natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, the extracts of Arfea's account which the expert mandated by the court used to determine the amount of the compensations do not show any separation of account between the different activities of Arfea.
V skladu s členom 17(2) navedene uredbe je namreč nadomestilo, ki se izplača po tej uredbi, izvzeto iz postopka predhodnega obveščanja, določenega v členu 108(3) PDEU, in s tem tudi iz obveznosti priglasitve.
The cost allocation done by the Court mandated expert has been done ex post, based on the base model prepared by Arfea's consultants, which determined percentages of costs to be allocated to the different activities of Arfea.
V skladu s sodbo v zadevi Combus je treba pojem „nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe“ v smislu navedene določbe razlagati zelo ozko [14].
Second, the Commission considers that the profit levels taken into account by the expert for the calculation of the amounts of compensation are higher than what can be considered as a reasonable profit in the meaning of the third Altmark condition.
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 10 do 13 navedene uredbe (enotni postopek za plačilo nadomestila).
The expert considered that a rate of return on invested capital of 12,89 % for 1997 and of 10,81 % for 1998 was a reasonable profit rate; these rates being based on the yield of Italian 10 years State bond (6,8 % for 1997) plus an average risk premium (4,8 % for 1997) corrected upwards to take into account Arfea's own financial situation (by 1,28 for 1997).
To ne velja za pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe iz člena 14.
In that regard, the Commission observes that the risk premium determined by the expert is particularly high, given that the risk to which Arfea was exposed was rather limited.
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.
Indeed, Arfea operated the concessions on the basis of an exclusive right, which shielded it from competition from other operators, and the compensation determined by the expert compensated the alleged full cost incurred in the discharge of public service obligations.
V nasprotnem primeru se bo navedeno nadomestilo štelo za nezakonito izvedeno pomoč v skladu s členom 108 Pogodbe.
Moreover, the Commission notes that, while the expert noted that the transport sector benefited from an average risk below market, it corrected the risk premium upwards in order to take into account Arfea's own financial exposure which was higher than the sector's average.
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, prvič, od tega, ali je regija družbi Arfea dejansko enostransko naložila obveznost javne službe, in, drugič, ali nadomestilo, plačano v skladu s to obveznostjo, izpolnjuje zahteve Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
By doing so the expert therefore did not take into account the risk of a typical transport company but Arfea's own risk, which was higher than the average of the sector.
Komisija bo zato proučila obe vprašanji.
Taking into account the above, the Commission considers that the third Altmark condition is not met.
Enostransko naložena obveznost javne službe
Conclusion
Kot navaja družba Arfea, ji je regija Piemont naložila obveznosti javne službe, ki so bile opredeljene v koncesijskih pogodbah za izvajanje storitev avtobusnega prevoza ter v sporazumih in predpisih, povezanimi s temi koncesijskimi pogodbami.
Considering the cumulative nature of the Altmark conditions and the fact that the measure at stake does not comply with the first three Altmark conditions, there is no need for the Commission to examine whether the fourth Altmark condition is met.
Te obveznosti javne službe se nanašajo na operativne programe, avtobusne proge, avtobusna postajališča in tarife.
Based on the above, the Commission considers the additional compensation paid to Arfea for services performed during the period under review does not meet the four cumulative Altmark condition and therefore confer on that company a selective economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da je bilo za koncesijske pogodbe jasno predvideno, da veljajo le eno leto in jih je mogoče obnoviti na zahtevo izvajalca prevoznih storitev, ob predhodnem plačilu koncesnine.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
Iz tega sledi, da so bile te koncesije podlaga za pogodbeno razmerje med družbo Arfea in regijo Piemont, v katero je družba Arfea vstopila prostovoljno.
The Commission notes, in the first place, that the compensations at stake were awarded to Arfea by two judgments of the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont of 10 October 2013 and were paid by the Piedmont Region on 7 February 2014, i.e. long after the market for passenger transport by bus had been opened to competition in the EU.
