natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN)
o državni pomoči SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN),
implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist
ki jo je izvedla Italija – Dodatno nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe za družbo Buonotourist
(notified under document C(2015) 75)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2015) 75)
By electronic notification of 5 December 2012, the Italian authorities notified, in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty, the additional compensation awarded pursuant to a judgment by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy’s highest administrative court) to Buonotourist S.r.l.
Italijanski organi so z elektronskim dopisom z dne 5. decembra 2012 v skladu s členom 108(3) Pogodbe priglasili dodatno nadomestilo, ki je bilo v skladu s sodbo sodišča Consiglio di Stato (italijanskega vrhovnega sodišča za upravne zadeve) dodeljeno družbi Buonotourist S.r.l.
(‘Buonotourist’), for the provision of passenger transport services by bus based on concessions granted by the Italian Region of Campania (‘the Region’) during the period 1996-2002 (‘the period under review’).
(v nadaljnjem besedilu: Buonotourist) za opravljanje storitev avtobusnega potniškega prevoza na podlagi koncesij, ki jih je italijanska regija Campania (v nadaljnjem besedilu: regija) dodelila v obdobju 1996–2002 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obravnavano obdobje).
The notification was registered under case number SA.35843 and from 13 December 2012 treated as a non-notified measure since, according to the information available to the Commission, the Region was not obliged to pay the additional compensation due to Buonotourist until 7 December 2012, that is, after the Italian government had notified the measure to the Commission, but before a Commission decision had been adopted.
Priglasitev je bila registrirana pod številko zadeve SA.35843 in se je od 13. decembra 2012 obravnavala kot nepriglašeni ukrep, saj je morala regija glede na informacije, ki so na voljo Komisiji, plačati dodatno nadomestilo, dolgovano družbi Buonotourist, od 7. decembra 2012, tj. po tem, ko je italijanska vlada priglasila ukrep Komisiji, vendar pred sprejetjem sklepa Komisije.
By letter dated 20 February 2014, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the aid (‘the opening decision’).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 20. februarja 2014 Italiji sporočila, da bo v zvezi s pomočjo začela postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) Pogodbe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklep o začetku postopka).
The Italian authorities submitted their observations on the opening decision by letters dated 21 and 24 March 2014.
Italijanski organi so predložili pripombe v zvezi s sklepom o začetku postopka v dopisih z dne 21. in 24. marca 2014.
The only third party to submit observations in reply to the opening decision was Buonotourist, the beneficiary of the measure.
Edina tretja stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba Buonotourist, tj. upravičenka do ukrepa.
Its comments were received on 25 March 2014.
Njene pripombe so bile prejete 25. marca 2014.
On 11 July 2014, the Italian authorities provided comments on the third party submissions and additional information in response to a request for information dated 11 June 2014.
Italijanski organi so 11. julija 2014 predložili pripombe na pripombe tretje strani in dodatne informacije kot odgovor na zahtevek za informacije z dne 11. junija 2014.
After acceptance of a deadline extension by the Commission, the Italian authorities completed the provision of additional information by letter of 15 September 2014.
Italijanski organi so po tem, ko je Komisija sprejela podaljšanje roka, z dopisom z dne 15. septembra 2014 predložili še zadnje dodatne informacije.
Buonotourist is a private company providing local public transport services based on regional and municipal concessions.
Družba Buonotourist je zasebna družba, ki opravlja storitve lokalnega javnega prevoza na podlagi regionalnih in občinskih koncesij.
More specifically, according to the Italian authorities, Buonotourist operated a network of bus routes as concessionaire of the Region throughout the period under review covering approximately 1,8 million km per year.
Natančneje, družba Buonotourist je po navedbah italijanskih organov v celotnem obravnavanem obdobju kot koncesionarka regije upravljala omrežje avtobusnih prog, ki so obsegale približno 1,8 milijona km letno.
From the information provided by the Italian authorities, the Region has already paid EUR 19 507 121,54 to Buonotourist for the above-mentioned service during the period under review, of which EUR 17 036 021,13 for the operation and management of the service and EUR 2 471 100,41 for investments.
Glede na informacije, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, je regija za navedeno storitev v obravnavanem obdobju družbi Buonotourist že plačala 19 507 121,54 EUR, od tega 17 036 021,13 EUR za opravljanje in upravljanje storitve ter 2 471 100,41 EUR za naložbe.
