natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The transport of passengers by means of scheduled inter-regional services cannot be considered to have been completely liberalised by a simple and direct application of Article 41 of the Italian Constitution, being first subject to a concession system (regulated by Law No 1822/39 and Presidential Decree 369/94) and subsequently to an authorisation system (regulated by Legislative Decree 285/05).
Ni mogoče šteti, da je prevoz potnikov v okviru medregionalnega linijskega prevoza povsem liberalizirala enostavna in neposredna uporaba člena 41 italijanske ustave, saj se zanj najprej uporablja sistem koncesij (ki ga urejata zakon št. 1822/39 in predsedniška uredba št. 369/94), nato pa sistem dovoljenj (ki ga ureja zakonska uredba št. 285/05).
Under Article 107(1) of the Treaty, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the provision of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
For a support measure to be considered state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1), it must fulfil all of the following conditions:
Da bi se podporni ukrep štel za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1), mora izpolnjevati vse naslednje pogoje:
it must be granted by the state or through state resources,
dodeliti ga mora država ali pa mora biti zagotovljen iz državnih sredstev,
it must confer a selective advantage by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods,
zagotavljati mora selektivno prednost z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga,
it must distort or threaten to distort competition,
izkrivljati mora konkurenco ali groziti z njenim izkrivljanjem,
it must affect trade between Member States.
prizadeti mora trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission will examine whether each of these conditions has been fulfilled in the present case.
Komisija bo proučila, ali je bil v tem primeru izpolnjen vsak od navedenih pogojev.
The Commission observes that the judgments of the Council of State require the Ministry to pay compensation to Simet for the provision of inter-regional bus transport services from 1987 to 2003 on routes under state responsibility.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sodbe državnega sveta od Ministrstva zahtevajo, da družbi Simet plača nadomestilo za storitve medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza, ki so bile opravljene v obdobju 1987–2003 na progah v državni pristojnosti.
The resources from which this compensation would be paid are those available to the Ministry and thus constitute state resources.
Sredstva, iz katerih bi bilo to nadomestilo plačano, so razpoložljiva sredstva Ministrstva, zato se štejejo za državna sredstva.
The decision to pay that compensation, which has been taken by the court, is imputable to the state.
Odločitev v zvezi z plačilom tega nadomestila, ki jo je sprejelo sodišče, se pripiše državi.
The Commission notes first and foremost that Simet is engaged in an economic activity, namely passenger transportation against remuneration.
Komisija zlasti poudarja, da družba Simet izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, tj. prevoz potnikov proti plačilu.
Therefore, Simet should be considered an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Zato bi bilo treba Simet šteti za „podjetje“ v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The granting of the measure should also be considered selective, since it benefits only Simet.
Dodelitev ukrepa bi bilo treba prav tako šteti za selektivno, saj koristi le družbi Simet.
As regards the granting of an economic advantage, it follows from the Altmark judgment that compensation granted by the state or through state resources to undertakings in consideration for public service obligations imposed on them does not confer such an advantage on the undertakings concerned, and hence does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1), provided the following four conditions are met [30]:
Kar zadeva dodelitev gospodarske prednosti, iz sodbe Altmark sledi, da nadomestilo, ki ga je zadevnim podjetjem dodelila država ali ki jim je bilo zagotovljeno iz državnih sredstev za opravljanje obveznosti javnih služb, ki so jim bile naložene, ne daje take prednosti zadevnim podjetjem in se torej ne šteje za pomoč v smislu člena 107(1), če so izpolnjeni naslednji štirje pogoji [30]:
first, the recipient undertaking must actually be required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations have to be clearly defined;
prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javnih služb, te obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene,
second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner;
drugič, parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način,
third, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; and
tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati zneska, ki je potreben za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javnih služb ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti, in
fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed must have been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
četrtič, če podjetje, ki mu je naloženo izpolnjevanje obveznosti javnih služb, ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, je treba raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi za zadostitev zahtevam javne službe, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
As regards the second condition, the parameters that serve as the basis for calculating compensation must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner in order to ensure that they do not confer an economic advantage that could favour the recipient undertaking over competing undertakings.
Parametri iz drugega pogoja, ki so podlaga za izračun nadomestila, morajo biti določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način, da podjetja, ki prejmejo nadomestilo, ne bi imela gospodarske prednosti pred konkurenčnimi podjetji.
However, the need to establish the compensation parameters in advance does not mean that the compensation has to be calculated on the basis of a specific formula.
Vendar vnaprejšnja določitev parametrov za nadomestilo ne pomeni, da mora biti nadomestilo izračunano po posebni formuli.
