natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Simet disagrees with the claim in recital 16 of the opening decision that the fares proposed by the company were reflected in the annual concession specifications.
Družba Simet se ne strinja s trditvijo v uvodni izjavi 16 sklepa o začetku postopka, da so bile prevoznine, ki jih je predlagala družba, upoštevane v specifikacijah letnih koncesij.
Initially, the fares for long-distance routes had to be similar to those for second-class rail travel.
Prvotno so morale biti prevoznine za proge na dolge razdalje podobne prevozninam v železniškem prevozu drugega razreda.
The Ministry’s circular No A/7302 of 3 July 1992 stipulated that for that year the fare should be increased by 6,1 % for bus lines under state responsibility.
Okrožnica Ministrstva št. A/7302 z dne 3. julija 1992 je določila, da bi bilo treba prevoznino za avtobusne povezave v državni pristojnosti v zadevnem letu povišati za 6,1 %.
According to Simet, this circular, by which the Ministry authorised fare increases merely to align them with ISTAT figures, confirms that it was impossible for the company to charge the fares it thought appropriate on its own initiative.
Po mnenju družbe Simet ta okrožnica, s katero je Ministrstvo odobrilo povišanje prevoznin zgolj z namenom njihove uskladitve s podatki inštituta ISTAT, potrjuje, da ni smela na lastno pobudo zaračunati prevoznin, ki so se ji zdele ustrezne.
Simet further notes that the Ministry’s circular No 3/02 of 5 April 2002, which lays down how the fares should be converted from lire to euros, states (in point (2) that the fares in question are ‘regulated fares and prices’.
Poleg tega Simet poudarja, da iz točke 2 okrožnice Ministrstva št. 3/02 z dne 5. aprila 2002 izhaja, da je Ministrstvo pri navajanju postopkov za preračunavanje tarif iz lir v eure potrdilo, da so obravnavane prevoznine sodile k „reguliranim“ prevozninam in cenam.
Finally, the concessions issued by the Ministry state that the fare is ‘laid down’ (stabilita), i.e. decisively fixed by the administration.
Treba je še poudariti, da koncesije, ki jih je izdalo Ministrstvo, navajajo, da je prevoznina „določena“ (stabilita), tj. dokončno določena s strani uprave.
Not being a simple ‘authorisation’ but a ‘concession’, the corresponding specifications expressly state that the provision of services is ‘governed by the clauses laid down, and those which may be subsequently laid down’ and that ‘the administration may withdraw the concession at any time and the operator may make no claim of any kind’.
Ker ne gre zgolj za „dovoljenje“, ampak za „koncesijo“, ustrezne specifikacije izrecno navajajo, da opravljanje storitev „urejajo klavzule, ki so določene, in klavzule, ki se lahko določijo pozneje“, ter da „lahko uprava kadar koli prekliče koncesijo, izvajalec pa ne sme vložiti nikakršnega zahtevka“.
Point 6 of each of the concession specifications states clearly that the timetables and the fares are to be those approved by the Provincial Motor Vehicle Office of the Ministry.
Točka 6 posameznih specifikacij koncesij jasno navaja, da mora vozne rede in prevoznine odobriti pokrajinska enota Ministrstva za motorna vozila.
Simet argues that since fixed fares preclude any flexibility in the services that can be offered to users, it was not allowed to react to the demands of the market or its own needs as it saw fit.
Družba Simet trdi, da fiksne prevoznine izključujejo kakršno koli prilagodljivost storitev, ki se lahko ponujajo uporabnikom, zato se ni smela odzivati na zahteve trga ali lastne potrebe, kot se ji je zdelo ustrezno.
By being obliged to charge the fares imposed upon it, Simet claims it was prevented from implementing pricing policies that would usually be practised by an undertaking in a modern, free and competitive market.
Družba Simet trdi, da je morala zaračunavati prevoznine, ki so ji bile naložene, zato ni mogla izvajati cenovne politike, ki bi jo običajno izvajalo podjetje na sodobnem, prostem in konkurenčnem trgu.
On the one hand, Simet stresses that the level of the fares imposed by the Ministry (equivalence to the second-class rail fares charged by Ferrovie dello Stato) were so low that the company was unable to cover the costs of operating the bus services.
Na eni strani družba Simet poudarja, da je bila raven prevoznin, ki jo je določilo Ministrstvo (enakovredna prevozninam v železniškem prevozu drugega razreda, ki jih zaračunava družba Ferrovie dello Stato), tako nizka, da ni mogla kriti stroškov izvajanja avtobusnega prevoza.
