natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The measure is thus imputable to the State and the resources from which that compensation has been paid are state resources.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da nadomestilo, dodeljeno s sodbo sodišča Consiglio di Stato, zaradi odsotnosti potrebnih in zanesljivih podatkov temelji izključno na naknadnem izračunu po „induktivni metodi“.
Selective economic advantage
Zato je sklenila, da parametri, na podlagi katerih sta strokovnjaka, ki ju je imenovalo sodišče Consiglio di Stato, izračunala domnevno nezadostno nadomestilo, niso bila določena vnaprej, zaradi česar se zdi, da drugi pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark v zvezi z nepriglašenim ukrepom ni bil izpolnjen.
The Commission notes at the outset that CSTP is engaged in an economic activity, namely passenger transport for remuneration.
Glede na kumulativno naravo pogojev iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark Komisiji ni treba proučiti, ali sta v tem primeru izpolnjena preostala pogoja iz navedene sodbe.
Therefore, CSTP should be considered an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Na podlagi tega plačilo dodatnega nadomestila družbi CSTP za storitve, opravljene v obravnavanem obdobju, daje slednji selektivno gospodarsko prednost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The granting of the measure should also be considered selective, since it will only benefit CSTP.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in učinek na trgovino med državami članicami
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 as consideration for PSOs imposed on them does not confer such an advantage on the undertakings concerned, and hence does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that four cumulative conditions are satisfied:
Družba CSTP je v svojih pripombah trdila, da italijanski trg javnega prevoza v obravnavanem obdobju ni bil odprt konkurenci podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, tako da sporni ukrep ni mogel vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami ali izkrivljati konkurence.
First, the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge PSOs and those obligations have been clearly defined;
Komisija najprej poudarja, da je bil sporni ukrep izveden 21. decembra 2012, tj. dolgo po odprtju italijanskega trga javnega potniškega prevoza za konkurenco.
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner;
Ker so se takrat pojavili učinki obravnavanega ukrepa na trg, je treba tudi za takrat oceniti, ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco ali vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
Third, the compensation does 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;
Komisija v vsakem primeru nadalje poudarja, da je, kot je ugotovljeno v sodbi v zadevi Altmark, od leta 1995 več držav članic odprlo nekatere trge prevoza konkurenci podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, tako da je takrat več podjetij že ponujalo storitve rednega linijskega mestnega in primestnega ter regionalnega prevoza v državah članicah, ki niso njihova država članica izvora.
Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has 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.
Zato bi bilo treba šteti, da lahko vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi CSTP, izkrivlja konkurenco za opravljanje storitev avtobusnega potniškega prevoza in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami tako, da zmanjšuje sposobnost prevoznih podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, da opravljajo storitve Italiji, in krepi položaj družbe CSTP na trgu, saj ji znižuje stroške, ki jo sicer bremenijo v okviru izvajanja tekočih poslov ali splošnih dejavnosti.
The Altmark judgment requires all four conditions to be satisfied cumulatively to exclude the presence of an economic advantage where compensation is granted to undertakings as consideration for public service obligations imposed on them.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da družba CSTP deluje tudi na drugih trgih, tj. na trgih storitev oddajanja, čeprav jih je po njenem mnenju opravljala le leta 1998, in tako na teh trgih konkurira drugim družbam v Uniji.
The Commission notes first that neither the Italian authorities nor CSTP were able to provide it with any entrustment act related to the period under review and that CSTP has not been able to identify clearly obligations that it was required to discharge that could qualify as PSOs, as explained in more detail below in section 6.2, subsection (i).
Vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi CSTP, bi zagotovo izkrivilo konkurenco, vplivalo pa bi tudi na trgovino med državami članicami na teh trgih.
Second, the Commission observes that the compensation awarded by the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato is based solely on an ex post calculation using an ‘inductive method’ in the absence of necessary and reliable data.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission therefore concludes that the parameters on the basis of which the alleged undercompensation was calculated by the court-appointed experts were not established in advance and that therefore the second Altmark condition does not appear to have been complied with in relation to the non-notified measure.
