natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The majority report also notes that for the years 2002 and 2003, when analytical accounting was available, the actual operating loss was largely the same as the losses arrived at on the basis of the methodology used for previous years according to which costs were allocated to inter-regional scheduled bus services on the basis of the percentage of revenue generated by those same services (the figures differed by just 2,6 %).
Prav tako poročilo večine poudarja, da je bila dejanska izguba iz poslovanja v letih 2002 in 2003, ko se je izvajalo analitično računovodstvo, v veliki meri enaka izgubam, ugotovljenim na podlagi metodologije, ki se je uporabljala za prejšnja leta in v skladu s katero so bili stroški pripisani medregionalnemu linijskemu avtobusnemu prevozu na podlagi odstotka prihodka od tega prevoza (številki sta se razlikovali zgolj za 2,6 %).
Therefore, the experts take the view that the unavailability of analytical accounts for the preceding period should not have any practical significance for awarding compensation.
Zato svetovalci menijo, da nerazpoložljivost obračunov stroškov za prejšnje obdobje v praksi ne bi smela vplivati na dodelitev nadomestila.
As explained in the opening decision, the Commission had several doubts regarding the compatibility of the notified measure with the internal market.
Kot je pojasnjeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, je Komisija izrazila številne dvome v zvezi z združljivostjo priglašenega ukrepa z notranjim trgom.
First, the Commission had doubts regarding the classification of the notified measure as a non-aid measure.
Prvič, Komisija je dvomila v razvrstitev priglašenega ukrepa kot ukrepa, ki ni pomoč.
In particular, the Commission questioned whether the four conditions laid down by the European Court of Justice in its Altmark judgment [16] had been fulfilled.
Komisija je zlasti podvomila v to, da so izpolnjeni štirje pogoji, ki jih je v sodbi Altmark [16] opredelilo Sodišče Evropske unije.
Second, the Commission raised the question as to the applicable legal framework.
Drugič, Komisija je postavila pod vprašaj veljavni pravni okvir.
As the compensation ordered by the Council of State related to public service obligations allegedly imposed on Simet for the years 1987 to 2003, but not yet paid, the question arose whether Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 was applicable in the present case.
Ker se nadomestilo, o katerem je odločil državni svet, nanaša na obveznosti javnih služb, ki naj bi bile po njegovih zagotovilih naložene družbi Simet za obdobje med letoma 1987 in 2003, vendar še ni bilo plačano, se je postavilo vprašanje, ali se je v tej zadevi uporabljala Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 ali Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007.
The Commission considered that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 would be applicable in the present case if it could be shown that a public service obligation had in fact been unilaterally imposed on Simet by the Italian authorities and that the compensation proposed complied with all the requirements of that Regulation.
Po mnenju Komisije bi se Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 v tem primeru uporabljala, če bi bilo mogoče dokazati, da so italijanski organi družbi Simet dejansko enostransko naložili obveznost javnih služb in da je bilo predlagano nadomestilo v skladu z vsemi zahtevami te uredbe.
That is because, under Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, compensation for public service obligations imposed unilaterally on an undertaking which is paid pursuant to the rules of that Regulation is dispensed from prior notification to the Commission.
V skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 je namreč nadomestilo za obveznosti javnih služb, enostransko naloženih družbi, ki se plača v skladu s pravili te uredbe, izvzeto iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve Komisiji.
If, however, neither of these two conditions was shown to have been satisfied, the compatibility of the notified measure would need to be assessed under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Če pa ne bi bil izpolnjen nobeden od teh dveh pogojev, bi bilo treba združljivost priglašenega ukrepa oceniti v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Third, assuming that the compensation ordered by the Council of State had in fact resulted from the unilateral imposition of public service obligations, the Commission nevertheless had doubts, based on the information available to it, that the compensation complied with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Tretjič, kljub temu, da naj bi nadomestilo, o katerem je odločil državni svet, dejansko izhajalo iz enostranske naložitve obveznosti javnih služb, je Komisija na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij dvomila, da je bilo usklajeno z zahtevami iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Commission also doubted the appropriateness of applying the common compensation procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, applicable to unilaterally imposed public service obligations, for the years after 1992, since, as of July 1992, inter-regional bus services could not have been subject to unilaterally imposed public service obligations [17].