On the other hand, these measures have enabled the state to provide unjustified support to its rail company, Ferrovie dello Stato, since concession holders of inter-regional bus service such as Simet were prevented from applying fares lower than the fares charged by that company for a second-class ticket with express train supplement.
Na drugi strani so ti ukrepi državi omogočili zagotavljanje neupravičene podpore železniški družbi Ferrovie dello Stato, saj imetniki koncesij za medregionalni avtobusni prevoz, kot je Simet, niso smeli uporabljati prevoznin, nižjih od tistih, ki jih zaračunava zgornja družba za vozovnice drugega razreda z doplačilom za ekspresni vlak.
Ferrovie dello Stato was further favoured by the fact that subsidies were refused to Simet and other companies providing similar services.
Družbi Ferrovie dello Stato je delovalo v prid tudi dejstvo, da družba Simet in druge družbe, ki zagotavljajo podobne storitve, niso prejele subvencij.
In light of the above, Simet considers that the concessions issued by the Ministry and subsequent decisions rejecting the requests for changes to the routes show that those concessions fulfil the criteria of a service contract within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 in providing for obligations with respect to routes, stops, fares, free carriage of ordinary letters for the postal services and of other mail against payment of the fee laid down by the provisions governing such carriage.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno družba Simet meni, da koncesije, ki jih je izdalo Ministrstvo, in poznejši sklepi o zavrnitvi zahtevkov za spremembo prog kažejo, da te koncesije izpolnjujejo merila iz pogodbe o storitvah v smislu člena 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 pri določanju obveznosti v zvezi s progami, postajališči, prevozninami, brezplačnim prevozom navadnih pisem za poštno službo in druge pošte proti plačilu provizije, navedene v določbah, ki urejajo tak prevoz.
Even assuming Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 did not provide for any right to compensation for holders of inter-regional concessions, as argued by the Ministry, Simet contends that this would mean that the service had been liberalised and, as such, the administration could not impose any obligations, in particular those concerning fares, on the undertaking.
Tudi ob predpostavki, da Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 ni predvidela nobene pravice do nadomestila za imetnike medregionalnih koncesij, kot trdi Ministrstvo, Simet meni, da bi to pomenilo, da so bile storitve liberalizirane in da zato uprava podjetjem ne bi smela naložiti nobenih obveznosti, zlasti ne obveznosti v zvezi s prevozninami.
Simet therefore considers that the Ministry acted in breach of the law and that under national law (i.e. Article 35 of Legislative Decree No 80/1998 applied by the Council of State) compensation for damages is due.
Glede na to Simet meni, da je Ministrstvo kršilo zakon in da je treba v skladu z nacionalnim zakonom (tj. člen 35 zakonodajnega odloka št. 80/1998, ki ga uporablja državni svet) plačati nadomestilo za škodo.
For Simet, what is at stake is not a case of the type governed by Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, but a dispute over damages.
Pri družbi Simet ne gre za tak primer, kot ga ureja Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69, temveč za spor v zvezi z odškodnino.
Simet notes that judgment 1405/2010 recognised Simet’s entitlement to damages under Article 35 of Legislative Decree No 80/1998 to compensate for the harm caused by the Ministry’s unlawful decisions refusing to abolish the public service obligations imposed on Simet.
Simet ugotavlja, da je sodba št. 1405/2010 priznala njeno pravico do nadomestila v skladu s členom 35 zakonodajnega odloka št. 80/1998 za škodo, ki so ji jo povzročile nezakonite odločitve Ministrstva o zavrnitvi odprave obveznosti javnih služb, ki so ji bile naložene.
Those decisions, which breached the right to freedom of enterprise anchored in Article 41 of the Italian Constitution, since they caused material loss to the company in the running of its business activity, therefore had to be deemed unlawful and, as such, entitled the company to repayment of the losses suffered.
Te odločitve, ki so kršile svobodo gospodarske pobude, zapisno v členu 41 italijanske ustave, saj so družbi povzročile bistveno izgubo pri opravljanju poslovne dejavnosti, naj bi bilo zato treba obravnavati kot nezakonite, kar naj bi družbi dajalo pravico do povračila povzročene izgube.
The Council of State recognised that the Ministry had caused unjustified injury to Simet by obliging it to perform public service obligations in breach of its right to provide a transport service freely and independently.
Državni svet je priznal, da je Ministrstvo družbi Simet povzročilo neutemeljeno škodo, ko ji je naložilo obveznost opravljanja obveznosti javnih služb, kar je kršilo njeno pravico do svobodnega in neodvisnega zagotavljanja prevoznih storitev.