Zato ni mogoče sprejeti, da so bile obveznosti javne službe v smislu Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 družbi Arfea enostransko naložene na podlagi teh pogodb.
In that regard, the CJEU remarked in its Altmark judgment that since 1995 several Member States started to open certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so that a number of undertakings were already offering their urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their State of origin by that point in time.
Kot je Splošno sodišče navedlo v sodbi z dne 3. marca 2016 v zadevi T-15/14, Simet, se prostovoljni vstop v pogodbeno razmerje razlikuje od enostranske naložitve obveznosti javne službe in ne povzroči obveznosti nadomestila v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Accordingly, any compensation granted to Arfea should be considered liable to distort competition for the provision of passenger transport services by bus and liable to affect trade between Member States, to the extent that it negatively impacts on the ability of transport undertakings established in other Member States to offer their services in Italy and strengthens the market position of Arfea by relieving it of expenses it would otherwise have had to bear in the course of its day-to-day business operations.
[15]
The Commission further notes that Arfea is active on other markets, such as private transport services, and thus competes with other companies within the Union on those markets.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da družba Arfea ni jasno opredelila sporazumov in predpisov, priloženih h koncesijskim pogodbam, s katerimi bi ji bile naložene obveznosti javne službe.
Any compensation granted to Arfea may also risk distorting competition and affecting trade between Member States on those markets as well.
Kljub temu Komisija razume, da se družba Arfea sklicuje na sporazume o avtobusnih progah in voznih redih, ki so bili priloženi h koncesijskim pogodbam, in tabelam z regionalnimi tarifami, na katere so se nanašale nekatere koncesijske pogodbe.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the measure distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
Kar zadeva te sporazume o avtobusnih progah in voznih redih, Komisija ugotavlja, da zanje ni mogoče ugotoviti, da so družbi Arfea enostransko naložili obveznost javne službe.
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Tako kot koncesijske pogodbe je tudi te sporazume družba Arfea sklenila prostovoljno.
Exemption from notification obligation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69
Poleg tega je bila vsebina teh sporazumov, npr. avtobusnih prog, na zahtevo družbe Arfea spremenjena za več koncesij.
For the reasoning of the Regional Administrative Court to hold that Arfea was entitled to additional PSO compensation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, Arfea would have had to have acquired the right to additional compensation at the point in time at which it carried out those services and those compensation payments must have been exempted from the compulsory notification procedure pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Zato zanje ni mogoče šteti, da so družbi Arfea enostransko naložili obveznosti javne službe v smislu člena 2 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Otherwise, to the extent the compensation constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, failure to notify that compensation would have rendered that compensation unlawful in accordance with Article 108 TFEU.
Kar zadeva tabele z regionalnimi tarifami, ki določajo najvišje tarife za vse potnike, Komisija meni, da je Splošno sodišče v svoji sodbi z dne 3. marca 2016 v zadevi T-15/14, Simet, jasno pojasnilo, da taka splošna pravila o tarifah ne nalagajo obveznosti javne službe v smislu člena 2 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
This is because, in accordance with Article 17(2) of that regulation, compensation paid pursuant to this regulation is exempted from the preliminary information procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU and thus from notification.
Po navedbah Sodišča je pojem tarifnih obveznosti v smislu te določbe omejen na najvišje tarife za neko kategorijo potnikov ali izdelkov in ne zajema splošnih ukrepov cenovne politike.
In that regard, it follows from the Combus judgment that the concept of ‘public service compensation’ within the meaning of that provision must be interpreted in a very narrow manner [14].
[16]
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 which are calculated using the method described in Articles 10 to 13 of that Regulation (the common compensation procedure).
Nazadnje Komisija ugotavlja, da je to, da je družba Arfea zahtevala obnovitev koncesij in celo plačala za to potrebno koncesnino, v vsakem primeru težko združljivo z naložitvijo kakršne koli obveznosti javne službe v smislu člena 2(1) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
It does not apply however to public service contracts as defined by Article 14.