Sklepna ugotovitev
Considering the cumulative nature of the Altmark conditions, there is no need for the Commission to examine whether the other two Altmark conditions have been met in the present case.
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da nepriglašeni ukrep pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Accordingly, the payment of an additional compensation to CSTP for services performed during the period under review confers on that company a selective economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
IZVZETJE IZ OBVEZNOSTI PRIGLASITVE V SKLADU Z UREDBO (EGS) ŠT. 1191/69
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
Po navedbah družbe CSTP je bilo plačilo, dodeljeno kot nadomestilo, izvzeto iz obveznosti priglasitve iz člena 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, saj ji je regija tarifno obveznost naložila enostransko, zneski pa ne pomenijo obveznosti javne službe na podlagi pogodbe o opravljanju storitev, temveč izhajajo iz pravilne uporabe izračuna v skladu s členom 11 navedene uredbe v okviru koncesije.
In its observations, CSTP argued that the market for public transport in Italy was not open to competition from undertakings established in other Member States during the period under review, so there could be no effect on trade between Member States or distortion of competition as a result of the disputed measure.
Družba CSTP je priznala, da te obveznosti javne službe niso bile določene v dokumentu o dodelitvi koncesije, saj slednji ne vsebuje nobenih omemb v zvezi z njimi, temveč so izhajale izključno iz internih aktov regije.
The Commission recalls, in the first place, that the disputed measure was implemented on 21 December 2012, long after the market for public passenger transport was opened to competition in Italy.
V skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 je nadomestilo, ki se izplača po tej uredbi, izvzeto iz postopka predhodnega obveščanja, določenega v členu 108(3) Pogodbe, in s tem tudi iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve.
Since it is at that point in time that the measure under review produces its effects on the market, it is also at that point in time that it must be assessed whether that measure is liable to distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Vendar je treba v skladu s sodbo v zadevi Combus pojem „nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe“ v smislu navedene določbe (člen 17(2)) razlagati zelo ozko.
In any event, the Commission further notes that, as observed in the Altmark judgment, since 1995 several Member States had started to open certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so a number of undertakings were already offering urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their State of origin by that point in time.
Izvzetje iz obveznosti priglasitve iz člena 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 zajema le nadomestilo za opravljanje obveznosti javne službe iz člena 2 navedene uredbe, ki so bile enostransko naložene podjetju, to nadomestilo pa se izračuna po metodi, opisani v členih od 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 navedene uredbe.
Therefore, any compensation granted to CSTP should be considered likely to distort competition for the provision of passenger transport services by bus and likely to affect trade between Member States to the extent that it impairs the ability of transport undertakings established in other Member States to offer their services in Italy and strengthens the market position of CSTP by releasing it from costs which it would normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or normal activities.
Nadomestilo, ki je plačano v skladu s pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe, kot je opredeljena v členu 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, in vključuje državno pomoč, je treba priglasiti Komisiji, preden začne veljati.
The Commission also notes that CSTP is active on other markets, i.e. rental services, even if according to CSTP they were rendered only in 1998, and thus competes with other companies within the Union on those markets.
V nasprotnem primeru se bo navedeno nadomestilo štelo za nezakonito izvedeno pomoč v skladu s členom 108 Pogodbe.
Any compensation granted to CSTP would necessarily also distort competition and affect trade between Member States on those markets as well.
Vprašanje, ali je člen 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 v tem primeru dejansko izvzel italijanske organe iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve, je zato odvisno od tega, (i) ali je regija družbi CSTP dejansko enostransko naložila obveznost javne službe in (ii) ali nadomestilo, plačano v skladu s to obveznostjo, izpolnjuje zahteve Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the measure distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
Komisija bo proučila obe vprašanji v ustreznem zaporedju.
Conclusion
Enostransko naložena obveznost javne službe
In light of the above, the Commission finds that the non-notified measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija poudarja, da ji niti italijanski organi niti družba CSTP niso predložili nobenega akta o pooblastitvi, ki bi se nanašal na obravnavano obdobje.