If, however, it is assumed that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, as amended, allowed the administration to impose public service obligations to meet the needs of the region, Simet considers that the Ministry was obliged to provide for payment to compensate such obligations.
Če pa se domneva, da je Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69, kakor je bila spremenjena, dovolila upravi nalaganje obveznosti javnih služb, da bi zadovoljila potrebe regije, družba Simet meni, da bi moralo Ministrstvo plačati nadomestilo za opravljanje teh obveznosti.
According to Simet, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 allows service obligations to be imposed to ‘meet the transport needs of a region’ and not ‘in a region’ (Article 1(2)).
Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 namreč po mnenju družbe Simet dovoljuje naložitev obveznosti javnih služb za „zadovoljevanje potreb regije po prevoznih storitvah“ in ne „v regiji“ (člen 1(2)).
COMMENTS FROM ITALY ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS
PRIPOMBE ITALIJE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJE STRANI
In their comments on the third party comments, the Italian authorities reiterated their position that no public service obligations within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 existed and that no compensation was due.
Italijanski organi so v pripombah na pripombe tretje strani ponovili svoje stališče, da niso bile naložene nikakršne obveznosti javnih služb v smislu Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 ali Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 ter da ni treba plačati nikakršnega nadomestila.
To substantiate their position, the Italian authorities further explained the system which governed the operation of scheduled passenger transport services by bus under Law No 1822/39 [23] (law applicable during the period under consideration).
Da bi podprli svoje stališče, so italijanski organi natančneje pojasnili sistem, ki je urejal opravljanje storitev linijskega potniškega avtobusnega prevoza v skladu z zakonom št. 1822/39 [23] (zakon, ki se je uporabljal v obravnavanem obdobju).
According to this law, the regulatory framework for scheduled services under state responsibility (also known as ‘ordinary scheduled bus services’) was as follows:
V skladu s tem zakonom se je za linijski prevoz v državni pristojnosti (znan tudi kot „redni linijski avtobusni prevoz“) uporabljal naslednji regulativni okvir:
The service was operated under a system of concessions.
storitve so se opravljale v okviru sistema koncesij;
Concessions were awarded upon application by the undertakings.
koncesije so bile podeljene na zahtevo podjetij;
No selection procedures for the award of concessions were provided for or carried out.
za podeljevanje koncesij niso bili predvideni ali izvedeni nikakršni postopki za izbor;
The concessions gave operators the exclusive right to operate the service on the route identified in the concession specification.
koncesije so dale izvajalcem izključno pravico do opravljanja prevozov na progi, določeni v specifikaciji koncesije;
Concession holders were awarded preferential consideration based on the catchment areas served, defined on the basis of the ‘finitimità’ criterion, that is, of bus route proximity and economic and functional interconnection (Articles 5 and 6 of Law No 1822/39).
imetnikom koncesij je bila odobrena preferenčna obravnava glede na območje, v katerem so opravljali storitve, to pa je bilo določeno na podlagi merila „mejaštva“, tj. glede na bližino avtobusne proge ter medsebojno gospodarsko in funkcionalno povezanost (člena 5 in 6 zakona št. 1822/39);
Consequently, whenever undertakings lodged applications for a change to an existing service or for an award of a concession for new services, the Ministry had to base its decision on that legal framework.
Zato je moralo Ministrstvo, kadar so podjetja vložila zahtevke za spremembo obstoječe storitve ali podelitev koncesije za nove storitve, sprejeti odločitev na podlagi tega pravnega okvira.
Concerning full or partial refusals by the Ministry to grant the changes requested by Simet with respect to the services provided, the Italian authorities noted that these were solely related to the system as governed by Law 1822/39.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da so popolne ali delne zavrnitve Ministrstva v zvezi s spremembami, ki jih je zahtevala družba Simet glede storitev, ki jih opravlja, temeljile zgolj na sistemu, ki ga ureja zakon 1822/39.
The Ministry could not agree to grant new concessions to provide new services or to extend the scope of existing concessions (by accepting new stops) in cases where this would have impinged on the rights of other scheduled service operators, as defined in that Law.
Ministrstvo ni moglo odobriti novih koncesij za zagotavljanje novih storitev ali razširitev področja uporabe obstoječih koncesij (z uvedbo novih postajališč), kjer bi to posegalo v pravice drugih izvajalcev linijskega prevoza, kot določa zadevni zakon.
At the same time, the Ministry accepted the changes which did not contradict the principles laid down in Law 1822/39 [25].
Vendar je Ministrstvo sprejelo spremembe, ki niso nasprotovale načelom iz zakona št. 1822/39 [25].