V skladu s to določbo obveznosti javnih služb „pomenijo obveznosti, ki jih zadevno prevozno podjetje, če bi upoštevalo lastne poslovne interese, ne bi prevzelo ali jih ne bi prevzelo v enakem obsegu ali pod enakimi pogoji“.
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.
Kot Splošno sodišče navaja v sodbi z dne 3. marca 2016 v zadevi T-15/14, Simet, je težko potrditi, da bi podjetje zaprosilo za obnovitev koncesije in z njo povezanih obveznosti, če za izvajanje te koncesije ne bi imelo lastnih poslovnih interesov.
Failure to do so will result in that compensation being deemed illegally implemented aid in accordance with Article 108 of the Treaty.
Skladnost nadomestila z enotnim postopkom za plačilo nadomestila
The question whether Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 indeed dispensed the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case thus depends, first, on whether a PSO was in fact unilaterally imposed on Arfea by the Region and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Tudi če bi se izkazalo, da so bile v zadevnem primeru obveznosti javne službe družbi Arfea naložene enostransko, quod non, bi moralo biti nadomestilo za izvajanje teh storitev še vedno v skladu z enotnim postopkom za plačilo nadomestila (oddelek IV) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, da bi bilo izvzeto iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) navedene uredbe.
The Commission will examine both questions in turn.
Komisija meni, da v tem primeru ni bilo tako.
PSO unilaterally imposed
Komisija glede tega poudarja, prvič, da iz členov 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 izhaja, da nadomestilo ne sme biti višje od finančnega bremena, ki ga podjetje nosi zaradi naložitve obveznosti javne službe.
According to Arfea, the Piedmont Region imposed upon it public service obligations which were defined in the concession agreements for the provision of bus transport services as well as in agreements and regulations attached to these concession agreements.
Poleg tega člen 1(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 v različici, veljavni od 1. julija 1992, predvideva, da: „Kadar prevozno podjetje ne opravlja samo storitev javne službe, temveč opravlja tudi druge dejavnosti, mora izvajati javne službe kot ločene dejavnosti, pri tem pa izpolnjevati vsaj naslednje pogoje:
These public service obligations would concern the operating programmes, bus routes, bus stops and tariffs.
poslovni računi so za vsako od teh dejavnosti ločeni, delež sredstev za vsako od teh dejavnosti pa se uporablja v skladu z veljavnimi računovodskimi pravili;
The Commission notes first of all that the concessions agreements clearly foresaw that they were valid for only one year and were renewable upon request of the transport provider, subject to the payment of a concession fee.
Drugič, Komisija poudarja, da člen 13 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 določa, da se z odločitvami vnaprej določi višina nadomestila.
It follows that these concessions formed the basis of a contractual relationship between Arfea and the Piedmont Region, in which Arfea voluntarily entered.
V zadevnem primeru Komisija meni, da nadomestila, dodeljena družbi Arfea, ne izpolnjujejo teh zahtev.
It can therefore not be considered that public service obligations in the meaning Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 were unilaterally imposed upon Arfea on the basis of these agreements.
Komisija poudarja, prvič, da kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 59 zgoraj, ni bilo izkazano, da bi družba Arfea vodila ustrezno ločene računovodske evidence za dejavnosti, ki jih je domnevno opravljala kot obveznosti javne službe, in svoje druge dejavnosti, kot to določa člen 1(5)(a) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
As recalled by the General Court in its judgment of 3 March 2016 in Simet case T-15/14, a voluntary adhesion to a contractual relationship is different from a unilateral imposition of PSOs and does not give rise to an obligation of compensation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 [15].
Nasprotno, izvlečki računovodskih izkazov družbe Arfea za leti 1997 in 1998, na podlagi katerih je strokovnjak, ki ga je pooblastilo sodišče, določil znesek nadomestil, kažejo, da stroški niso bili ločeni glede na dejavnost.