Since it appears that this compensation was awarded to Buonotourist more than 10 years before the Commission sent its first request for information to the Italian State, that compensation will not be subject to an assessment in the current proceedings.
Ker se zdi, da je bilo to nadomestilo dodeljeno družbi Buonotourist več kot deset let, preden je Komisija Italiji poslala prvi zahtevek za informacije, se v tem postopku ne bo ocenjevalo.
In addition to the above-mentioned sums already received, Buonotourist requested from the Region additional compensation of EUR 5 567 582,57 on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 for the economic disadvantages it allegedly suffered as a result of public service obligations (‘PSOs’) allegedly being imposed upon it.
Družba Buonotourist je poleg navedenih zneskov, ki jih je že prejela, na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 od regije zahtevala dodatno nadomestilo v višini 5 567 582,57 EUR za gospodarsko izgubo, ki jo je domnevno utrpela zaradi domnevno naloženih obveznosti javne službe.
According to the Region, the request was made in January 2007 when Buonotourist started proceedings before the Italian administrative courts.
Po navedbah regije je bilo dodatno nadomestilo zahtevano januarja 2007, ko je družba Buonotourist začela postopek pred italijanskimi sodišči za upravne zadeve.
In 2008, the Regional Administrative Court in Salerno rejected Buonotourist’s claim for additional compensation on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Leta 2008 je regionalno sodišče za upravne zadeve v Salernu zavrnilo zahtevek družbe Buonotourist za nadomestilo na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
That court held that, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, Buonotourist could not request compensation for economic disadvantages resulting from the imposition of PSOs without having previously requested the termination of those PSOs.
Navedeno sodišče je odločilo, da v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 družba Buonotourist ne more zahtevati nadomestila za gospodarsko škodo zaradi naložitve obveznosti javne službe, dokler najprej ne zahteva, da se navedene obveznosti javne službe prenehajo.
By judgment of 27 July 2009 (Sentenza No 4683/09), the Consiglio di Stato upheld the appeal by Buonotourist against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Salerno and concluded that Buonotourist was entitled to receive additional compensation for the public service it had carried out in accordance with Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Sodišče Consiglio di Stato je s sodbo z dne 27. julija 2009 (Sentenza no.
That judgment does not precisely define from which legal act and in what form the PSOs were imposed, but stresses that an undertaking operating a public service cannot be denied its claim for repayment of the costs effectively incurred in performing that service.
4683/09) ugodilo pritožbi družbe Buonotourist zoper sodbo regionalnega sodišča za upravne zadeve v Salernu in sklenilo, da je bila družba Buonotourist upravičena do dodatnega nadomestila za javno službo, ki jo je opravljala v skladu s členi 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Consiglio di Stato further considered that Buonotourist was entitled to receive public service compensation even in the absence of a prior request for the elimination of the PSOs.
V navedeni sodbi ni točno opredeljeno, na podlagi katerega pravnega akta in v kakšni obliki so bile obveznosti javne službe naložene, vendar je v njej poudarjeno, da podjetju, ki opravlja javno službo, ni mogoče zavrniti zahtevka za povračilo stroškov, ki so dejansko nastali pri opravljanju javne službe.
According to the Consiglio di Stato, the precise amount of the additional compensation owed to Buonotourist had to be determined by the Region on the basis of reliable data taken from the accounts of the company, showing the difference between the costs attributable to the portion of Buonotourist’s activities associated with the PSO and the corresponding revenues.
Poleg tega je sodišče Consiglio di Stato menilo, da je družba Buonotourist upravičena do nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe tudi ob odsotnosti predhodne prošnje za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe.
However, the Region claimed that it was unable to do so, due to a lack of clear and reliable data.
Po navedbah sodišča Consiglio di Stato bi morala regija določiti točen znesek dodatnega nadomestila, dolgovanega družbi Buonotourist, na podlagi zanesljivih računovodskih podatkov družbe, iz katerih je razvidna razlika med stroški, ki jih je mogoče pripisati tistemu delu dejavnosti družbe Buonotourist, povezanemu z obveznostjo javne službe, in ustreznimi prihodki.
By order (ordinanza) No 8737/2010 of 13 December 2010, the Consiglio di Stato appointed an expert to undertake that task.