Rather, what matters is that it is clear from the outset how the compensation is to be determined.
Pomembno je samo, da je od začetka jasno, kako se bo nadomestilo določilo.
In the present case, Simet has not provided any evidence to show that the compensation parameters for the provision of the services in question over the period under consideration were ever established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
V tem primeru družba Simet ni zagotovila nobenega dokaza, da so bili parametri za nadomestilo za opravljanje zadevnih storitev v obravnavanem obdobju dejansko določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
Rather, the concessions specifications upon which Simet relies to demonstrate that a public service obligation was imposed upon it state that the operation of the services does not give the company any right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the service is operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
Specifikacije koncesij, na podlagi katerih družba Simet dokazuje, da ji je bila naložena obveznost javnih služb, navajajo, da opravljanje storitev družbi ne daje pravice do kakršne koli subvencije ali nadomestila in da družba opravlja storitve v celoti na lastno odgovornost.
It is for this reason that judgment 1405/2010 of the Council of State ordered that that compensation be calculated on the basis of reliable data from the company’s accounts.
Zato je državni svet s sodbo št. 1405/2010 odredil, da je treba nadomestilo izračunati na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov iz računovodskih izkazov družbe.
Any such calculations, in the absence of compensation parameters established in advance, are necessarily based solely on ex post estimates of the net costs involved in the provision of the inter-regional scheduled bus services in question, such as the calculations contained in the initial report and the majority report.
Če parametri za nadomestilo niso bili določeni vnaprej, morajo vsaki tovrstni računi nujno temeljiti le na naknadnih ocenah neto stroškov, povezanih z opravljanjem zadevnih linijskih medregionalnih avtobusnih prevozov, kot so izračuni iz začetnega poročila in poročila večine.
The second Altmark condition has therefore not been met in the present case.
V tem primeru torej ni bil izpolnjen drugi pogoj iz sodbe Altmark.
In order to exclude the presence of an economic advantage where compensation is granted to undertakings in consideration for public service obligations imposed on them, the Altmark judgment requires that all four conditions be satisfied, and there is consequently no reason for the Commission to examine whether the other three conditions have been met in the present case.
Da se izključi prisotnost gospodarske prednosti, kadar se nadomestilo dodeli zadevnim podjetjem za opravljanje obveznosti javnih služb, ki so jim bile naložene, sodba Altmark zahteva izpolnitev vseh štirih pogojev, zato Komisiji ni treba proučiti, ali so bili v tem primeru izpolnjeni preostali trije pogoji.
Accordingly, the payment of compensation to Simet for the provision of inter-regional bus transport services for the period 1987-2003 does confer on that undertaking a selective economic advantage.
Glede na to plačilo nadomestila družbi Simet za opravljanje storitev medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza v obdobju 1987–2003 tej družbi dejansko daje selektivno gospodarsko prednost.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
Izkrivljanje konkurence in učinek na trgovino med državami članicami
As regards these two criteria, it is necessary to verify whether the notified measure is likely to distort competition to the extent that it affects trade between Member States.
V zvezi s tema dvema meriloma je treba preveriti, ali obstaja verjetnost, da bo priglašeni ukrep izkrivil konkurenco tako, da bo to vplivalo na trgovino med državami članicami.
As reflected in the Altmark judgment [31], since 1995 several Member States have opened certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so that a number of undertakings are already offering their urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their state of origin.
V sodbi Altmark [31] je navedeno, da so po letu 1995 številne države članice odprle določene mestne, primestne ali regionalne prevozne trge konkurenci podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, zato veliko število podjetij že zagotavlja razne prevozne storitve v državah članicah, ki niso države izvora teh podjetij.
This tendency is even more pronounced for inter-regional scheduled transport services such as those provided by Simet.
Ta težnja je še bolj razširjena pri medregionalnem linijskem prevozu, kot ga izvaja družba Simet.
Accordingly, any compensation granted to Simet should be considered liable to distort competition for the provision of inter-regional bus transportation services and liable to affect trade between Member States to the extent that it negatively impacts on the ability of transport undertakings established in other Member States to offer their services in Italy and strengthens the market position of Simet.
Na podlagi tega bi bilo treba šteti, da lahko vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi Simet, izkrivi konkurenco za opravljanje storitev medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza in prizadene trgovino med državami članicami tako, da to negativno vpliva na sposobnost prevoznih podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, da opravljajo storitve v Italiji, in krepi položaj družbe Simet na trgu.
The Commission also notes that Simet is active in other markets, such as international travel services, tourism services and bus rental services, and thus clearly competes with other companies within the Union in those markets.