Second, the Commission notes that Arfea did not clearly identify the agreements and regulations attached to the concession agreements, which would have imposed upon it public service obligations.
Drugič, Komisija navaja, da v nasprotju s členom 13 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi Arfea, ni bilo vnaprej določeno, temveč je bilo določeno na podlagi naknadne presoje, kot je zahtevalo regionalno upravno sodišče.
The Commission understands however that Arfea refers to the agreements on the bus routes and timetables which were attached to the concession agreements and to tables establishing regional tariffs, to which some of the concession agreements referred.
Glede na navedeno je Komisija sklenila, da dodatna nadomestila, ki jih je regionalno upravno sodišče v Piemontu dodelilo družbi Arfea, niso bila izvzeta iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
As regards these agreements on bus routes and timetables, the Commission notes that they cannot be considered to impose unilaterally PSOs on Arfea.
Združljivost pomoči
Indeed, as the concessions agreements themselves, they were voluntarily concluded by Arfea.
Ker ni bilo dokazano, da je bil obravnavani ukrep izvzet iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, bo treba preveriti združljivost teh plačil z notranjim trgom, saj pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 6.1.
Moreover, the content of these agreement, e.g. the bus routes, has been modified at Arfea's request for several concessions.
V zvezi s tem člen 93 Pogodbe vsebuje pravila o združljivosti državne pomoči na področju usklajevanja prometa in obveznosti javne službe v prometnem sektorju ter pomeni lex specialis, kar zadeva člen 107(3) in člen 106(2), saj vsebuje posebna pravila o združljivosti državne pomoči.
They can therefore not be considered to have imposed unilaterally public service obligations in the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da ta določba „dopušča, da so pomoči za prevoz združljive z notranjim trgom samo v natančno določenih primerih in če ne škodijo splošnim interesom [Unije]“ [17].
As regards tables establishing regional tariffs, which establish maximum tariffs for all passengers, the Commission notes that the General Court has clearly explained in its judgment of 3 March 2016 in Simet case T-15/14 that such general rules on tariffs do not impose PSOs in the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 in Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1107/70 [18] sta bili razveljavljeni z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1370/2007, ki je začela veljati 3. decembra 2009.
Indeed, according to the Court, the notion of tariff obligations in the meaning of that provision is limited to maximum tariffs imposed for a particular category passengers or products and does not cover general measures of price policy [16].
Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 se uporablja za nadomestilo za obveznosti javne službe v zvezi z javnimi storitvami železniškega in cestnega potniškega prevoza.
Finally the Commission notes that, in any event, the fact that Arfea requested the renewal of the concessions and even paid a concession fee for it is hardly reconcilable with the imposition of any public service obligation in the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Komisija meni, da bi bilo treba združljivost nepriglašenega ukrepa preveriti v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, saj je to zakonodaja, ki je veljala ob sprejetju tega sklepa.
Indeed, pursuant to that provision, public service obligation ‘means obligations which the transport undertaking in question, if it were considering its own commercial interest, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions’.
Poleg tega ugotavlja, da je bilo dodatno nadomestilo, ki ga je regionalno upravno sodišče dodelilo družbi Arfea, plačano 7. februarja 2014.
As observed by the General Court in its judgment of 3 March 2016 in Simet case T-15/14, it is difficult to admit an undertaking would ask for the renewal of a concession, taking into account the obligations attached to it, while the execution of that concession is not in its commercial interest.
[19]
Compliance of the compensation with the common compensation procedure
Člen 9(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 določa, da so „[s] [skupnim] trgom združljiva nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe, namenjena opravljanju storitev javnega potniškega prevoza ali upoštevanju tarifnih obveznosti, ki so določene s splošnimi pravili in ki se plačujejo v skladu s to uredbo.
Even if PSOs were shown to have been unilaterally imposed on Arfea in the present case, quod non, the compensation for those services would still need to comply with the common compensation procedure (Section IV) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 to be exempted from prior notification under Article 17(2) of that Regulation.
