natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the compensation ordered by the Council of State, which is not provided for in the concession specifications, would not be paid in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, and therefore that the notified measure is incompatible with the internal market.
Glede na to Komisija meni, da nadomestilo, ki ga je določil državni svet in ki ni navedeno v specifikacijah koncesij, ne bi bilo plačano v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, zato priglašeni ukrep ni združljiv z notranjim trgom.
Finally, as regards Simet’s claim that judgment 1405/2010 of the Council of State does not concern an award of public service compensation based on the applicable Council Regulation, but represents an award of damages related to a breach of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 which stems from the alleged illegal unilateral imposition of public service obligations under Articles 1(3) and 1(5) of that Regulation, the Commission notes that while no reference to Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 appears in the operative part of judgment 1405/2010, that judgment does refer to Simet’s right to receive amounts by way of compensation pursuant to Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which must be determined by the administration on the basis of reliable data [43].
Kar zadeva trditev družbe Simet, da sodba št. 1405/2010 državnega sveta ne zadeva dodelitve nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe na podlagi veljavne uredbe Sveta, temveč pomeni odškodnino, povezano s kršitvijo Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki izhaja iz domnevne nezakonite enostranske naložitve obveznosti javnih služb v skladu s členom 1(3) in (5) navedene uredbe, Komisija ugotavlja, da operativni del sodbe št. 1405/2010 sicer ne vsebuje sklicevanja na Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, vendar sodba navaja pravico družbe Simet do prejetja zneskov v obliki nadomestila v skladu s členi 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki ga mora določiti uprava na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov [43].
Furthermore, in judgment 1405/2010, the Council of State itself dismissed Simet’s claim for damages, which it understood to cover the residual losses not covered by the compensation to be awarded, and its claim for unjust enrichment, since the main claim for compensation on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 had been accepted [44].
Poleg tega je državni svet v sodbi št. 1405/2010 zavrnil zahtevek družbe Simet za odškodnino, s katero naj bi po njegovem mnenju pokrila preostale izgube, ki niso zajete v morebitnem nadomestilu, in njen zahtevek za neupravičeno obogatitev, saj je bil sprejet glavni zahtevek za nadomestilo na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 [44].
Thus, in point 3.3 of the judgment the Council of State states that: ‘No claims for damages put forward by the appellant can be accepted at present, because only when the administration has determined the amount referred to above will it be known whether there is residual damage not covered by the amount assessed, which must be calculated and demonstrated by the company concerned.’
Državni svet v točki 3.3 sodbe navaja, da: „trenutno ni mogoče sprejeti nikakršnih zahtevkov za odškodnino, ki jih je predložil pritožnik, saj bo šele takrat, ko bo uprava določila zadevni znesek, znano, ali gre za preostalo škodo, ki ni zajeta v ocenjenem znesku, kar mora izračunati in dokazati zadevna družba“.
In any event, the Commission considers that an award of damages in favour of Simet for the alleged illegal unilateral imposition of public service obligations by the Italian authorities, calculated on the basis of the common compensation procedure laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, would contravene Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty.
Komisija v vsakem primeru meni, da bi dodelitev odškodnine v korist družbe Simet, ker so ji italijanski organi domnevno nezakonito enostransko naložili obveznosti javnih služb, izračunana na podlagi enotnega postopka za plačilo nadomestila iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, nasprotovala členoma 107 in 108 Pogodbe.
This is because such an award would produce the exact same result for Simet as an award of public service compensation for the period under review, despite the fact that the concession specifications governing the services in question were neither exempt from prior notification nor complied with the substantive requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, as demonstrated above.
Dodelitev odškodnine bi namreč za družbo Simet ustvarila enak rezultat kot dodelitev nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe v obravnavanem obdobju, kljub temu, da specifikacije koncesij, ki urejajo zadevne storitve, niso bile niti izvzete iz predhodne priglasitve niti niso upoštevale bistvenih zahtev Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 ali Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, kot je že bilo pojasnjeno.
The availability of such an award would thus effectively enable the circumvention of the state aid rules and the conditions laid down by the Union legislator under which competent authorities, when imposing or contracting for public service obligations, compensate public service operators for costs incurred in return for the discharge of public service obligations.