Komisija je dvomila tudi v ustreznost uporabe enotnega postopka za plačilo nadomestila iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki se uporablja za enostransko naložene obveznosti javnih služb, za obdobje po letu 1992, saj se od julija 1992 za medregionalni avtobusni prevoz niso smele enostransko nalagati obveznosti javnih služb [17].
Fourth, if further investigation confirmed that at least one of the conditions for exemption from notification pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 was not met and an assessment under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had to be conducted, the Commission had doubts whether the conditions of that Regulation were complied with in the present case.
Četrtič, če bi dodatna preiskava potrdila, da ni bil izpolnjen vsaj eden od pogojev za izvzetje iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, in bi bilo treba izvesti oceno v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, bi Komisija dvomila, da so bili v tem primeru izpolnjeni pogoji iz navedene uredbe.
In any event, regardless of the legal basis applied, the Commission had doubts whether the compensation ordered by the Council of State excluded the possibility of overcompensation.
Vendar je Komisija ne glede na uporabljeno pravno podlago dvomila, da je nadomestilo, ki ga je določil državni svet, izključevalo možnost čezmerne kompenzacije.
The Commission noted the absence of a proper account separation by Simet until at least 2000 [18], and questioned the possibility of precisely establishing ex post the costs related to scheduled bus services.
Poudarila je, da je družba Simet uvedla ustrezno ločevanje računov šele leta 2000 [18], in postavila pod vprašaj možnost natančne naknadne določitve stroškov, povezanih z linijskim avtobusnim prevozom.
It also questioned the appropriateness of the required return on equity used in the calculations for the compensation.
Prav tako je dvomila v ustreznost potrebne donosnosti lastnega kapitala, ki je bila uporabljena pri izračunih nadomestila.
In their submissions, the Italian authorities considered that the notified measure constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, specifically because it did not satisfy all the conditions laid down by the European Court of Justice in its Altmark judgment.
Italijanski organi so v navedbah izrazili mnenje, da je priglašeni ukrep državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, predvsem zaradi tega, ker ni izpolnil vseh pogojev, ki jih je v sodbi Altmark opredelilo Sodišče Evropske unije.
The Italian authorities also considered that the compensation awarded by the Council of State neither complied with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 nor with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Prav tako so italijanski organi menili, da nadomestilo, ki ga je dodelil državni svet, ni bilo v skladu niti z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69 niti z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007.
The Italian authorities stressed that neither a unilateral nor a contractual imposition of public service obligations existed for inter-regional bus services during the period under review.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da se za medregionalni avtobusni prevoz v obravnavanem obdobju niso nalagali obveznosti javnih služb niti enostransko niti pogodbeno.
The legal instruments governing the relationship between the public authority and private companies operating passenger transport services were unilateral concessions on the basis of which the public authority transferred to a private body its own legal right to carry out transport services for undifferentiated customers, originally assigned to the State under Law 1822/39.
Pravni instrumenti, ki so urejali razmerje med javnim organom in zasebnimi družbami, ki izvajajo storitve potniškega prevoza, so bile enostranske koncesije, na podlagi katerih je javni organ prenesel na zasebni organ svojo zakonsko pravico do izvajanja prevoznih storitev za nediferencirane stranke, ki je bila prvotno dodeljena državi v skladu z zakonom št. 1822/39.
The Italian authorities further recalled that the concession specifications issued by the Ministry at the request of the company clearly stated that the service was operated entirely at the operating company’s own risk, except for the guarantee of exclusive rights which existed during the period under review.
Italijanski organi so opozorili tudi, da je v bilo v specifikacijah koncesij, ki jih je izdalo Ministrstvo na zahtevo družbe, jasno navedeno, da je družba opravljala storitve v celoti na lastno odgovornost, razen storitev v okviru izključnih pravic, ki so bile družbi zagotovljene v obravnavanem obdobju.
Operating the service gave rise to no right to receive any kind of subsidy or compensation.
Opravljanje storitev družbi ni dalo pravice do kakršne koli subvencije ali nadomestila.
Such concessions were of a temporary nature and renewed each year at the company’s request.
Take koncesije so bile začasne narave in so se vsako leto obnavljale na zahtevo družbe.