EXEMPTION FROM THE NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION UNDER REGULATION (EEC) No 1191/69
Družba CSTP ji je predložila le pogodbe, ki so bile izvedene od leta 2003.
According to CSTP, since the Region imposed the tariff obligation unilaterally on it and the amounts do not constitute PSOs under a service contract but stem from correct application of the calculation under Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 in the framework of a concession, the payment awarded as compensation was exempted from the notification requirement under Article 17(2) of that Regulation.
Italijanski organi trdijo, da je vzorčna koncesijska pogodba, ki so jo predložili in se je nanašala na drugo podjetje, standardna pogodba, ki se je uporabljala v regiji v obravnavanem obdobju.
CSTP admitted that these PSOs were not set out in the document awarding the concession, which made no mention of them, but transpired solely from internal acts of the Region.
Vendar je vzorčna koncesijska pogodba veljala le od aprila 1972 do decembra 1973, kar je več kot 20 let pred obravnavanim obdobjem in pred začetkom veljavnosti nacionalnega zakona št. 151/1981, ki je bil konsolidiran z regionalnim zakonom št. 16/1983, na podlagi katerega je družba CSTP prejela nadomestilo.
In accordance with Article 17(2) of 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 the prior notification requirement.
Čeprav se zdi, da navedena vzorčna koncesijska pogodba določa nekatere obveznosti, ki bi se lahko uvrščale med obveznosti javne službe (npr. v točkah 2, 9 in 10), vključno z obveznostjo uporabe popustov za študente, delavce, učitelje ter zaposlene v zasebnem in javnem sektorju ter obveznostjo zagotavljanja brezplačnega prevoza za nekatere kategorije potnikov, Komisija zaradi odsotnosti akta o pooblastitvi nima dokazov, da so navedene obveznosti v obravnavanem obdobju dejansko veljale za družbo CSTP.
However, it follows from the Combus judgment that the concept of ‘public service compensation’ within the meaning of that provision (Article 17(2)) must be interpreted in a very restrictive manner.
Glede na to, da so bile opravljane storitve del rednega linijskega prevoza, je bilo treba v predpisih o koncesijah, ki so družbi CSTP dale izključno pravico do opravljanja teh storitev, vnaprej določiti ureditev storitev, ki se bodo opravljale.
The exemption from notification provided by Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 covers only compensation for PSOs imposed unilaterally on an undertaking pursuant to Article 2 of that Regulation that is calculated using the method described in Articles 10 to 13 of the same Regulation (the common compensation procedure), and not public service contracts as defined by Article 14 of that Regulation.
Družba CSTP ni predložila dokazov, da ji je to ureditev enostransko naložila regija, namesto da bi jo predlagal izvajalec v zameno za izključno pravico do opravljanja storitev, regija pa bi jo pozneje odobrila.
Compensation paid pursuant to a public service contract as defined by Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 which entails state aid must be notified to the Commission before it is put into effect.
Metodologija, ki jo je sodni strokovnjak, ki ga je imenovalo sodišče Consiglio di Stato, uporabil za izračun domnevnega nezadostnega nadomestila, se v vsakem primeru ne nanaša na navedene obveznosti.
Failure to do so will result in that compensation being deemed unlawfully implemented aid in accordance with Article 108 of the Treaty.
Komisija je ocenila tudi, ali je obveznost javne službe razvidna iz regionalnega zakona št. 16/1983, ki sta ga tako regija kot tudi družba CSTP opredelili kot pravno podlago za nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi v obravnavanem obdobju (glej uvodni izjavi 23 in 40).
The question of whether Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 indeed released the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case thus depends first, (i) on whether a PSO was in fact unilaterally imposed on CSTP by the Region and, second, (ii) on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da navedeni regionalni zakon določa, da lahko javne prispevke prejmejo le subjekti in javna ali zasebna podjetja, ki opravljajo storitve lokalnega javnega prevoza v okviru koncesijske ureditve.
The Commission will examine both questions in turn.
