natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As to the five capital injections which took place in the period 2000-2010, for a total amount of EUR 31086398 (Measure 1), since they were carried out and thus financed by So.Ge.A.AL's public shareholders, namely the Chamber of Commerce of Sassari, the Province of Sassari, the Municipality of Sassari, the Municipality of Alghero, RAS and SFIRS, they ought to be regarded as financed through State resources.
Vlagatelji so pogosto z zakonom zavezani k vlaganju dodatnega lastniškega kapitala v družbe, katerih kapitalska osnova se je zaradi nenehnih izgub zmanjšala pod predhodno določeno raven.
A separate issue to be explored is whether those transfers of State resources are also imputable to the State.
Zasebni vlagatelji, ki se soočajo s takšnim položajem, bi proučili tudi vse druge možnosti, vključno z likvidacijo ali izčrpanjem [81], in izbrali tisto možnost, ki je finančno najugodnejša.
Decisions taken by the Chamber of Commerce of Sassari, the Province of Sassari, the Municipality of Sassari, the Municipality of Alghero and RAS — as public authorities or local autonomous public bodies governed by public law which considers them part of the public administration and which are entrusted with public policy tasks (such as the Chamber of Commerce of Sassari) — are imputable to the State.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da odločitve o kapitalskih injekcijah za družbo So.Ge.A.AL niso bile v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, zaradi česar se je družbi So.Ge.A.AL zagotovila gospodarska prednost.
As regards SFIRS, it is settled case law that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking can be established either by ‘organic’ or ‘structural’ indicators or by indications that the State has been involved, or was unlikely to be absent, from the decision that lead to the concrete measure.
Selektivnost
The Court established a non-exhaustive set of possible indicators relevant for the question of state imputability, such as [70]:
Da bi ukrep državne pomoči spadal na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, mora dajati prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
the fact that the undertaking through the intermediary of which the aid has been granted had to take into account directives issued by governmental bodies;
Zato se lahko le ukrepi v korist podjetjem, ki prednost dodelijo na selektiven način, štejejo za državno pomoč.
the integration of the public undertaking into the structures of the public administration;
Komisija v zadevnem primeru ugotavlja, da so se ukrepi 1, 2 in 3 zagotovili le družbi So.Ge.A.AL, zato so selektivni v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
the nature of the undertaking's activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators;
Vpliv na trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence
the legal status of the undertaking (public law or ordinary company law);
Da se lahko finančni ukrep šteje za državno pomoč, mora vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljati ali pa bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco.
the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking; and
Komisija v okviru presoje teh dveh pogojev ni dolžna ugotavljati resničnega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami niti dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak je dolžna le proučiti, ali lahko ta pomoč glede na okoliščine prizadene to trgovino in izkrivlja konkurenco [82].
any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content, or the conditions which it contains.
Če pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, krepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo na notranjem trgu Unije, je treba ta podjetja obravnavati kot podjetja, na katera vpliva navedena pomoč.
The investigation in this case confirmed the initial assessment of the Commission that the capital injections are to be considered the result of conduct imputable to the State and that SFIRS did not engage in the capital injections under investigation only out of profit-maximising considerations.
Kot je bilo ocenjeno v uvodnih izjavah 253 do 257, je delovanje letališča gospodarska dejavnost.
SFIRS was set up as investment company of RAS, with the task to prepare plans and draft guidelines targeting the region's economic and social development.
Konkurenca med letališči poteka pri privabljanju letalskih prevoznikov in ustreznega zračnega prometa (potniki in tovor), pa tudi med upravljavci letališča, ki si lahko konkurirajo pri pridobivanju pooblastila za upravljanje zadevnega letališča.
The main objective of SFIRS is thus not to maximise profit but rather to act as an instrument of RAS to foster the economic development of Sardinia.
Komisija v zvezi s tem poudarja, da lahko zlasti glede nizkocenovnih prevoznikov in čarterskih poletov letališča, ki niso v istih ciljnih območjih in v različnih državah članicah, konkurirajo med seboj pri privabljanju navedenih letalskih prevoznikov.