The licences were subject to various changes from one year to the next with regard to routes, stopping points, numbers of departures, etc., in light of specific requests made by the companies.
Dovoljenja so se vsako leto spreminjala v zvezi s programi, postajališči, števili odhodov itd., glede na posebne zahteve podjetij.
Regarding the cap on fares described in the opening decision and existing until 2001, the Italian authorities noted that this cap applied throughout Italy and not just in one specific geographical location.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da se je omejitev v zvezi s prevozninami, ki je opisana v sklepu o začetku postopka in ki je veljala do leta 2001, uporabljala po vsej Italiji in ne le na enem posameznem geografskem območju.
They also noted that, according to Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, this was a measure of price policy, but did not constitute a tariff obligation subject to mandatory compensation within the meaning of that Regulation.
Prav tako so poudarili, da je bil v skladu s členom 2(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 to ukrep cenovne politike, pa ne tarifna obveznost, za katero je treba obvezno plačati nadomestilo v smislu te uredbe.
Furthermore, according to the Italian authorities, as of July 1992 [19], unilateral public service impositions for inter-regional bus services were not even allowed under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Poleg tega po mnenju italijanskih organov od julija 1992 [19] enostranska naložitev obveznosti javnih služb za medregionalni avtobusni prevoz v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69 sploh ni bila dovoljena.
Article 1(5) of that Regulation allows unilateral impositions only for urban, suburban and regional services.
Člen 1(5) te uredbe dovoljuje enostransko naložitev obveznosti le za mestne, primestne in regionalne storitve.
In any event, the Italian authorities noted that Simet never applied for the termination of public service obligations as required by Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which it considers a prerequisite for maintaining that the obligations in question existed.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da družba Simet vsekakor nikoli ni zahtevala prenehanja obveznosti javnih služb, kot predvideva člen 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, na čemer po njenem mnenju temelji trditev, da so zadevne obveznosti obstajale.
Simet’s 1999 request addressed to the Ministry [20] was a generic request for compensation for public service obligations allegedly imposed by the concessions issued from 1987 onwards.
Zahtevek družbe Simet iz leta 1999, naslovljen na Ministrstvo [20], je bil splošni zahtevek za nadomestilo za opravljanje obveznosti javne službe, ki so bile družbi domnevno naložene s koncesijami, izdanimi po letu 1987.
The Italian authorities pointed out that that request did not indicate which public service obligations were to be terminated to ensure appropriate profitability of the inter-regional scheduled bus services.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da v zahtevku ni bilo opredeljeno, katere obveznosti javnih služb bi bilo treba ukiniti, da bi zagotovili ustrezno donosnost medregionalnega linijskega avtobusnega prevoza.
Consequently, the Italian authorities concluded that Simet had not shown that it took responsibility for public service obligations (as defined in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69) and had, in particular, not shown to which specific and precise obligations to operate or to carry, and to which fare obligations, it had been subject.
Na podlagi tega so italijanski organi ugotovili, da družba Simet ni dokazala, da je prevzela odgovornost za opravljanje obveznosti javnih služb (kot so opredeljene v členu 2(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69), predvsem pa ni dokazala, katere specifične in natanko določene obveznosti upravljanja ali izvajanja prevoza ter katere tarifne obveznosti je morala izvajati.
According to Italy, Simet had demonstrated only that it carried out various universal transport services on the basis of state concessions granted by the responsible authorities, issued at the company’s request.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov je družba Simet dokazala le, da je izvajala različne univerzalne prevozne storitve na podlagi državnih koncesij, ki so jih odobrili odgovorni organi in ki so bile izdane na zahtevo družbe.
The entrusting of universal transport services to Simet did not in itself show that Simet took on any public service obligation within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Naložitev univerzalnih prevoznih storitev družbi Simet sama po sebi ni dokazala, da je družba Simet prevzela kakršno koli obveznost javnih služb v smislu Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Italian authorities further noted that, for the largest part of the period under review (1987-2001), Simet did not implement proper accounting separation as required by Article 1(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 [21].
Poleg tega so italijanski organi poudarili, da družba Simet v skoraj celotnem obravnavanem obdobju (1987–2001) ni izvajala ustreznega ločevanja računov iz člena 1(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 [21].
It was therefore not possible to calculate the additional net costs resulting from the fulfilment of the public service obligations, which meant that the conditions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 were not met.