While acknowledging that Simet was refused authorisation to provide new services or to add additional stops to the existing services on a number of occasions, the Italian authorities contend that Simet’s submissions and annexed documents fail to provide evidence of formal requests to change the details of the services provided as laid down in existing concession specifications, followed by refusals.
Čeprav je treba priznati, da je bilo družbi Simet večkrat zavrnjeno zagotavljanje novih storitev ali uvajanje dodatnih postajališč v okviru obstoječih storitev, italijanski organi trdijo, da navedbe in priloženi dokumenti družbe Simet ne dokazujejo, da je vložila formalne zahtevke za spremembo podrobnosti storitev, ki jih opravlja, kot je določeno v specifikacijah obstoječih koncesij, zato so bile njene zahteve zavrnjene.
In any event, the Ministry never rejected Simet’s requests for the removal of stops in sparsely populated areas or for changes to the timetables.
Ministrstvo vsekakor nikoli ni zavrnilo zahtevkov družbe Simet za odstranitev postajališč v redko poseljenih območjih ali za spremembo voznih redov.
Concerning the clauses of the concession specifications on the transportation of postal items, the Italian authorities claim that Simet did not furnish any evidence documenting the services actually provided and the net cost involved.
V zvezi z določbami o prevozu poštnih pošiljk iz specifikacij koncesij italijanski organi trdijo, da družba Simet ni predložila nikakršnih dokazov o storitvah, ki so bile dejansko zagotovljene, in o neto stroških, povezanih z njimi.
The Italian authorities further noted that Simet produced no documentary evidence that the Ministry rejected its applications for fare changes.
Italijanski organi so poudarili tudi, da družba Simet ni zagotovila nikakršnega dokazila, da je Ministrstvo zavrnilo njene zahtevke za spremembe prevoznin.
Furthermore, Simet never asked for authorisation to reduce fares.
Poleg tega družba Simet nikoli ni zaprosila za dovoljenje za znižanje prevoznin.
As regards the memo of the Ministry of Transport of 19 December 1988 (D.C. III Div 32 No 3846) and the subsequent ministerial circular No A/66 of 10 January 1989 (issued by the Ministry’s Provincial Motor Vehicle Office of Catanzaro), according to the Italian authorities these documents allowed scheduled service providers to align their fares with the fares of Ferrovie dello Stato and had to be viewed as part of a wider national transport policy and a wider pricing policy.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov sta memorandum Ministrstva za promet z dne 19. decembra 1988 (D.C. III Div 32 št. 3846) in poznejša okrožnica Ministrstva št. A/66 z dne 10. januarja 1989 (ki jo je izdala pokrajinska enota Ministrstva za motorna vozila Catanzaro) dovoljevala izvajalcem linijskega avtobusnega prevoza, da prevoznine uskladijo s prevozninami družbe Ferrovie dello Stato, zato bi ju bilo treba obravnavati kot del širše nacionalne prometne politike in širše cenovne politike.
The same should be said of the letter from the Provincial Office of Catanzaro No 7302 of 3 July 1992 (also referred to by Simet) aimed at enabling scheduled bus service operators to raise fares by up to 6,1 % in line with inflation, implementing circular No 801/92 [26].
Enako bi bilo treba obravnavati dopis pokrajinske enote Catanzaro št. 7302 z dne 3. julija 1992 (na katerega se sklicuje družba Simet), katerega namen je bil omogočiti izvajalcem linijskega avtobusnega prevoza, da povišajo prevoznine za največ 6,1 % v skladu z inflacijo, kot je navedeno v okrožnici o izvajanju št. 801/92 [26].
That letter also points out that undertakings could operate under a different fare scheme, provided they submitted a specific application.
Ta dopis prav tako poudarja, da bi lahko podjetja poslovala v okviru različnega sistema prevoznin, če bi predložila poseben zahtevek.
The Italian authorities note that no such application was ever submitted by Simet.
Italijanski organi poudarjajo, da družba Simet nikoli ni predložila takšnega zahtevka.
In any event, neither the ministerial memo of 1988 nor the Ministry’s 1992 letter constituted a rejection of any application from Simet for termination of a public service obligation relating to fares.
V vsakem primeru niti memorandum Ministrstva iz leta 1988 niti dopis Ministrstva iz leta 1992 nista pomenila zavrnitve kakršnega koli zahtevka družbe Simet za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe v zvezi s prevozninami.
The Italian authorities also disagree with Simet’s contention that point 2 of circular No 3/02 of 5 April 2002 proves that the fares for the scheduled service were set by the Ministry.