Also, in a meeting of So.Ge.A.AL's Shareholder Assembly of 30 April 2004, the RAS representative discarded the operating loss recorded by the airport manager in 2003 in the light of the ‘strategic role assumed by the airport at regional level.’ [71].
Kot je navedeno v točki 40 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005 in potrjeno v točki 45 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2014, iz področja uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe ni mogoče izključiti niti majhnih letališč iz razlogov, da financiranje, ki jim ga dodelijo javni organi, ne bi moglo izkrivljati konkurence ali vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
This indicates that RAS attached particular importance to the development of the airport, an objective which it pursued through its investment vehicle SFIRS together with So.Ge.A.AL's other public shareholders.
Poleg tega je v točki 45 smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2014 izrecno navedeno, da „sorazmerna majhnost podjetja, ki prejme javno financiranje, ne izključi a priori možnosti, da bi bila trgovina med državami članicami prizadeta“.
In addition, SFIRS intervention was concomitant with that of the other public shareholders.
Letališče Alghero trenutno uporablja 1,5 milijona potnikov letno.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the capital injections involve State resources and are imputable to the State.
Na podlagi navedenega je treba upoštevati, da je gospodarska prednost, ki je bila družbi So.Ge.A.AL dodeljena z različnimi zadevnimi ukrepi, izkrivljala ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in bi lahko vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission also notes that Italy has not contested this finding in the investigation.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja pomoči
Economic advantage
Komisija zato meni, da kapitalske injekcije in javno financiranje infrastrukture in opreme, vključno z „obrtniškimi in gradbenimi deli“, pomenijo pomoč družbi So.Ge.A.AL.
An advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty is any economic benefit which an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, namely in the absence of State intervention [72].
Zakonitost pomoči
In this regard, financing of costs incurred in the provisions of SGEI does not confer an economic advantage on the recipient to the extent that the conditions laid down by the Court in the Altmark case [73] are observed (see recitals 273-278).
Država članica mora v skladu s členom 108(3) Pogodbe priglasiti vse načrte za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči, pri čemer predlaganih ukrepov ne sme izvajati, dokler v postopku priglasitve ni sprejet dokončen sklep.
Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, neither the cause nor the objective of State intervention [74].
Zadevni ukrepi so se vsi izvedli brez odobritve Komisije.
In what follows, the Commission first assesses whether the measures at issue (Measures 1, 2 and 3) comply with the Altmark conditions, and second, analyses whether they were granted in normal market conditions in accordance with the MEOP.
Poleg tega se na podlagi presoj iz uvodnih izjav 323 do 327 za ukrepe pomoči v korist družbe So.Ge.A.AL, ki so predmet preiskave, ne more šteti, da so izvzeti iz obveznosti priglasitve na podlagi odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005, ki velja za pomoč, dodeljeno pred 31. januarjem 2012.
Non-observance of the Altmark criteria
V odločbi o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 je iz obveznosti priglasitve izvzeta državna pomoč v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, dodeljena podjetjem v zvezi s storitvami splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ki so v skladu s pogoji, določenimi v zadevni odločbi.
During the investigation So.Ge.A.AL claimed that it was entrusted with the provision of an SGEI.
V odločbi o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 je za združljivo razglašena zlasti pomoč v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve letališčem, (i) pri katerih povprečni letni promet ne presega 1000000 potnikov ali (ii) katerih povprečni letni promet pred obdavčitvijo ne presega 100 milijonov EUR v obdobju dveh finančnih let pred letom, v katerem je bila dodeljena storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in letno nadomestilo za zadevno storitev ne presega 30 milijonov EUR.
So.Ge.A.AL claims it discharged PSOs, enshrined in the Convention (see recitals 173-176).
Odločba o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 je veljala le za pomoč v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve za dejanske storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Conversely, in its observations on the 2012 Decision Italy had not claimed that the overall management of the airport, or part of its activities, would qualify as SGEI and therefore that the measures under scrutiny would constitute compensation for the discharge of PSOs.