Vendar je regija trdila, da zaradi pomanjkanja jasnih in zanesljivih podatkov tega ni mogla storiti.
According to the Italian authorities, that expert was also unable to determine the amount to be compensated.
Sodišče Consiglio di Stato je z odredbo (ordinanza) št. 8737/2010 z dne 13. decembra 2010 za izvedbo navedene naloge imenovalo strokovnjaka.
By order (ordinanza) No 5880/2011 of 7 November 2011, the Consiglio di Stato appointed a second expert (‘the second expert’).
Po navedbah italijanskih organov tudi ta strokovnjak ni mogel določiti zneska nadomestila.
It appears from paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (giudizio per l’ottemperanza) No 5650/2012 of 7 November 2012 that both experts excluded the existence of a right to compensation pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (i.e. obligation to operate or carry), but both concluded that Buonotourist was undercompensated for 1998, 1999 and 2000 as a result of the application of the formula provided in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (tariff-related obligation).
Zato je sodišče Consiglio di Stato z odredbo (ordinanza) št. 5880/2011 z dne 7. novembra 2011 imenovalo še drugega strokovnjaka (v nadaljnjem besedilu: drugi strokovnjak).
Implicitly, the experts thus assumed that a tariff obligation had been imposed on Buonotourist by the Region.
Iz odstavka 9 sodbe sodišča Consiglio di Stato (giudizio per l’ottemperanza) št. 5650/2012 z dne 7. novembra 2012 je razvidno, da sta oba strokovnjaka izključila obstoj pravice do nadomestila v skladu s členom 10 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 (tj. obveznost upravljanja in izvajanja prevoza), vendar sta z uporabo formule iz člena 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 (tj. tarifne obveznosti) sklenila, da je družba Buonotourist prejela nezadostno nadomestilo za leto 1998, 1999 in 2000.
However, while the first expert concluded that it would have been inappropriate to use an ‘inductive method’ to calculate the additional costs borne by the undertaking due to tariff costs and recommended calculating the additional compensation by means of equity appreciation (in via equitativa), the second expert calculated the sum to be compensated by the Region to the company through the use of such an ‘inductive method’, observing that the Consiglio di Stato held that the choice of the ‘inductive method’ was to be considered definitive, having been used in various judgments without being challenged.
Tako sta posredno domnevala, da je regija družbi Buonotourist naložila tarifno obveznost.
The second expert was nevertheless unable to calculate the compensation pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 due to a lack of essential data on both the anticipated and the actual number of units of measure of transport.
Prvi strokovnjak je sklenil, da bi bilo za izračun dodatnih stroškov, ki jih je podjetje imelo zaradi tarifnih stroškov, neprimerno uporabiti „induktivno metodo“, in priporočil, da se dodatno nadomestilo izračuna na podlagi ocene lastnega kapitala (in via equitativa), medtem ko je drugi strokovnjak znesek nadomestila, ki bi ga morala regija dodeliti podjetju, izračunal po „induktivni metodi“, ob upoštevanju, da je sodišče Consiglio di Stato odločilo, da se izbira „induktivne metode“ šteje za jasno, saj je bila uporabljena v različnih sodbah brez kakršnega koli ugovora.
The second expert therefore calculated the possible amount of undercompensation as the difference between the potential revenues that the company could have obtained by operating the service on a commercial basis (estimate) and the sum of the actual revenues and the public contributions received.
Vendar drugi strokovnjak zaradi pomanjkanja bistvenih podatkov o pričakovanem in dejanskem številu prevoznih merskih enot kljub temu ni mogel izračunati nadomestila v skladu s členom 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
For Buonotourist, those calculations result in an undercompensation for 1998, 1999 and 2000 only, totalling EUR 1 111 572 including interest.
Zato je možni znesek nezadostnega nadomestila izračunal kot razliko med morebitnimi prihodki, ki bi jih družba lahko ustvarila z opravljanjem storitve na komercialni osnovi (ocena), ter vsoto dejanskih prihodkov in prejetih javnih prispevkov.
The expert concluded that this amount could be taken as the amount of undercompensation.
Iz navedenih izračunov je razvidno, da je družba Buonotourist nezadostno nadomestilo prejela le za leta 1998, 1999 in 2000, in sicer v skupni višini 1 111 572 EUR, vključno z obrestmi.
Payment of this sum was made by the Region to Buonotourist on 21 December 2012.