Ta nadomestila so oproščena obveznosti predhodnega obvestila iz člena [108(3)] Pogodbe“.
The Commission does not consider this to be the case.
Iz spodaj navedenih razlogov Komisija meni, da nepriglašeno nadomestilo ni v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, zato ga ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivega z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 9(1) navedene uredbe.
In that regard, the Commission recalls first that it follows from Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 that a compensation may not be higher than the financial burden born by an undertaking as a result of the imposition of public service obligations.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da koncesijske pogodbe ne izpolnjujejo zahtev iz člena 4 te uredbe, ki določa obvezno vsebino splošnih pravil in pogodb o izvajanju javne službe, s katerimi so določene obveznosti javne službe:
Moreover, Article 1 paragraph 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, in its version applicable as of 1 July 1992, provided that: ‘Where a transport undertaking not only operates services subject to public service obligations but also engages in other activities, the public services must be operated as separate divisions meeting at least the following conditions:
člen 4(1)(b) določa, da se parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, določijo vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način, in sicer tako, da se prepreči čezmerna kompenzacija.
the operating accounts corresponding to each of these activities shall be separate and the proportion of the assets pertaining to each shall be used in accordance with the accounting rules in force;
Vendar, kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj v uvodnih izjavah 54 do 57 v zvezi z izpolnitvijo drugega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, dodatna nadomestila, dodeljena družbi Arfea, niso bila izračunana na podlagi parametrov, ki bi bili vnaprej določeni na objektiven in pregleden način;
Second, the Commission recalls that Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 requires that the administration fixes the amount of the compensation in advance.
člen 4(1)(c) in člen 4(2) določata, da pogodba o izvajanju javne službe določa ureditve za razporeditev stroškov in prihodkov, povezanih z opravljanjem storitev.
In the present instance, the Commission considers that the compensations awarded to Arfea do not comply with these requirements.
Kljub temu koncesijske pogodbe niso vsebovale ureditev za razporeditev stroškov in prihodkov in, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 59 zgoraj, družba Arfea ni vodila ustreznih ločenih računovodskih evidenc za svoje raznovrstne dejavnosti.
First, the Commission notes that, as indicated in recital 59 above, it has not been shown that Arfea implemented a proper separation of accounts between its activities allegedly subject to PSOs and its other activities, as required by Article 1 paragraph 5 (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevni ukrep ne izpolnjuje ustreznih zahtev iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 v zvezi z izračunom zneska nadomestila.
On the contrary, the extracts of Arfea's accounts for the years 1997 and 1998, which the expert mandated by the court used to determine the amount of the compensations, rather show that costs were not separated per activity.
Člen 6(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 določa, da mora biti nadomestilo v primeru neposredno sklenjenih pogodb o izvajanju javne službe v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 in z določbami iz Priloge, da se zagotovi, da nadomestilo ne preseže zneska, potrebnega za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe.
Second, the Commission notes that, contrary to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the compensation awarded to Arfea has not been set in advance but has been determined on the basis of an ex post assessment, as prescribed by the Regional Administrative Court.
Točka 2 Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007 določa, da nadomestilo ne sme preseči zneska, ki ustreza finančni vsoti, sestavljeni iz naslednjih dejavnikov: stroškov, nastalih zaradi obveznosti opravljanja javne službe, zmanjšanih za prihodke od prodaje vozovnic in kakršne koli pozitivne finančne učinke, nastale v sklopu omrežja, ki se upravlja v okviru zadevne(-ih) obveznosti opravljanja javne službe, s prištetjem primernega dobička.
In light of these observations, the Commission concludes that the additional compensations awarded by the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont to Arfea was not exempted from compulsory prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Točka 4 navedene priloge določa, da se stroški in prihodki izračunajo v skladu z veljavnimi računovodskimi in davčnimi pravili.