Komisija prav tako poudarja, da družba Simet deluje na drugih trgih, kot so mednarodne potovalne storitve, turistične storitve in storitve oddajanja avtobusov v najem, in tako dejansko konkurira drugim podjetjem v Uniji na teh trgih.
Any compensation granted to Simet would necessarily also distort competition and affect trade between Member States on those markets as well.
Vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi Simet, bi zagotovo izkrivilo konkurenco, vplivalo pa bi tudi na trgovino med državami članicami na teh trgih.
Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that the notified measure is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Na podlagi tega Komisija meni, da lahko priglašeni ukrep izkrivi konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
In light of the above, the Commission finds that the notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da je priglašeni ukrep državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
EXEMPTION FROM THE NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION UNDER REGULATION (EEC) NO 1191/69
IZVZETJE IZ OBVEZNOSTI PRIGLASITVE V SKLADU Z UREDBO (EGS) ŠT. 1191/69
According to the reasoning of the Council of State, Simet acquired the right to obtain compensation for the provision of the transport services in question at the point in time at which it carried out those services.
Na podlagi argumentov državnega sveta je družba Simet pridobila pravico do nadomestila za zadevne prevozne storitve v času, v katerem je opravljala te storitve.
For this reasoning to hold, the compensation payments would have to have been exempted from the compulsory notification procedure pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69: otherwise failure to notify that compensation would have rendered it illegal, as it would have been contrary to the state aid provisions of the Treaty.
Da bi ti argumenti držali, bi morala biti plačila nadomestila izvzeta iz postopka obvezne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69: če nadomestilo ne bi bilo priglašeno, bi se štelo za nezakonito, saj bi bilo v nasprotju z določbami o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe.
This is because, under Article 17(2) of that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, compensation paid pursuant to the Regulation is exempted from the preliminary information procedure laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty and thus from prior notification.
V skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 je namreč nadomestilo, ki se izplača po tej uredbi, izvzeto iz predhodnega postopka obveščanja, določenega v členu 108(3) Pogodbe, in s tem tudi iz predhodne priglasitve.
It follows from the Combus judgment that the concept of ‘public service compensation’ within the meaning of that provision must be interpreted in a very narrow manner [32].
V skladu s sodbo Combus je treba pojem „nadomestila za opravljanje obveznosti javne službe“ v smislu te določbe razlagati zelo ozko [32].
The exemption from notification provided by Article 17(2) covers only compensation for public service obligations imposed unilaterally on an undertaking, pursuant to Article 2 of that Regulation, which are calculated using the method described in Articles 10 to 13 of that Regulation (the common compensation procedure), and not to public service contracts as defined by Article 14.
Izvzetje iz priglasitve iz člena 17(2) velja le za nadomestilo za opravljanje obveznosti javnih služb iz člena 2 navedene uredbe, ki so bile enostransko naložene podjetju, to nadomestilo pa se izračuna v skladu z metodo, opisano v členih 10 do 13 navedene uredbe (enotni postopek za plačilo nadomestila); izvzetje ne velja za nadomestilo, plačano v okviru pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe iz člena 14.
Compensation paid pursuant to a public service contract as defined by Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 which constitutes state aid must be notified to the Commission before it is put into effect.
Nadomestilo, ki se plača v skladu s pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, kot je opredeljeno v členu 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki je državna pomoč, je treba priglasiti Komisiji, preden se začne uveljavljati.
Failure to do so will result in that compensation being deemed illegally implemented aid.
Če nadomestilo ne bo priglašeno, se bo štelo za nezakonito izvedeno pomoč.
The question of whether Article 17(2) indeed dispensed the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case therefore depends, first, on whether a public service obligation was in fact unilaterally imposed on Simet by the Italian authorities and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Vprašanje, ali je člen 17(2) v tem primeru dejansko izvzel italijanske organe iz predhodne priglasitve, je zato odvisno od tega, ali so italijanski organi družbi Simet dejansko enostransko naložili obveznost javnih služb, in pa od tega, ali je nadomestilo, plačano v skladu s to obveznostjo, v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Commission will examine both questions in turn.
Komisija bo proučila obe vprašanji v ustreznem zaporedju.
Did the Italian authorities unilaterally impose a public service obligation on Simet?
Ali so italijanski organi družbi Simet enostransko naložili obveznost javnih služb?
According to Simet [33], the unilateral imposition of a public service obligation upon it can be inferred from the specifications regarding the details of the services to be provided as laid down in the concession specifications issued for each separate inter-regional scheduled bus route, the imposition of fares by the Ministry and the ministerial refusals to accept changes to existing services or to issue new service concessions.