Razpoložljivost take dodelitve bi omogočila učinkovito izogibanje pravilom o državni pomoči ter pogojem, ki jih je določil zakonodajalec Unije in pod katerimi pristojni organi pri nalaganju ali sklepanju pogodb o izvajanju obveznosti javnih služb izvajalcem javnih služb dodeljujejo nadomestilo za nastale stroške v zameno za opravljanje obveznosti javnih služb.
Finally, as previously stated, the concession specifications under which Simet provided the transport services did not provide for payment of any financial compensation.
Kot je že bilo navedeno, specifikacije koncesij, v skladu s katerimi je družba Simet zagotavljala prevozne storitve, niso predvidele plačila kakršnega koli finančnega nadomestila.
Simet agreed to run the services under the conditions laid down in those concessions at its own risk.
Družba Simet se je strinjala, da bo storitve opravljala pod pogoji, določenimi v teh koncesijah, na lastno odgovornost.
Accordingly, the Commission cannot accept Simet’s claim that judgment 1405/2010 of the Council of State represents an award of damages related to a breach of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 rather than an award of public service compensation.
Zato Komisija ne more sprejeti trditve družbe Simet, da sodba št. 1405/2010 državnega sveta predvideva dodelitev odškodnine, povezane s kršitvijo Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, in ne dodelitve nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe.
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 which is incompatible with the internal market,
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da je priglašeni ukrep državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom –
The compensation payments to Simet notified by the Italian authorities constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Plačila nadomestil družbi Simet, ki so jih priglasili italijanski organi, so državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
The aid was not exempt from prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Pomoč ni bila izvzeta iz predhodne priglasitve na podlagi člena 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The aid is not compatible with the internal market, as the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 have not been met.
Pomoč ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ker niso bili izpolnjeni pogoji iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Consequently, the aid may not be implemented by the Italian authorities.
Zato italijanski organi pomoči ne smejo dodeliti.
OJ C 216, 21.7.2012, p. 45.
UL C 216, 21.7.2012, str. 45.
Law of 28 September 1939 — Rules governing bus services for passengers, baggage and agricultural packages on the basis of a concession awarded to private industry (rules subsequently replaced by Legislative Decree 285/2005).
Zakon z dne 28. septembra 1939 – predpisi, ki urejajo storitve avtobusnega prevoza potnikov, prtljage in kmetijskih paketov na podlagi koncesije, podeljene zasebni družbi (predpisi, ki jih je pozneje nadomestil zakonodajni odlok št. 285/2005).
See http://ngs.Simetspa.it/portale/azienda/
Glej http://ngs.Simetspa.it/portale/azienda/
Simet’s letter of 22 October 1999, reference 175/99.
Dopis družbe Simet z dne 22. oktobra 1999, sklic 175/99.
Presidential Decree of 22 April 1994 – Regulations on simplifying the concession procedure for ordinary bus lines under state responsibility.
Predsedniška uredba z dne 22. aprila 1994 – predpisi o poenostavitvi koncesijskega postopka za redne avtobusne proge v državni pristojnosti.
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. oktobra 2007 o javnih storitvah železniškega in cestnega potniškega prevoza ter o razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 in št. 1107/70 (UL L 315, 3.12.2007, str. 1).
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 z dne 26. junija 1969 o ukrepanju držav članic glede obveznosti javne službe v železniškem in cestnem prometu ter prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh (UL L 156, 28.6.1969, str. 1).
For each year under review, the annual compensation was the sum of the deficit resulting from operating losses, financial charges and return on equity.
Letno nadomestilo za vsako obravnavano leto je bilo izračunano na podlagi vsote primanjkljaja zaradi izgub iz poslovanja, finančnih stroškov in donosnosti lastnega kapitala.
The calculation was based on a number of theoretical assumptions, including assumptions on the operating costs related to the inter-regional scheduled bus services in years prior to 2000, as no account separation existed for that period.
Izračun je temeljil na številnih teoretičnih predpostavkah, vključno s predpostavkami o stroških poslovanja, povezanih z medregionalnim linijskim avtobusnim prevozom v obdobju pred letom 2000, saj se v tem obdobju še ni izvajalo ločevanje računov.
More details on the methodology used in this initial calculation are available in the opening decision.
Več informacij o metodologiji, uporabljeni pri tem začetnem izračunu, je na voljo v sklepu o začetku postopka.