Poleg tega je v členu 2 regionalnega zakona jasno navedeno, da se „[v]sakršna morebitna izguba ali primanjkljaj, ki ni krit z regionalnimi prispevki, kot je določeno zgoraj [v členu 2], […] še naprej obračunava v breme posameznih podjetij“.
PSO unilaterally imposed
Komisija nadalje poudarja, da so bile v regionalnih aktih, ki jih je predložila družba CSTP (glej uvodno izjavo 40), omenjene nekatere pogodbene obveznosti, ki so v obravnavanem obdobju veljale med družbo CSTP in regijo.
The Commission notes that neither the Italian authorities nor CSTP were able to provide it with any entrustment act related to the period under review.
Vendar v teh aktih niso jasno opredeljene obveznosti, ki bi se lahko uvrščale med obveznosti javne službe, čeprav ti akti kažejo na morebiten obstoj takih obveznosti.
CSTP only provided the Commission with contracts which were implemented as from 2003.
Poleg tega obstoj pogodbenih obveznosti izključuje enostransko naložitev obveznosti javne službe družbi CSTP.
The Italian authorities claim that the sample concession contract provided by them — which concerned another undertaking — was the standard one in use in the Region during the period under review.
Kar zadeva morebitni obstoj tarifne obveznosti, Komisija nima dokazov, da so bile take obveznosti dejansko enostransko naložene družbi CSTP, čeprav je strokovnjak, ki ga je imenovalo sodišče Consiglio di Stato, dodatno nadomestilo izračunal na podlagi člena 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
However, the sample concession contract was only valid from April 1972 to December 1973, which is more than 20 years before the period under review, and before the entry into force of national Law No 151/1981, as enacted by Regional Law No 16/1983, on which basis CSTP was compensated in the first instance.
V skladu s členom 2(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 so tarifne obveznosti omejene na „obveznosti, ki so uvedene za prevozna podjetja, da zlasti za določene skupine potnikov, določene skupine blaga ali na določenih voznih poteh uporabljajo tarife, ki jih določi ali odobri državni organ in so v nasprotju s poslovnimi interesi podjetja ter so posledica uvedbe posebnih tarifnih določb ali posledica zavrnitve spremembe le-teh“.
Although that sample concession contract would seem to provide for some obligations that could qualify as PSOs (e.g. at points 2, 9 and 10), including the duty to apply discounts for students, workers, teachers and private and public employees, and the duty to carry certain categories of passengers for free, the Commission has no evidence that the same obligations were actually applicable to CSTP during the period under review, because of the absence of an entrustment act.
V nasprotju s tem se opredelitev tarifnih obveznosti „ne [uporablja] za obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz splošnih ukrepov cenovne politike, ki velja za celotno gospodarstvo, ali ki izhajajo iz ukrepov na področju cen in splošnih pogojev prevoza, sprejetih z namenom vzpostavitve trga prometnih storitev ali njegovega dela“.
Rather, considering that the services provided were regular scheduled services, it was necessary for the concession regulations, which granted CSTP an exclusive right to provide those services, to specify in advance the arrangements of the services to be provided.
Komisija priznava, da so v točki 27 vzorčne koncesijske pogodbe iz leta 1972/1973 določene tarife, ki so se uporabljale za izvajalce, zajete s to pogodbo, vendar opozarja, da v zvezi z družbo CSTP za obravnavano obdobje ni prejela nobenega podobnega koncesijskega akta ali akta o pooblastitvi, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče sklepati o naložitvi takih obveznosti družbi.
CSTP has not provided evidence to show that those arrangements were unilaterally imposed by the Region, rather than proposed by the operator, in return for the right to provide services on an exclusive basis, and subsequently authorised by the Region.
Komisija v vsakem primeru poudarja, da je bilo v skladu s členom 2 regionalnega zakona št. 16/1983 letno nadomestilo podjetjem, ki opravljajo storitve javnega prevoza, izračunano naknadno kot razlika med prihodki iz uporabe minimalnih tarif in t. i. „standardnimi stroški“ (glej uvodno izjavo 23).
