katerih cena je bila prenizka.
Moreover, in 2006 the three transport providers serving five areas of the Ústí Region suffered an economic loss.
Češki organi so glede pogodb za obdobje od 9. septembra 2006 do 2. junija 2007 (ukrep iz točke (b) uvodne izjave 42) in obdobje od 9. septembra 2006 do 31. decembra 2006 (ukrep iz točke (c) uvodne izjave 42) trdili, da je regija Ústí natančno opredelila obseg zahtevanih storitev in zainteresiranim prevoznikom zagotovila ustrezne ocene prihodka na podlagi preteklih podatkov.
The documents provided by the Czech authorities demonstrate that those three providers tried to obtain additional compensations from the Ústí Region.
Strokovno mnenje je moral preložiti prevoznik.
The Ústí Region however did not provide any extra compensation and thus forced those transport providers to bear their business risks.
Strokovno mnenje izbranega prevoznika je nato zavezujoče za celotno pogodbeno obdobje.
The Czech authorities further noted that the transport provider cannot unilaterally decide to stop the provision of transport services on certain lines or influence the scope and frequency of the offered service.
Zato je bilo edino merilo, na podlagi katerega se je sprejela odločitev, cena, ki so jo ponudili zainteresirani prevozniki.
The Czech authorities acknowledged, however, that the Road Transport Act does not provide a more detailed definition of ‘unforeseeable costs’ and that the definition of that notion is left to the individual purchasers of transport services.
Dejstvo, da je moral biti na koncu izbran drugi najboljši ponudnik, ker izbrani ponudnik ni zagotovil zahtevanih storitev, ne ogroža odprte, pregledne in brezpogojne narave postopka oddaje javnega naročila.
Unforeseeable costs refer to situations which are independent of the companies' management, such as natural disasters, price interventions by the State, changes in excise duties, VAT, etc.
Pogodbe v okviru ukrepa iz točke (b) uvodne izjave 42 so se sklenile za prehodno obdobje devetih mesecev za devet od petnajstih območij regije Ústí.
The Czech authorities provided the Commission with the relevant extracts of the public service contracts.
Če bi Komisija menila, da glede ukrepa iz točke (b) uvodne izjave 42 prvi del četrtega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark ni bil izpolnjen, so češki organi trdili, da se mora za skladnega šteti drugi del pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, saj je bil izbor izvajalca storitev izveden v skladu z analizo stroškov povprečnega izvajalca storitev, ki posluje s primernim dobičkom.
Finally, concerning the fourth Altmark condition, the reasoning of the Czech authorities as regards each of the three public service compensation measures was slightly different and will be explained separately.
Češki organi so glede nadomestil za opravljanje javne službe, ki jih je regija Ústí za avtobusne storitve v obdobju od 9. septembra 2006 do 31. decembra 2006 dodelila na podlagi neposrednih pogajanj (ukrep iz točke (c) uvodne izjave 42), pojasnili, da je regija Ústí v največji možni meri zagotovila, da se storitve javnega prevoza v petih območjih, za katere ni bilo drugouvrščenega ponudnika, izvajajo po najnižji možni ceni.
In relation to the public service contracts for 2005 and 2006 (measure referred to in recital 42 under (a)), the Czech authorities argued that by comparing the price of transport services in the Ústí Region in 2005 and those offered on the basis of the concession tenders in 2007 and onwards, those contracts should be considered as complying with that condition.
Organiziran je bil drugi krog za podelitev koncesij, da se zagotovijo osnovne prevozne storitve, dokler ne bi bilo mogoče organizirati običajnega (nepospešenega) izbora za podelitev koncesij.
Since the concession tenders in 2007 were transparent, open and non-discriminatory, the prices offered in response to those tenders were market prices where the price of the transport service included only the costs of a typical rational operator and a reasonable profit.
Objava o drugem krogu za podelitev koncesij je bila objavljena 16. avgusta 2006 v več pomembnih čeških dnevnih časopisih [23].
An analysis of price differences shows that the average price of transport services was CZK 30,60/km in 2005 and CZK 30,24/km in 2007.
Češki organi so predložili dokumentacijo za drugi krog za podelitev koncesij.
In 2005, the price of regional transport services varied between CZK 21,50/km and CZK 37,16/km.
Ker so morale biti navedene pogodbe zaradi nepričakovanega umika podjetja ČSAD Česká Lípa sklenjene v dveh tednih in ob upoštevanju, da bi bile morebitne koncesije podeljene za začasno obdobje manj kot štirih mesecev, je regija Ústí v postopek izbora za podelitev koncesij vključila merilo za izbor, da mora izbrani prevoznik izvajanje prevoznih storitev zagotoviti od 9. septembra 2006, tj. v dveh tednih od objave postopka izbora za podelitev koncesij.
In 2007, after the long-term concession selection procedures were completed, the prices varied between CZK 25,48/km and CZK 45,79/km.
Pogodb na podlagi drugega kroga za podelitev koncesije ni bilo mogoče skleniti, saj je regija Ústí prejela le eno ponudbo za zadevnih šest območij [24], zato je regija Ústí pogodbe sklenila neposredno s prevozniki, ki so bili na voljo.
The Czech authorities claim that it follows from that comparison that the price did not significantly differ and that the price variations between different areas were even higher in 2007 than in 2005.
Po trditvah čeških organov zaradi izrednih okoliščin, povezanih s sklenitvijo navedenih pogodb, ni bilo dovolj časa za organiziranje tretjega postopka izbora za podelitev koncesij, prav tako pa zaradi časovnih omejitev ni bila mogoča strokovna ocena.
The same analysis shows that profits also did not differ significantly between the 2005 and 2007 contracts.
Češki organi so nadalje poudarili, da se cena prevozne storitve ni bistveno razlikovala od cene, pridobljene v prvem in drugem krogu za podelitev koncesij.
Therefore, the profits generated by transport providers in the period under examination should be considered in line with the fourth Altmark condition.
Razliko v višini približno 7 % bi se lahko štelo za običajno ob upoštevanju, da je začasna dodelitev človeških in kapitalskih virov za obdobje 4 mesecev dražja kot za daljše obdobje.
In addition, the Czech authorities submitted an expert opinion carried out by professors of the Prague Technical University (České vysoké učení technické v Praze) which shows that the costs of service providers were those of prudential operators.
PRIPOMBE GLEDE OBSTOJA DRŽAVNE POMOČI V ZVEZI S POROŠTVI IN POVEČANJEM LASTNIŠKEGA KAPITALA ZA PODJETJE DP ÚSTÍ