Under Article 9 of Legislative Decree 285/2005, which repealed Law 1822/39, the concessions for scheduled services under Law 1822/1939 can be prolonged until the end of 2013.
V skladu s členom 9 zakonodajnega odloka št. 285/2005, ki je razveljavil zakon št. 1822/39, se lahko koncesije za linijski prevoz v skladu z zakonom št. 1822/39 podaljšajo do konca leta 2013.
Apparently in the light of the amendments to the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11).
Očitno v skladu s spremembami Četrte direktive Sveta 78/660/EGS z dne 25. julija 1978, ki temelji na členu 54(3)(g) Pogodbe o letnih računovodskih izkazih posameznih vrst družb (UL L 222, 14.8.1978, str. 11).
This figure was taken from a database compiled by Professor A. Damodaran.
Ta podatek je bil vzet iz zbirke podatkov, ki jo je pripravil profesor A. Damodaran.
See www.damodaran.com
Glej www.damodaran.com
A measure of the volatility, or systematic risk, of a security or a portfolio in comparison to the market as a whole.
Merilo nestanovitnosti ali sistematičnega tveganja vrednostnega papirja ali portfelja v primerjavi s celotnim trgom.
Unlevered beta = beta of the company without any debt.
Vrednost beta nezadolženega podjetja = beta podjetja brez dolga.
See www.damodaran.com, ‘auto and trucks’.
Glej www.damodaran.com, „auto and trucks“ ( „avto in tovornjaki“).
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747.
Zadeva C-280/00, Altmark Trans GmbH in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg proti Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, Recueil 2003, str. I-7747.
See Article 1(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ L 169, 29.6.1991, p. 1).
Glej člen 1(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 1893/91 z dne 20. junija 1991 o spremembi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 o ukrepanju držav članic glede obveznosti javne službe v železniškem in cestnem prometu ter prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh (UL L 169, 29.6.1991, str. 1).
Until 2000, no account separation was implemented at all.
Do leta 2000 se ločevanje računov ni izvajalo.
Date of entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91.
Datum začetka veljavnosti Uredbe (EGS) št. 1893/91.
There was no account separation at all until 2000.
Do leta 2000 se ločevanje računov ni izvajalo.
The Commission did not analyse other submissions as they do not concern the period covered by the Council of State’s decisions.
Komisija ni analizirala druge dokumentacije, saj ne zadeva obdobja, ki ga obravnavajo sklepi državnega sveta.
Since repealed and replaced by Legislative Decree No 285/2005.
Pozneje razveljavljen in nadomeščen z zakonodajnim odlokom št. 285/2005.
Article (2)(2)(e) of Presidential Decree No 369 of 22 April 1994.
Člen (2)(2)(e) odloka predsednika republike št. 369 z dne 22. aprila 1994.
For instance, in 1992 the Ministry accepted that bus stops should be moved for safety reasons on the Rossano-Naples link; and in 2000 the Ministry accepted additional bus stops and route changes to serve new locations on grounds of cost-effectiveness on the Cosenza-Florence and the Cosenza-Pisa link.
Leta 1992 je na primer Ministrstvo soglašalo, da se iz varnostnih razlogov spremeni lokacija avtobusnih postajališč na povezavi Rossano–Neapelj; leta 2000 pa je Ministrstvo sprejelo uvedbo dodatnih avtobusnih postajališč in spremembe proge zaradi stroškovne učinkovitosti, da bi pokrili storitve na novih lokacijah na povezavah Cosenza–Firence in Cosenza-Pisa.
In addition, the Italian authorities noted that the documentation submitted by Simet showed that in 1992 the Ministry accepted the fare increase it had requested on the Rossano-Naples link.
Poleg tega so italijanski organi poudarili, da je dokumentacija, ki jo je predložila družba Simet, pokazala, da je Ministrstvo leta 1992 sprejelo povišanje prevoznine, ki jo je družba zahtevala na povezavi Rossano–Neapelj.
Which set a ceiling on fare increases for ordinary scheduled bus services corresponding to the rate of inflation.
Ki je določila zgornjo vrednost za povišanje prevoznin za redni linijski avtobusni prevoz glede na stopnjo inflacije.
Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 88).
Uredba (ES) št. 1073/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. oktobra 2009 o skupnih pravilih za dostop do mednarodnega trga avtobusnih prevozov in spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006 (UL L 300, 14.11.2009, str. 88).