Zato ni bilo mogoče izračunati dodatnih neto stroškov, ki izhajajo iz izvajanja obveznosti javnih služb, kar je pomenilo, da pogoji iz člena 10 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 niso bili izpolnjeni.
Finally, the Italian authorities pointed out that the Ministry did not establish any compensation amounts in advance, as required by Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, since it did not impose any public service obligations on Simet.
Nazadnje so italijanski organi poudarili, da Ministrstvo ni vnaprej določilo zneskov nadomestila, kot zahteva člen 13 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, saj družbi Simet ni naložilo nobenih obveznosti javnih služb.
In the present case, the compensation owed to Simet had been exclusively calculated on the basis of an ex post assessment.
V tem primeru je bilo nadomestilo, dolgovano družbi Simet, izračunano izključno na podlagi naknadne ocene.
The Italian authorities considered that an assessment under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 raised largely the same issues as an assessment under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (including absence of a clearly defined public service obligations, absence of the objective compensation parameters decided in advance, absence of account separation, etc.) With regard to the concept of ‘reasonable profit’, as set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, the Italian authorities considered the rate of return proposed by Simet in the initial report to be inflated for a situation where compensation was determined ex post and eliminated the risk of unforeseen costs/losses.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov je ocena v okviru Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 večinoma poudarila ista vprašanja kot ocena v okviru Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 (vključno z odsotnostjo jasno določenih obveznosti javnih služb, odsotnostjo vnaprej določenih objektivnih parametrov za izračun nadomestila, odsotnostjo sistema ločevanja računov itd.). V zvezi s pojmom „primernega dobička“ iz priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007 so italijanski organi mnenja, da je stopnja donosnosti, ki jo je družba Simet predlagala v začetnem poročilu, prekomerna, z ozirom na to, da je nadomestilo izračunano naknadno in odpravlja tveganje nepredvidenih stroškov/izgub.
The Italian authorities fully endorsed the findings of the minority report, which concluded that the amount of the compensation could not be calculated.
Italijanski organi so v celoti podprli ugotovitve poročila manjšine, v katerem je bilo sklenjeno, da zneska nadomestila ni bilo mogoče izračunati.
At the same time, they considered that the majority report contained certain material and methodological errors.
Hkrati je poročilo večine po njihovem mnenju vsebovalo določene vsebinske in metodološke napake.
For example, the Italian authorities doubted the appropriateness of the assumption-based method used in that report for estimating the net operating costs of the alleged public service obligations.
Italijanski organi so na primer dvomili v ustreznost metode, ki je temeljila na domnevah ter je bila v tem poročilu uporabljena za oceno neto stroškov poslovanja za domnevne obveznosti javnih služb.
They also contested the fact that that report:
Prav tako so poročilu očitajo, da:
does not limit the sum of capital employed to the capital attributable to the public service obligations, but takes the entire capital employed for the purposes of calculating the compensation; that is, the capital used for other business activities of the company, such as travel agencies, international services, bus hire with driver, is not excluded from those calculations;
ne omejuje vsote vloženega kapitala na kapital, pripisan obveznostim javnih služb, vendar pri izračunu nadomestila upošteva celotni vloženi kapital, kar pomeni, da kapital, ki se uporablja za druge poslovne dejavnosti družbe, kot so potovalne in mednarodne storitve, najem avtobusa z voznikom itd., ni izvzet iz teh izračunov,
The experts appointed by the Council of State applied legal interest on amounts totally re-valued in 2012 and not on the original amounts, as would have been appropriate.
ne vsebuje ustreznega izračuna obresti, z ozirom na to da zneski nadomestila niso bili plačani v letih, za katera so bili določeni; svetovalci, ki jih je imenoval državni svet, so zakonite obresti zaračunali na zneskih, ki so bili popolnoma prevrednoteni za leto 2012, ne pa na prvotnih zneskih, kot bi bilo ustrezno.
The only third party to submit observations in response to the opening decision was Simet, the potential beneficiary of the notified measure.
Edina tretja stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba Simet, tj. morebitna upravičenka priglašenega ukrepa.
In its submissions, Simet disagreed with the preliminary positions taken by the Commission in the opening decision.