Da bi bilo nadomestilo za javne storitve za opravljanje storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena upravičeno do izvzetja, je moralo izpolnjevati tudi pogoje iz členov 4, 5 in 6 zadevne odločbe.
In response to the observations submitted in the course of the investigation by Ryanair, Italy had merely confirmed that ‘it could not be excluded that the airport manager provided a public service’ (see recital 246).
V členu 4 odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 je bilo določeno, da je treba podjetje pooblastiti za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena z enim ali več uradnimi akti, ki med drugim določajo naravo in trajanje obveznosti opravljanja javnih storitev, parametre za izračun in pregled nadomestila ter nadzor nad njim in dogovore za preprečitev kakršnega koli čezmernega nadomestila in njegovo vračilo.
Late in the investigation procedure, in reply to a request for information from the Commission, Italy — on behalf of RAS — stated that So.Ge.A.AL would in fact provide SGEIs which would have been entrusted to it:
V členu 5 odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 je bilo določeno, da mora biti znesek nadomestila ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in zmernega donosa omejen na znesek, potreben za pokrivanje stroškov, ki so nastali pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javnih storitev.
as concerns the management of the airport, by means of the different Conventions signed by So.Ge.A.AL with the State;
V skladu s členom 6 odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 so morale države članice izvajati redna preverjanja, da se zagotovi, da podjetja ne prejemajo prekomernega nadomestila zneska, določenega v skladu s členom 5.
In case of undertakings entrusted with the provision of an SGEI, in order to conclude whether or not the measures under assessment constitute an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission must examine observance of the conditions set out by the Court in its judgement in the Altmark case.
Vendar v konvenciji niso bila določena nobena izrecna opredelitev domnevne naloge storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, za katero naj bi bila pooblaščena družba So.Ge.A.AL, ali pravila, ki bi urejala pravico družbe So.Ge.A.AL do nadomestila.
Those conditions may be summarised as follows:
Prav tako družba So.Ge.A.AL Komisiji ni dala na voljo nobenega drugega dokumenta, v katerem bi bil določen obseg obveznosti javne službe, ki naj bi jo opravljala.
the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and these obligations must be clearly defined (‘Altmark 1’);
Zahteve iz členov 4, 5 in 6 odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005, ki se nanašajo na vsebino aktov o pooblastitvi, torej niso izpolnjene.
the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner (‘Altmark 2’);
Komisija meni, da na tej podlagi ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je bila pomoč družbi So.Ge.A.AL izvzeta iz obveznosti priglasitve na podlagi odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005.
the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations (‘Altmark 3’);
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da Italija ni spoštovala obveznosti mirovanja iz člena 108(3) Pogodbe in da zadevni ukrepi pomenijo nezakonito državno pomoč.
where an SGEI mission is not entrusted to an undertaking pursuant to a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means 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 (‘Altmark 4’).
Združljivost pomoči
The Commission first assesses observance of the Altmark 2 criterion.
Ukrepi 1, 2 in 3 pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, zato se lahko njihova združljivost oceni ob upoštevanju izjem iz odstavkov 2 in 3 navedenega člena in člena 106(2) Pogodbe.
Given that the Altmark criteria have to be complied with cumulatively, non-observance of either one of those conditions would lead to the conclusion that the presence of an advantage cannot be excluded on the basis of this test, even if the services provided by So.Ge.A.AL qualify as SGEIs.
Uporaba smernic za letalski sektor
In this case the parameters for the calculation of the compensation to the airport manager for the provision of SGEIs were not established in advance.
V členu 107(3) Pogodbe so določene nekatere izjeme od splošnega pravila iz člena 107(1), da državna pomoč ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
In fact, no explicit reference to any compensation to be granted by the State to the airport manager for the provision of airport services is made in the Convention.
Zadevna pomoč se lahko oceni na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe, ki navaja: „pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi“ se lahko šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom.