Point 6 of each of the concession specifications states clearly that the timetables and the fares shall be those approved by the Provincial Motor Vehicle Office of the Ministry.
Točka 6 specifikacij koncesij jasno navaja, da vozne rede in prevoznine odobri pokrajinska enota Ministrstva za motorna vozila.
Judgment 1405/2010 refers to the right to receive amounts by way of compensation pursuant to Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which must be determined by the administration on the basis of reliable data (page 21, point 3.3 of the judgment).
Sodba št. 1405/2010 se nanaša na pravico do prejetja zneskov nadomestila v skladu s členi 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki ga mora določiti uprava na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov (stran 21, točka 3.3 sodbe).
Furthermore, in point 3.3 the Council of State affirms that it has not assessed damages because: ‘No claims for damages put forward by the appellant can be accepted at present, because only when the administration has determined the amount referred to above will it be known whether there is residual damage not covered by the amount assessed, which must be calculated and demonstrated by the company concerned.’
Poleg tega državni svet v točki 3.3 trdi, da ni ocenil škode, kajti: „[n]obenega odškodninskega zahtevka, ki ga pritožnik vlaga, ni mogoče v danih razmerah sprejeti, kajti šele ko bo znana prej navedena odločitev uprave, se kvečjemu utegne izkazati preostala škoda, ki bi je ta odločitev ne zaobsegala in bi jo zato morala prizadeta družba utemeljiti in dokazati“.
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 87 and 88.
Zadeva C-280/00, Altmark, točki 87 in 88.
Paragraph 79.
Točka 79.
See section 5.
Glej oddelek 5.
Until the end of 1991, circular 13/74 of 30 April 1974 provided that, normally, the fares of inter-regional scheduled bus services had to be similar to those of second-class rail transportation.
Do konca leta 1991 je okrožnica št. 13/74 z dne 30. aprila 1974 določala, da morajo biti prevoznine za medregionalne linijske avtobusne prevoze načeloma podobne prevozninam v železniškem prevozu drugega razreda.
Subsequently, between 1992 and 2000, memorandum No 801 of 17 March 1992 stipulated that, normally, fare increases had to be contained within the rate of inflation, which at the time was indicated by the inter-ministerial pricing committee.
Pozneje, med letoma 1992 in 2000, je bilo z uradnim opomnikom št. 801 z dne 17. marca 1992 določeno, da morajo povišanja prevoznin načeloma ustrezati stopnji inflacije, ki jo je takrat določal medministrski odbor za cene.
Letter from the Provincial Office of Catanzaro No A/7302 of 3 July 1992.
Dopis pokrajinske enote Catanzaro št. A/7302 z dne 3. julija 1992.
Point 6 of the concession specifications.
Točka 6 specifikacij koncesij.
Point 2 of circular No 3/02 of 5 April 2002 which gave instructions for converting fares in lire to euros.
Točka 2 okrožnice št. 3/02 z dne 5. aprila 2002, v kateri so navedena navodila za pretvorbo prevoznin iz lir v eure.
Case C-504/07 [2009] ECR I-3867.
Zadeva C-504/07, ZOdl. 2009, str. I-3867.
OJ L 169, 29.6.1991, p. 1.
UL L 169, 29.6.1991, str. 1.
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Člen 1(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Commission refers in this respect to the reasoning developed in recitals 307 to 313 of its Decision of 24 February 2010 in Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08) concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (OJ L 7, 11.1.2011, p. 1).
Komisija se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na argumente iz uvodnih izjav 307 do 313 njenega sklepa z dne 24. februarja 2010 v zadevi C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08) o pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe prevoza med danskim ministrstvom za promet in družbo Danske Statsbaner (UL L 7, 11.1.2011, str. 1).
This decision was annulled by the General Court in Case T-92/11 Jørgen Andersen v European Commission [2013], not yet published – which judgment is currently on appeal before the Court of Justice in Case C 303/13.
Ta sklep je razveljavilo Splošno sodišče s sodbo v zadevi T-92/11, Jørgen Andersen proti Evropski komisiji [2013], ki še ni bila objavljena in zoper katero teče postopek pritožbe pred Sodiščem Evropske unije v zadevi C 303/13.