Prav tako se italijanski organi ne strinjajo s trditvijo družbe Simet, da točka 2 okrožnice št. 3/02 z dne 5. aprila 2002 dokazuje, da je prevoznine za linijski prevoz določilo Ministrstvo.
That circular merely provided instructions for converting fares in lire to euros.
Ta okrožnica je zagotovila zgolj navodila za pretvorbo prevoznin iz lir v eure.
The fact that long-distance scheduled transport fares were referred to as being ‘regulated’ fares does not mean that they were not set by the operators.
Dejstvo, da so se prevoznine pri linijskem prevozu na dolge razdalje obravnavale kot „regulirane“ prevoznine, ne pomeni, da jih niso določili izvajalci.
Rather, this meant that those were fares which were set in advance in the interests of transparency and publicity for passengers and subsequently authorised by the competent ministerial services.
Nasprotno je to pomenilo, da so bile te prevoznine določene vnaprej zaradi preglednosti in obveščanja potnikov, pozneje pa so jih odobrile pristojne ministrske službe.
Since the service is a scheduled universal service, the details of the services provided, such as routes, bus stops, timetables and fares, must be known in advance, in contrast to occasional services.
Ker gre za redne univerzalne storitve linijskega prevoza, morajo biti podrobnosti o zagotovljenih storitvah, kot so proge, avtobusna postajališča, vozni redi in prevoznine, za razliko od občasnih storitev znane vnaprej.
According to the Italian authorities, the same principle exists at Union level for regular services, which are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council [27], according to which fares are an integral part of the authorisations for regular services (Article 6(2) of that Regulation).
Po mnenju italijanskih organov se enaka načela uporabljajo za linijski prevoz na ravni Unije, ki ga ureja Uredba (ES) št. 1073/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [27], v skladu s katero so prevoznine sestavni del dovoljenj za opravljanje linijskih prevozov (člen 6(2) navedene uredbe).
In light of these advance scheduling requirements, the Italian authorities also contest Simet’s interpretation of point No 6 of the concession specifications [28], as both Simet’s application and the Ministry’s concession specification referred to pre-set timetables and fares for the scheduled services.
Ob upoštevanju teh zahtev glede vnaprejšnjega načrtovanja italijanski organi izpodbijajo tudi razlago točke 6 specifikacij koncesij [28] s strani družbe Simet, saj sta se tako zahtevek družbe Simet kot specifikacija koncesije, ki jo je pripravilo Ministrstvo, sklicevala na predhodno določene vozne rede in prevoznine za linijske prevoze.
As regards the amount of compensation demanded, Simet claimed only ‘compensation ... within the limits of the amounts proven to be due’.
Družba Simet je v zvezi z zneskom nadomestila zahtevala le „nadomestilo […] v mejah zneskov, ki jih je treba dokazano povrniti“.
According to the Italian authorities, the cost calculations produced over time by Simet are generic, as they cover its entire business activity, and also objectively incorrect and not based on reliable data, given the absence of account separation for the majority of the period under review.
Italijanski organi menijo, da so obračuni stroškov, ki jih je skozi čas opravila družba Simet, splošni, saj zajemajo vso njeno poslovno dejavnost, prav tako pa objektivno niso pravilni in ne temeljijo na zanesljivih podatkih glede na to, da se v skoraj celotnem obravnavanem obdobju ni izvajalo ločevanje računov.
The Italian authorities consider it entirely irrelevant whether the case in question concerns the award of public service compensation (hence, the direct application of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69) or the award of damages.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov je popolnoma nepomembno, ali ta primer zadeva dodelitev nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe (neposredna uporaba Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69) ali odškodnine.
Even supposing that the Council of State meant to recognise Simet’s entitlement to damages, which according to the Italian authorities is neither a foregone nor an obvious conclusion based on a reading of judgment 1405/2010 [29], any damage incurred could only arise from the operation of public service obligations.
Tudi ob predpostavki, da je nameraval državni svet priznati upravičenost družbe Simet do odškodnine, ki po mnenju italijanskih organov ni niti neizogiben niti očiten sklep obravnave sodbe št. 1405/2010 [29], bi lahko vsaka povzročena škoda izhajala zgolj iz opravljanja obveznosti javnih služb.
The Italian authorities insist that no such obligations have ever been imposed on Simet.
Italijanski organi vztrajajo, da družbi Simet nikoli niso naložili takšnih obveznosti.
Finally, the Italian authorities disagree that compensatory damages are required by Article 41 of the Italian Constitution.
Poleg tega italijanski organi ne soglašajo z ustreznostjo priznanja odškodnine v skladu s členom 41 italijanske ustave.