Plačilo tega dodatnega nadomestila družbi Buonotourist s strani regije na podlagi sodbe št. 5650/2012 pomeni nepriglašeni ukrep, ki je predmet tega sklepa.
It is the payment of that additional compensation by the Region to Buonotourist as a consequence of judgment No 5650/2012 that constitutes the non-notified measure and the subject matter of this Decision.
DODATNE INFORMACIJE/PRIPOMBE, KI SO JIH PREDLOŽILI ITALIJANSKI ORGANI
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES
Po navedbah italijanskih organov je družba Buonotourist tako kot drugi izvajalci storitev regionalnega linijskega avtobusnega prevoza opravljala dejavnosti na podlagi začasnih dovoljenj (koncesij), ki so bila na zahtevo družbe vsako leto obnovljena.
According to the Italian authorities, Buonotourist, like other providers of regional scheduled bus transport services, operated on the basis of provisional licences (concessions) which had to be renewed annually upon the request of the company.
Navedene koncesije so družbi zagotovile izključno pravico do opravljanja zadevnih storitev.
Those concessions provided the company with the exclusive right to provide the relevant services.
Italijanski organi trdijo tudi, da je družba Buonotourist vsako leto obravnavanega obdobja regijo zaprosila za koncesije za opravljanje storitev na zadevnih progah ter da so navedene koncesije vedno določale, da se storitve izvajajo na izključno odgovornost zadevnih podjetij in, natančneje, da „opravljanje storitve ne pomeni pravice do kakršne koli subvencije ali nadomestila“.
The Italian authorities further maintain that Buonotourist requested concessions to provide services on the relevant routes from the Region in each year of the period under review and that those concessions always stipulated that the services were carried out entirely at the risk of the undertakings in question and, specifically, ‘without the performance of the service constituting a right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind’.
Italijanski organi so predložili izvod vzorčne koncesijske pogodbe iz leta 1972/1973, ki se je nanašala na drugo podjetje (v nadaljnjem besedilu: vzorčna koncesijska pogodba), in trdili, da je enaka koncesijski pogodbi z družbo Buonotourist v obravnavanem obdobju.
The Italian authorities provided a copy of a sample concession contract concerning another undertaking (‘the sample concession contract’) from 1972/73 attesting that it was the same as the one used with Buonotourist for the period under review.
Vendar niso predložili koncesijskih pogodb, ki so bile v obravnavanem obdobju dejansko sklenjene z družbo Buonotourist.
However, the Italian authorities did not provide any concession contracts actually concluded with Buonotourist during the period under review.
Italijanski organi trdijo, da je imela družba Buonotourist na podlagi navedenih koncesij pravico predlagati nadomestitev oblik prevoza, ki naj bi jih uporabljala, ali zaprositi za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe v celoti ali delno, kadar ji taka obveznost povzroča gospodarsko izgubo, vendar navedene pravice ni nikoli uveljavila.
The Italian authorities maintain that under those concessions Buonotourist was free to propose the substitution of the forms of transport to be used by it or to apply for the termination in whole or in part of its PSOs where such obligations entailed an economic disadvantage to it, but that the company never exercised that right.
Italijanski organi trdijo tudi, da družba ni nikoli obvestila regije o tem, da se sooča z gospodarsko izgubo ali da izpolnjuje obveznosti, ki jih ne bi izpolnjevala, če ne bi bila k temu obvezana na podlagi obveznosti javne službe.
The Italian authorities further allege that the company never informed the Region that it was suffering economic disadvantages or that it was carrying out obligations that it would not have performed if not obliged to do so under a PSO.
Poleg tega po navedbah italijanskih organov družba Buonotourist ni nikoli zaprosila za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe, kot to zahteva člen 4(1) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Finally, according to the Italian authorities, Buonotourist never requested the termination of the PSO as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Po navedbah italijanskih organov so javni prispevki, ki so bili v preteklosti dodeljeni družbi Buonotourist, temeljili na metodologiji za standardne stroške in so bili izračunani na podlagi določenih parametrov iz regionalnega zakona št. 16/1983, kot so število dodeljenih kilometrov v primerjavi s prevoženimi kilometri, število zaposlenih in avtobusov, ki se razlikuje glede na vrsto opravljane storitve (storitve v mestnih, gorskih ali hribovitih območjih), pravno in gospodarsko obravnavanje zaposlenih, velikost podjetja in stroški avtobusov.