This alone suffices to conclude that the Altmark 2 criterion is not met in this case.
Smernice za letalski sektor iz leta 2014 predstavljajo okvir za oceno, ali se lahko pomoč letališčem šteje za združljivo v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) Pogodbe.
Giving that the four Altmark conditions are not cumulatively observed in this case, the Commission concludes that the presence of an advantage cannot be excluded on the basis of this test, even to the extent the services provided by So.Ge.A.AL would qualify as SGEIs.
Komisija v skladu s smernicami za letalski sektor iz leta 2014 meni, da „Obvestilo Komisije o določitvi veljavnih pravil za ocenjevanje nezakonite državne pomoči“ [83] velja za nezakonito pomoč letališčem za naložbe.
Compliance with the MEOP
Če je bila nezakonita pomoč za naložbe dodeljena pred 4. aprilom 2014, bo Komisija uporabila pravila združljivosti, ki so veljala v času dodelitve nezakonite pomoči za naložbe.
The Commission further recalls that ‘capital placed directly or indirectly at the disposal of an undertaking by the State in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions cannot be regarded as State aid’ [75].
Komisija v zvezi s tem meni, da bi bilo treba za namene ocene združljivosti pomoči za naložbe, ki je bila družbi So.Ge.A.AL dodeljena pred začetkom veljavnosti smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2005, merila iz navedenih smernic uporabiti po analogiji.
In this case, in order to determine whether the public financing of Alghero airport conferred So.Ge.A.AL an advantage that it would not have received under normal market conditions, the Commission has to compare the conduct of the public authorities providing the funding in question to that of a market economy investor who is guided by prospects of profitability [76].
Pomoč za naložbe ali za tekoče poslovanje
Indeed, the Court has clarified that the relevant question for applying the MEOP is whether ‘in similar circumstances a private shareholder, having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional-policy and sectoral considerations, would have subscribed the capital in question’ [77].
V skladu s točko 25(r) smernic se lahko pomoč za naložbe nanaša na vnaprejšnje plačilo (za pokritje vnaprejšnjih stroškov za naložbe) in na pomoč, izplačano v obliki periodičnih obrokov (za pokritje stroškov investicijskega vzdrževanja v smislu letne amortizacije in stroškov financiranja).
In Stardust Marine, the Court stated that, ‘[…] in order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken in order to assess the economic rationality of the State's conduct, and thus to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation.’ [78].
Pomoč za tekoče poslovanje pomeni pokritje vseh stroškov poslovanja letališča, ki so opredeljeni kot „osnovn[i] strošk[i] zagotavljanja letaliških storitev, vključno s stroškovnimi kategorijami, kot so stroški za zaposlene, pogodbene storitve, komunikacije, odpadke, energijo, vzdrževanje, najem, upravljanje itd., vendar ne vključujejo stroškov investicijskega vzdrževanja, podpore za trženje ali vseh drugih spodbud, ki jih letalskim prevoznikom dodeli letališče, ter stroškov, ki spadajo na področje javne politike“ [84].
Furthermore, the Court declared in the EDF case that, ‘[…] for the purposes of showing that, before or at the same time as conferring the advantage, the Member State took that decision as a shareholder, it is not enough to rely on economic evaluations made after the advantage was conferred, on a retrospective finding that the investment made by the Member State concerned was actually profitable, or on subsequent justifications of the course of action actually chosen.’ [79].
Italija je med preiskavo [85] trdila, da bi se lahko javno financiranje naložb v letališko infrastrukturo na splošno ocenilo:
Therefore, in order to be able to apply the MEOP, the Commission has to place itself at the time when each decision to provide public funds to So.Ge.A.AL was taken.
kot pomoč za naložbe v višini polnega zneska sredstev, ki so bila družbi So.Ge.A.A dana na voljo za kritje stroškov za naložbe, ali
Also, the Commission should in principle base its assessment of the profit-driven character of investment decisions on the information and assumptions which were at the disposal of the public authorities at the time when the decisions to provide So.Ge.A.AL with funding were taken.
kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, enaki razliki med koncesijsko dajatvijo, ki temelji na trgu, če ta obstaja, in koncesijsko dajatvijo, ki jo dolguje upravljavec letališča zaradi pravice do upravljanja letališča.