The outcome of the appeal is not relevant for the outcome of the present case, since the General Court confirmed in the judgment under appeal that with regard to aid which has been notified but not paid, the rules, principles and criteria for assessing the compatibility of state aid which are in force at the date on which the Commission takes its decision should be applied (see paragraph 39 of the judgment).
Izid pritožbe ni pomemben za izid zadevnega primera, saj je Splošno sodišče v sodbi, zoper katero teče postopek pritožbe, potrdilo, da bi bilo treba v zvezi s pomočjo, ki je bila priglašena, vendar ne plačana, uporabljati pravila, načela in merila za ocenjevanje združljivosti državne pomoči, ki bodo veljala na dan, ko bo Komisija sprejela sklep (glej točko 39 sodbe).
Case C-334/07 P Commission v Freistaat Sachsen [2008] ECR I-9465, paragraphs 50 to 53; Case T-3/09 Italy v Commission [2011] ECR II-95, paragraph 60.
Zadeva C-334/07 P, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Freistaat Sachsen, ZOdl. 2008, str. I-9465, točke 50 do 53; zadeva T-3/09, Italija proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2011, str. II-95, točka 60.
Point 3.3 of judgment 1405/2010.
Točka 3.3. sodbe št. 1405/2010.
Point 3.4 of judgment 1405/2010.
Točka 3.4. sodbe št. 1405/2010.
The panel of experts completed its work in August 2012.
Neodvisni svetovalni odbor je zaključil delo avgusta 2012.
This is supported by the ministerial memo of 19 December 1988 (D.C. III Div 32 No 3846), which states ‘whereas many companies with concessions for public bus services have petitioned for fare increases; whereas no general directives on fares have been issued recently; pending new directives […] [regional offices] may directly authorise concession holders to implement for the services they operate an increase in the fares to align them on the level of prices of the State railway company, Ferrovie dello Stato (FS), for second-class rail travel, plus the ‘express’ supplement if the services use the motorways [as in the case in question]; … obviously there should not be any fare increase in cases where the fare level referred to above is already applied.’ According to Simet, these steps demonstrate that it was not allowed to set fares that were higher than the fare for second-class rail travel (i.e. the lowest fare charged by Ferrovie dello Stato).
To podpira memorandum Ministrstva z dne 19. decembra 1988 (D.C. III Div 32 št. 3846), ki navaja naslednje: „ker so številne družbe s koncesijami za storitve javnega avtobusnega prevoza zaprosile za povišanje prevoznin; ker v zadnjem času niso bile sprejete nikakršne splošne direktive o prevozninah; do sprejetja novih direktiv […] lahko [regionalni uradi] neposredno dovolijo imetnikom koncesij, da za storitve, ki jih opravljajo, povišajo prevoznine, da bi jih uskladili z ravnjo cen državne železniške družbe Ferrovie dello Stato (FS) za železniški prevoz drugega razreda z doplačilom za brzi vlak, če se pri storitvah uporabljajo avtoceste [kot velja v tem primeru]; […] jasno je, da se prevoznine ne bi smele povišati, kadar se že uporablja zgoraj navedena raven prevoznin“. Po mnenju družbe Simet ti ukrepi kažejo, da ni bilo dovoljeno določiti prevoznin, višjih od prevoznin za železniški prevoz drugega razreda (tj. najnižjih prevoznin, ki jih zaračunava družba Ferrovie dello Stato).
As a result, the company was prevented from obtaining more revenue from its operations due to the State’s interest in satisfying essentially public needs and purposes.
Družba ni smela pridobivati dodatnega prihodka iz svojih dejavnosti, saj je želela država zadostiti predvsem potrebam in namenom javnosti.
Finally, the compensation period of the notified measure covers 1987 to 2003.
Nazadnje je treba poudariti, da je obdobje nadomestila priglašenega ukrepa čas med letoma 1987 in 2003.
However, the common compensation procedure applied to inter-regional bus services only until July 1992 and was subsequently restricted to ‘urban, suburban, or regional passenger transport services’ by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 [39].
Vendar se je enotni postopek za plačilo nadomestila za medregionalni avtobusni prevoz uporabljal le do julija 1992, pozneje pa je bil z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 1893/91 omejen na „mestne, primestne ali regionalne storitve potniškega prevoza“ [39].