Družba Simet se v svojih navedbah ni strinjala s prehodnimi stališči, ki jih je sprejela Komisija v sklepu o začetku postopka.
To substantiate its claim that obligations were imposed on it, Simet submitted the concessions awarded to it for the routes covered by the court proceedings.
Družba Simet je z namenom, da bi podprla svojo trditev, da so ji bile naložene obveznosti, predložila koncesije, ki so ji bile podeljene za proge, obravnavane v sodnih postopkih.
According to Simet, the requirements stipulated in those concessions included, inter alia, the fares, stability of the itinerary, stops, frequency and timing of the service.
Po mnenju družbe Simet so zahteve, določene v teh koncesijah, med drugim vključevale prevoznine, stalnost itinerarja, postanke, pogostost in vozni red.
They also included the conditions regulating the transportation of passengers’ luggage, and the free carriage of ordinary letters for the postal service and of other mail against payment of the fee laid down by the provisions governing such carriage.
Prav tako so vključevale pogoje, ki urejajo prevoz prtljage potnikov ter brezplačen prevoz navadnih pisem za poštno službo in druge pošte proti plačilu provizije, ki je navedena v določbah, ki urejajo tak prevoz.
Those concessions also required the company to report all interruptions, accidents and changes to the service and contained obligations to issue tickets for the transportation of passengers, luggage and agricultural packages and to keep the relevant records for five years.
Te koncesije so družbi nalagale tudi obveznost poročanja o vseh prekinitvah, nesrečah in spremembah storitev, vsebovale pa so tudi obveznost izdajanja vozovnic za prevoz potnikov, prtljage in kmetijskih paketov ter vodenja ustrezne evidence za obdobje petih let.
Also, Simet had to obtain prior authorisation from the Ministry’s Provincial Motor Vehicle Offices concerning the type and characteristics of buses to be used for services covered by concessions as well as for providing other services.
Prav tako je morala družba Simet pridobiti predhodno dovoljenje od pokrajinskih enot Ministrstva za motorna vozila v zvezi z vrsto in značilnostmi avtobusov, ki jih bo uporabljala za storitve, zajete v koncesijah, in za zagotavljanje drugih storitev.
Simet also submitted what it claimed were full or partial refusals of the Ministry to grant changes to the details of the services provided by it.
Družba Simet je predložila tudi po njenem mnenju popolne ali delne zavrnitve Ministrstva v zvezi z njenimi zahtevki za spremembo podrobnosti storitev, ki jih zagotavlja.
For the period under review, Simet submitted (partial) refusals with respect to [22]:
Za obravnavano obdobje je družba Simet predložila (delne) zavrnitve v zvezi z [22]:
applications to operate new stops in addition to those of its existing scheduled services on the Rossano-Naples link (1992), on the Cariati-Milan link (1995), on the Cosenza-Florence link (1999), on the Cosenza-Florence and Cosenza-Pisa link (2000), and on the San Giovanni-Milan link (2003);
zahtevki za uvedbo novih postajališč poleg postajališč, ki že obstajajo v okviru linijskega prevoza na povezavah Rossano–Neapelj (1992), Cariati–Milano (1995), Cosenza–Firence (1999), Cosenza–Firence in Cosenza–Pisa (2000) ter San Giovanni–Milano (2003),
an application for authorisation to operate new scheduled services on the Cosenza-Naples link (2000).
zahtevkom za dovoljenje za opravljanje novega linijskega prevoza na povezavi Cosenza–Neapelj (2000).
Simet considers that these refusals demonstrate the unilateral nature of the imposition of public service obligations by the Italian authorities.
Družba Simet meni, da te zavrnitve izražajo enostransko naravo naložitve obveznosti javnih služb s strani italijanskih organov.
Simet further claims that the authorities did not allow for the ‘optimisation’ of transport links through expansion and diversification of supply.
Poleg tega družba Simet trdi, da organi niso omogočili „optimizacije“ prometnih povezav z razširitvijo in povečanjem raznolikosti ponudbe.
Transport links have in fact been ‘frozen’ and, therefore, remained tied to ministerial decisions, although formally classified as ‘business activity’.
Prometne povezave so bile dejansko „zamrznjene“, zato so ostale vezane na ministrske sklepe, čeprav se formalno uvrščajo v „poslovno dejavnost“.