Point 63 of the Aviation Guidelines provides that arrangements concluded between airlines and an airport can be deemed to satisfy the MEO test when they incrementally contribute, from an ex ante perspective, to the profitability of the airport.
Italija je trdila, da se v tem primeru zadevno javno financiranje ne sme šteti za pomoč družbi So.Ge.A.AL za naložbe.
While this criterion reflects the logic of the MEO test, it has been spelt out only recently and refers to individual arrangements rather than to the overall business, as is more often the case when applying the MEO test.
Tako meni zato, ker je država ohranila lastništvo nad zadevno infrastrukturo in ker pred datumom dodelitve celovite koncesije leta 2007 upravljavec infrastrukture ni bil odgovoren za naložbe v infrastrukturi na letališču Alghero, ampak je le v imenu države vzdrževal letališko infrastrukturo.
Therefore, the Commission recognises that it may be difficult for the relevant Member State and for the operators concerned to provide full contemporaneous evidence in respect of arrangements concluded many years ago and will take that into account when applying the criterion at stake in the present case.
Ob upoštevanju stališča Italije in opredelitev iz smernic za letalski sektor iz leta 2014 se lahko šteje, da:
Financing of airport infrastructure (including ‘fittings and works’) and equipment
kapitalske injekcije po 12. decembru 2006, s katerimi so se krile letne izgube družbe So.Ge.A.AL iz poslovanja, pomenijo pomoč družbi So.Ge.A.AL za tekoče poslovanje, in
As mentioned in recital 81, in the assessment conducted in this Decision, the Commission analysed the subsidies for infrastructure and equipment (Measure 3) and the financing of ‘fittings and works’ (Measure 2) together, as a series of measures financing the creation and upgrading of infrastructure and equipment.
financiranje, ki ga je država dodelila za infrastrukturo, „obrtniška in gradbena dela“ in opremo do dodelitve celovite koncesije leta 2007, pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v korist družbe So.Ge.A.AL.
Costs related to the construction and operation of an airport, including investment costs, are normally borne by the airport operator so that covering a part of those costs relieves it of a burden that it would normally have to bear.
Dejansko pred to dodelitvijo financiranje naložb na letališču Alghero ni bila naloga družbe So.Ge.A.AL, ampak države kot lastnice letališča.
It should be determined whether, when providing investment grants to finance infrastructures, equipment, fittings and works at Alghero airport, the public authorities could reasonably expect a return on investment in any form and to an extent that would make their investments profitable for them.
Zato financiranje, ki ga je država dodelila za infrastrukturo, „obrtniška in gradbena dela“ in opremo, družbe So.Ge.A.AL ni razbremenilo stroškov za naložbe, ki bi jih običajno morala kriti.
Italy did not explicitly argue that the investment grants complied with the MEOP.
Da bi država ravnala v skladu z načelom udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, bi morala zahtevati zvišanje koncesijske dajatve, ki jih je plačevala družba So.Ge.A.AL, in tako zagotoviti donosnost svojih naložb.
Nor did Italy present a business plan with calculations regarding the expected profitability of the investment grants, whether done ex ante or reconstructed on the basis of information available and foreseeable developments at that time.
Iz tega sledi, da se je pomoč dodelila v obliki koncesijske dajatve (ki za upravljavca letališča, kot je družba So.Ge.A.AL, pomeni strošek poslovanja), ki je bila nižja, kot bi morala biti.
As regards grants provided by the State, it should be noted that in exchange for the right to manage the airport infrastructure, So.Ge.A.AL pays a concession fee to the State.
Ker so po dodelitvi celovite koncesije za upravljanje letališke infrastrukture naložbe sodile v pristojnost družbe So.Ge.A.AL, javno financiranje takih naložb pomeni pomoč za naložbe.