In any case, the methodology used by the court-appointed expert to calculate the alleged undercompensation does not refer to those obligations.
Zato je sklenila, da je regionalni zakon določal minimalne tarife, kar hkrati izključuje obstoj splošne tarifne obveznosti.
The Commission has also assessed whether a PSO could be inferred from Regional Law No 16/1983, it being the legal basis identified by both the Region and CSTP for the compensation granted to the company in the period under review (see recitals 23 and 40).
V vsakem primeru se zdi, da morebitna obveznost javne službe, ki bi jo družba CSTP morala opravljati, slednji ni bila enostransko naložena.
In this respect, it must be noted that that Regional Law only provides that entities and public or private undertakings providing public local transport services under a concession regime may receive public contributions.
Komisija v zvezi s tem poudarja, da je družba CSTP prevzela pobudo, ko je zahtevala obnovo koncesij za vseh sedem let obravnavanega obdobja.
Moreover, Article 2 of the Regional Law clearly states that ‘any possible loss or deficit not covered by the regional contributions as determined above [in Article 2] remains chargeable to the single undertakings’.
Poleg tega je regija po sodbi sodišča Consiglio di Stato iz leta 2009 večkrat zaprosila družbo CSTP za akte ali pogodbe o naložitvi obveznosti javne službe, da bi to sodbo izvršila.
The Commission further notes that the Regional acts provided by CSTP (see recital 40) mentioned some contractual obligations in place between CSTP and the Region in the period under review.
Po navedbah regije se družba ni nikoli odzvala.
However, those acts do not clearly identify obligations that could qualify as PSOs, despite being an indicator of their possible existence.
Trditev družbe CSTP, da so bili izvajalci na podlagi obveznosti javne službe dolžni upravljati proge, čeprav je regija večkrat znižala standardne stroške, in da bi se zoper izvajalce, ki bi dejansko prenehali s svojimi dejavnostmi, sprejeli pravni ukrepi zaradi prekinitve javne službe, ni bila podprta z dokazi, zato je v tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti v podporo ugotovitvi o enostransko naloženih obveznostih javne službe.
Moreover, the existence of contractual obligations excludes a PSO being unilaterally imposed on CSTP.
Skladnost nadomestila z enotnim postopkom za plačilo nadomestila
On the possible existence of a tariff obligation, although the calculation of additional compensation by the court-appointed expert was made on the basis of Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the Commission has no evidence that such obligations were in fact unilaterally imposed on CSTP.
Tudi če bi bilo v tem primeru dokazano, da so bile obveznosti javne službe družbi CSTP enostransko naložene, kar ne drži, bi moralo biti nadomestilo za opravljanje zadevnih storitev še vedno v skladu z enotnim postopkom za plačilo nadomestila iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 (oddelek IV), da bi bilo izvzeto iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) navedene uredbe.
According to Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 tariff obligations are limited to ‘obligation[s] imposed on transport undertakings to apply, in particular for certain categories of passenger, for certain categories of goods, or on certain routes, rates fixed or approved by any public authority which are contrary to the commercial interests of the undertaking and which result from the imposition of, or refusal to modify, special tariff provisions’.
Komisija meni, da ta pogoj ni izpolnjen.
By contrast, the definition of tariff obligations ‘shall not apply to obligations arising from general measures of price policy applying to the economy as a whole or to measures taken with respect to transport rates and conditions in general with a view to the organisation of the transport market or of part thereof’.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da morajo v skladu s členom 1(5)(a) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 prevozna podjetja, ki ne izvajajo samo storitev javne službe, temveč opravljajo tudi druge dejavnosti, od 1. julija 1992 izvajati javne službe kot ločene dejavnosti, pri čemer: (i) so poslovni računi za vsako dejavnost ločeni, delež sredstev za vsako od teh dejavnosti pa se uporablja v skladu z veljavnimi računovodskimi pravili, in (ii) izdatki se izravnajo s prihodki iz poslovanja in s plačili javnih organov brez možnosti prenosa iz enega ali v drugi sektor dejavnosti podjetja.