Po mnenju družbe Simet [33] je mogoče enostransko naložitev obveznosti javnih služb ugotoviti iz specifikacij podrobnosti storitev, ki naj bi se opravljale v skladu s specifikacijami koncesij, ki so bile izdane za vsako posamezno medregionalno linijsko avtobusno progo, na podlagi tega, da je prevoznine določilo Ministrstvo, in glede na to, da je Ministrstvo zavrnilo sprejetje sprememb obstoječih storitev ali izdajo novih koncesij za storitve.
However, on the basis of the information it has received, the Commission finds that Simet has not convincingly shown that the Italian authorities unilaterally imposed a public service obligation upon it.
Vendar Komisija na podlagi prejetih informacij ugotavlja, da družba Simet ni predložila prepričljivih dokazov, da so ji italijanski organi enostransko naložili obveznost javnih služb.
First, Simet’s initiative in requesting the renewal of concession specifications for all sixteen years during the period under review cannot be reconciled with the unilateral imposition of a public service obligation.
Prvič, pobude družbe Simet, v okviru katere je zaprosila za obnovo specifikacij koncesij za vseh šestnajst let obravnavanega obdobja, ni mogoče povezati z enostransko naložitvijo obveznosti javnih služb.
The purpose of those specifications was to provide Simet with the exclusive right to provide the relevant services for the period under review.
Namen teh specifikacij je bil zagotoviti družbi Simet izključno pravico do opravljanja zadevnih storitev v obravnavanem obdobju.
Despite the fact that each of those specifications stipulated that the operation of the service was not subject to compensation and that the service was operated entirely at the company’s own risk, Simet repeatedly requested the prolongation of those rights.
Kljub temu, da so vse specifikacije določale, da družba Simet ni upravičena do nadomestila za opravljanje storitev in da storitve opravlja v celoti na lastno odgovornost, je družba večkrat zahtevala podaljšanje trajanja teh pravic.
Second, the fact that these specifications stipulated the fares, the routes and the frequency and timing of the services does not necessarily mean that unilateral public service obligations were imposed on Simet as a result of the concessions.
Drugič, dejstvo, da so te specifikacije določale prevoznine, proge ter pogostost in vozni red, ne pomeni nujno, da so bili družbi Simet enostransko naložene obveznosti v okviru koncesij.
Rather, considering that the services provided were regular scheduled services, it was necessary for the concession specifications, which granted Simet an exclusive right to provide those services, to stipulate in advance the details of the services to be provided.
Glede na to, da so bile zagotovljene storitve del rednega linijskega prevoza, je bilo treba v specifikacijah koncesij, ki so družbi Simet dale izključno pravico do zagotavljanja teh storitev, vnaprej določiti podrobnosti storitev, ki se bodo zagotavljale.
No evidence has been provided of formal requests to change those details followed by refusals by the Ministry.
Družba ni predložila nobenih dokazov, da je vložila formalne zahtevke za spremembo teh podrobnosti, zato je Ministrstvo njene zahteve zavrnilo.
Nor has Simet provided evidence to show that these details were unilaterally imposed by the Italian authorities on Simet, rather than proposed by that operator, in return for the right to provide services on an exclusive basis, and subsequently authorised by the Ministry.
Prav tako družba Simet ni predložila dokazov, da so ji te podrobnosti enostransko naložili italijanski organi in da jih ni predlagal zadevni izvajalec v zameno za izključno pravico do zagotavljanja storitev, te podrobnosti pa naj bi pozneje odobrilo Ministrstvo.
Third, as regards the alleged obligation to transport postal items, Simet has failed to provide any evidence setting out the services actually provided and the net cost involved.
Tretjič, v zvezi z domnevno obveznostjo prevoza poštnih pošiljk družba Simet ni predložila nikakršnih dokazov o dejansko zagotovljenih storitvah in z njimi povezanih neto stroških.
Nor has Simet provided evidence that it ever contested the clauses of the concession specifications concerning the transportation of postal items.
Prav tako družba Simet ni predložila dokazov, da je izpodbijala določbe specifikacij koncesij o prevozu poštnih pošiljk.
This could either mean that the provision of those services did not go against the commercial interests of the company or that it considered the provision of those services as a fair remuneration for the right to operate the inter-regional transport services on an exclusive basis.
To bi lahko pomenilo, da zagotavljanje teh storitev ni nasprotovalo poslovnim interesom družbe ali da je družba obravnavala zagotavljanje teh storitev kot pošteno nadomestilo za izključno pravico do opravljanja medregionalnih prevoznih storitev.