According to the Italian authorities, the public contributions granted to Buonotourist in the past were based on standard cost methodology, calculated on the basis of certain parameters established in Regional Law No 16/1983, such as the number of kilometres awarded vis-à-vis the kilometres travelled, the number of employees and buses, which vary depending on the type of service performed (urban, mountain, hill services), the legal and economic treatment of employees, the size of the undertaking, and the costs of the buses.
Poleg tega italijanski organi dvomijo, da je družba Buonotourist dokazala, da je učinkovito in pravilno izpolnjevala obveznosti javne službe v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, in menijo, da ni imela sistema za ločevanje računov, kot to zahteva člen 1(5) navedene uredbe.
The Italian authorities also doubt whether Buonotourist has demonstrated that it had efficiently and correctly operated the PSOs in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and submit that Buonotourist did not have an account separation system as required by Article 1(5) of that Regulation.
VIŠINA NADOMESTILA
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 15, je sodišče Consiglio di Stato imenovalo dva strokovnjaka za določitev dodatnega nadomestila, ki ga je regija dolgovala družbi Buonotourist, na podlagi členov 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
As explained in recital 15, the Consiglio di Stato appointed two experts to determine the additional compensation owed to Buonotourist by the Region on the basis of Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Strokovnjaka sta 27. septembra 2012 izdala vsak svoje poročilo, vendar je dodatno nadomestilo, ki ga je regija dolgovala družbi Buonotourist, lahko izračunal le drugi strokovnjak.
On 27 September 2012, the two experts each issued their respective reports, but only the second expert was able to calculate the additional compensation due to Buonotourist by the Region (‘the report’).
Drugi strokovnjak v svojem poročilu večkrat poudarja, da sta strani predložili podatke, ki se niso ujemali ali niso bili dovolj natančni, saj so pomenili le približek.
In the report, the second expert frequently reiterates that the parties submitted data that did not match or that were not precise enough, constituting only an approximation.
Zlasti ugotavlja, da sta strani predložili nasprotujoče si dokumentarno gradivo glede nadomestila, izplačanega v preteklosti.
In particular, the second expert observes that the parties have provided contradictory documentary evidence regarding the compensation paid in the past.
V nasprotju s trditvijo italijanskih organov ugotavlja, da je imela družba Buonotourist ločene računovodske izkaze za dejavnosti javnega in zasebnega prevoza, vendar pojasnjuje, da ni bilo mogoče preveriti pravilnega pripisa nekaterih stroškov enemu ali drugemu sektorju dejavnosti.
In contrast to the claim made by the Italian authorities, the second expert notes that Buonotourist kept separate accounts for its public and private transport activities, but explains that no verification could be made of the correct imputation of some costs to the one or the other sector of activity.
Poleg tega pojasnjuje, da ni bilo mogoče pridobiti zanesljivih podatkov o stroških, ki v primeru prenehanja obveznosti javne službe ne bi nastali, pri čemer to ni bilo mogoče niti po „induktivni metodi“, ki jo je določilo sodišče Consiglio di Stato.
The second expert further explains that it was not possible to acquire reliable data on the costs that would not have been incurred in case of termination of the PSO — even using the ‘inductive method’ prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato.
Zato je sklenil, da dodatnega nadomestila za obveznost upravljanja ali izvajanja prevoza ni bilo mogoče izračunati na podlagi člena 10 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Accordingly, the second expert concluded that no additional compensation for the obligation to operate or carry, calculated on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 could be determined.
Kar zadeva dodatno nadomestilo v zvezi s tarifnimi obveznostmi (člen 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69), drugi strokovnjak priznava, da tega nadomestila zaradi pomanjkljivih in/ali nezanesljivih podatkov ni bilo mogoče izračunati na podlagi odstavka 1 navedenega člena.
As regards additional compensation in relation to tariff obligations — Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — the second expert acknowledges that it could not be calculated on the basis of paragraph 1 of that provision, because of missing and/or unreliable data.
Zato je bila uporabljena „induktivna metoda“, ki jo je določilo sodišče Consiglio di Stato.
Therefore, the ‘inductive method’ prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato was applied.
V členu 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 je med drugim določeno, da mora biti višina nadomestila pri tarifni obveznosti enaka razliki med naslednjima zneskoma: