natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Both CIÉ subsidiaries also operate services that do not fall under what could be interpreted as a PSO (so-called ‘commercial services’) and may use publicly funded buses to operate those bus services.
Obe hčerinski družbi CIÉ opravljata tudi storitve, ki ne spadajo med obveznosti javne službe (t. i. komercialne storitve), za opravljanje teh storitev pa lahko uporabljata javno financirane avtobuse.
Therefore, the Commission was not able to conclude that the compensation was limited to expenditure for discharging PSOs.
Komisija zato še ni mogla ugotoviti, ali je bilo nadomestilo omejeno na stroške za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe.
At that stage, the Commission did not have sufficient information at its disposal to determine whether the Irish authorities had calculated the compensation for discharging the ‘tariff obligations’ defined in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 in accordance with Articles 11, 12 and 13 of that regulation.
Komisija v tej fazi še ni imela dovolj informacij, da bi ugotovila, ali so irski organi izračunali višino nadomestila za izvajanje tarifnih obveznosti iz člena 2(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 v skladu s členi 11, 12 in 13 navedene uredbe.
The Commission also had doubts as to whether the measures in question would comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, if they were to be considered compensation for discharging PSOs.
Komisija je prav tako dvomila, ali bi bili zadevni ukrepi v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, če naj bi se šteli za nadomestilo za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe.
Similarly, as regards school transport, the Commission had doubts as to whether the agreements between the Irish authorities and Bus Éireann would comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, if they were to be considered compensation for discharging PSOs.
Podobno je Komisija v zvezi s šolskim prevozom dvomila, ali bi bili sporazumi med irskimi organi in Bus Éireann v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, če naj bi se šteli za nadomestilo za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe.
At the time the Opening Decision was adopted, the Commission had incomplete information concerning the terms of the contractual arrangements, the revenues generated by and the costs of the school transport services provided.
Komisija je imela v času sprejetja sklepa o začetku postopka nepopolne informacije v zvezi s pogodbenimi določbami ter prihodki in stroški izvedenih storitev šolskega prevoza.
With regard to the existence of State aid, the Commission considered in the Opening Decision that the condition that aid was granted by a Member State or through State resources was satisfied.
Komisija je v zvezi z obstojem državne pomoči v sklepu o začetku postopka menila, da je bil pogoj, da je pomoč dodelila država članica ali je bila ta dodeljena iz državnih virov, izpolnjen.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that the use of the infrastructure seemed to be exclusively confined to Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus and that the measure could constitute a selective economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Poleg tega je ugotovila, da je bila uporaba infrastrukture dozdevno izključno v domeni družb Bus Éireann in Dublin Bus ter da bi ukrep lahko pomenil selektivno gospodarsko prednost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Accordingly, the Commission could not exclude the possibility that the infrastructure investment grants constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V skladu s tem Komisija ni mogla izključiti možnosti, da so nepovratna sredstva za naložbe v infrastrukturo pomenila državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the bus stations, bus stops, garages and maintenance facilities constituted a unilaterally imposed PSO, or whether the infrastructure investment grants were subject to public service contracts.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka izrazila dvom, ali avtobusne postaje, postajališča, garaže in objekti za vzdrževanje spadajo med enostransko naložene obveznosti javne službe ter ali so se za nepovratna sredstva za naložbe v infrastrukturo uporabile pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe.
The Irish authorities claimed that the infrastructure investment grants were covered by the exemption in Article 93 of the Treaty relating to the needs of coordination of transport and obligations of public service.
Irski organi so trdili, da so bila nepovratna sredstva za naložbe v infrastrukturo zajeta v izjemi iz člena 93 Pogodbe v zvezi s potrebo po usklajevanju prevoza in obveznostmi javne službe.
The Commission considered that the compatibility of the grants needed to be assessed directly on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Komisija je menila, da je bilo treba združljivost nepovratnih sredstev oceniti neposredno na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe.
However, the Commission expressed doubts in the Opening Decision as to whether the measures in question were prejudicial to the common interest and as to whether the criteria for compatibility under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty had been satisfied in this case.
Vendar je v sklepu o začetku postopka izrazila dvom, ali so zadevni ukrepi škodovali skupnemu interesu in ali so bila merila za združljivost v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) Pogodbe v tem primeru izpolnjena.
At the time that the Opening Decision was adopted, the Irish authorities had not provided the Commission with the necessary information concerning the duration, budget, intensity and further conditions relating to the financing of disability awareness training to allow it to take a position on that measure.
Ob sprejetju sklepa o začetku postopka irski organi Komisiji še niso predložili potrebnih informacij o trajanju, proračunu, intenzivnosti in nadaljnjih pogojih v zvezi s financiranjem usposabljanja o invalidnosti, da bi Komisija lahko oblikovala stališče o tem ukrepu.
On the basis of the information in its possession at the time that it adopted the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija je na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela ob sprejetju sklepa o začetku postopka, izrazila dvom v zvezi z obstojem državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The Commission also considered that, were it to come to the conclusion that the training measure constituted State aid, the appropriate legal framework to assess compatibility would be Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 [30].
Komisija je menila tudi, da bi bil v primeru, če bi ugotovila, da je ukrep usposabljanja pomenil državno pomoč, ustrezni pravni okvir za oceno združljivosti Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 68/2001 [30].
At the time of adopting the Opening Decision, the Commission could not conclude that all the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 were complied with, and thus whether the exemption from the notification requirement laid down by Article 108(3) of the Treaty applied.
Komisija ob sprejetju sklepa o začetku postopka ni mogla sklepati o skladnosti z vsemi določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 in tako tudi ne o tem, ali se je uporabljala izjema od zahtev po obveščanju iz člena 108(3) Pogodbe.
COMMENTS OF IRELAND
PRIPOMBE IRSKE
Ireland states that the last 15 to 20 years have seen unprecedented social and economic change in Ireland.
Irska navaja, da so se v zadnjih 15 do 20 letih na Irskem zgodile socialne in gospodarske spremembe, kot jih še ni bilo.
Increased traffic volumes, population growth, industry, workforce travel, changes in settlement patterns and longer commuter times, have all highlighted the major deficiencies in transport infrastructure and services.
Ob povečanem obsegu prometa, rasti prebivalstva, industrijskem razvoju, potovanju delovne sile, spremembah vzorcev poseljenosti in daljših prevoznih časih do delovnega mesta so se pokazale glavne pomanjkljivosti v prometni infrastrukturi in prometnih storitvah.
In response to the urgent challenges, National Development Plans for economic and social development have, since the early 1990s, provided investment priorities for transport infrastructure and services to quickly expand the capacity of the transport system, through the upgrading and provision of new vehicles, plants and equipment.
V odziv na nujne izzive so nacionalni razvojni načrti za gospodarski in socialni razvoj od zgodnjih 90. let 20. stoletja predvideli prednostne naložbe v prometno infrastrukturo in storitve, da bi se hitro povečala zmogljivost prometnega sistema s posodabljanjem in zagotavljanjem novih vozil, stavb in opreme.
As the only body with a statutory obligation to provide integrated public transport, including loss-making social and economic services, CIÉ and its wholly owned subsidiaries became the focus of government investment in the public transport sector.
Družba CIÉ in hčerinske družbe v njeni izključni lasti so kot edina organizacija z zakonsko obveznostjo zagotavljanja integriranega javnega prometa, vključno s socialnimi in gospodarskimi storitvami, ki ustvarjajo izgubo, postale središče naložb države v sektor javnega prevoza.
In particular, because of their comprehensive and integrated network services, those operators were well placed to rapidly increase (loss-making) peak hour capacity.
Zlasti so bili navedeni izvajalci zaradi svojih celovitih in integriranih mrežnih storitev v ugodnem položaju, da hitro povečajo zmogljivost ob dnevnih konicah (ki ustvarja izgubo).
It is against this background that increased capital and current funding was provided.
Na podlagi navedenega sta se zagotovila povečanje kapitala in sedanje financiranje.
Existing aid
Veljavna pomoč
Ireland considers that all the aid measures covered by the Opening Decision are existing aid.
Irska meni, da so vsi ukrepi pomoči, zajeti v sklepu o začetku postopka, veljavna pomoč.
Compensation has been provided to CIÉ since the late 1950s, and that did not change with the reorganisation of CIÉ into separate companies in 1986.
Irska je predložila dokaze iz sodbe irskega vrhovnega sodišča o tem, da v skladu z irskim pravom memorandumi o soglasju nimajo pravnega učinka.
Nor did the compensation mechanism change with the introduction of the Memoranda of Understanding between the Department of Transport and Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in 2003.
Irska navaja, da je v tem primeru sklicevanje na irsko pravo utemeljeno, saj se domneva, da sklenitev memorandumov o soglasju pomeni spreminjanje irske zakonske ureditve, vendar navedena sodba potrjuje, da tega irsko pravo ne omogoča.
According to Ireland, this was simply an administrative change to better manage the aid provided to CIÉ.
Poleg tega je Irska opozorila, da memorandumi sami navajajo, da nimajo pravnega učinka in da se pomoč, povezana z zadevnimi memorandumi, izplača na podlagi starejših zakonodajnih aktov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 100.
All aid is provided to fund the legal obligation to provide the public passenger transport services laid down in the Transport Acts.
Irska trdi, da navedeno dodatno dokazuje, da memorandumi o soglasju temeljijo na obstoječi zakonodajni ureditvi, ki velja že od leta 1950.
Ireland provided evidence of an Irish Supreme Court ruling on the lack of legal effect under Irish law of Memoranda of Understanding.
Po drugi strani Irska navaja, da zadevna plačila izpolnjujejo štiri pogoje iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark in da Bus Éireann ali Dublin Bus nimata gospodarske prednosti.
Ireland states that the reliance on Irish law in this instance is justified as it is alleged that the conclusion of the Memoranda of Understanding amounts to an alteration to the Irish statutory regime, however that judgment confirms that this cannot occur under Irish law.
Nadalje Irska trdi, da so obveznosti po irskem pravu od leta 1950 obveznosti javne službe, ki so skladne z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69 in združljive s Pogodbo.
In addition, Ireland pointed to the Memoranda themselves which contain wording saying that they have no legal effect and that the aid associated with those Memoranda is paid on the basis of the earlier legislative acts mentioned in recital 100.
Poleg tega trdi, da je izplačano nadomestilo take narave, da pomeni zakonito pomoč za izvajanje, ki se uvršča med izjeme iz člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe.
Ireland argues that this further demonstrates that the Memoranda of Understanding are based on the existing legislative regime, already in place since 1950.
Irska še navaja, da se člen 106(2) Pogodbe uporablja za podjetja, kot so CIÉ, Bus Éireann in Dublin Bus.
In the alternative, Ireland submits that the payments in question meet the four Altmark conditions and an economic advantage does not accrue to Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus.
Irska navaja, da nacionalni razvojni načrt za obdobje 2000–2006 ni ustrezna primerjava za presojo uporabe člena 1(c) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [31], saj finančna sredstva, dodeljena v okviru nacionalnega razvojnega načrta za obdobje 1993–1999, ustrezajo znesku veljavne pomoči, pri čemer se z nacionalnimi razvojnimi načrti za obdobji 2000–2006 in 2007–2013 za to pomoč ni izvedla nobena bistvena sprememba.
In the further alternative, Ireland argues that the obligations laid down in Irish law since 1950 are PSOs which comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and are compatible with the Treaty.
Irska trdi, da je nacionalni razvojni načrt dokument politike na visoki ravni, ki vsebuje opis vladnih naložbenih strategij in prednostnih nalog ter da nacionalna razvojna načrta za obdobji 2000–2006 in 2007–2013 zato nimata pravnega učinka, ki bi pomenil bistveno spremembo v skladu s členom 1(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Furthermore, due to the character of the compensation paid, Ireland claims it amounts to lawful operating aid falling within the exceptions set out in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Irska navaja, da se člen 1(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 ne bi smel uporabljati za zaporedne predproračunske dokumente vladne politike na visoki ravni.
Ireland states that the National Development Plan 2000-06 is not the correct comparator for the purposes of assessing the application of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [31] since the funding granted under the National Development Plan 1993-99 amounts to existing aid and no substantial alteration has been made to that aid by the conclusion of the National Development Plans 2000-06 and 2007-13.
Vse morebitne spremembe so zgolj dodatki k prvotnemu nacionalnemu razvojnemu načrtu.
Ireland argues that the National Development Plan is a high-level policy document outlining the Government's investment strategies and priorities and that therefore the National Development Plans 2000-06 and 2007-13 have no legal effect constituting a substantial change under Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Infrastruktura
Ireland states that Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 should not be applied to successive pre-budget high-level government policy documents.
Po navedbah Irske je bilo financiranje infrastrukture namenjeno zgolj izpolnitvi obveznosti javne službe.
Ireland argues that the National Development Plans 2000-06 and 2007-13 do not affect the actual substance of the original scheme or the intrinsic functioning of the National Development Plan 1993-99.
Posodabljanje infrastrukture je bilo nujno za izpolnitev zahtev v zvezi s kakovostjo in dostopnostjo, ki jih nalagajo obveznosti javne službe.
The actual substance and intrinsic functioning of the National Development Plans as policy documents has not changed.
Če bi bilo treba uporabiti pogoje iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, nadomestilo izpolnjuje vsa štiri merila iz te sodbe.
Given the policy nature of the National Development Plans 2000-06 and 2007-13, they cannot alter the character of the existing National Development Plan 1993-99 in any legal sense.
Poleg tega Irska navaja, da financiranje infrastrukture spada v izjemo iz člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe.
In the alternative, any alterations are mere additions to the original National Development Plan.
Irska trdi, da so bili razlogi za dodelitev finančne podpore za zadevno infrastrukturo, kot je ugotovila tudi Komisija v uvodni izjavi 185 sklepa o začetku postopka, regionalni razvoj, povečanje dostopnosti določenih območij, povečanje mobilnosti funkcionalno oviranih oseb in zaščita okolja s spodbujanjem javnega prevoza.
Infrastructure
Z zadevno pomočjo se povečuje kakovost javnega prevoza na Irskem in prispeva k ciljem skupnega interesa v skladu z irskim nacionalnim načrtom o dostopnosti z naslovom „Transport for All“ (Prevoz za vse).
According to Ireland, the financing of the infrastructure was solely to meet PSOs.
V skladu s tem Irska navaja, da izboljšave v infrastrukturi jasno izpolnjujejo opredeljene cilje splošnega interesa (boljši javni prevoz in izboljšane storitve za javnost) in da so take izboljšave nujne, pa tudi sorazmerne z zastavljenimi cilji.
The upgrading of the infrastructure was necessary to meet quality and accessibility requirements imposed by the PSOs.
Irska še navaja, da se člen 106(2) Pogodbe uporablja za zadevna podjetja, tj. CIÉ, Bus Éireann in Dublin Bus, ter da navedena določba pomeni izjemo k drugim predpisom v Pogodbi, vključno s predpisi v zvezi s prevozom.
Should it be necessary to apply the Altmark conditions, the compensation meets the four criteria laid down by that judgment.
Usposabljanje o invalidnosti
Furthermore, Ireland submits that the infrastructure funding falls within the exception provided by Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Po navedbah Irske je financiranje socialne narave, saj je namenjeno izboljšanju mobilnosti invalidov.
Ireland argues that as the Commission states at recital 185 of the Opening Decision, the motivation of the Irish authorities in granting financial support for the infrastructure in question was regional development, increase of the accessibility of certain areas, increase of the mobility of mobility-impaired people and environmental protection by the promotion of public transport.
Izboljšave infrastrukture in storitev mora spremljati ustrezno usposabljanje, če naj storitve javnega prevoza postanejo dostopne invalidom.
The aid in question increases the quality of public transport in Ireland and contributes to objectives of common interest, in accordance with the Irish national accessibility plan ‘Transport for All’.
Zato je bilo financiranje prvotno zagotovljeno skupini družb CIÉ v državni lasti (kot glavnim izvajalcem javnega prevoza), da pripravijo in izvedejo tečaje usposabljanja o invalidnosti.
Accordingly, Ireland submits that the infrastructural improvements clearly meet defined objectives of general interest (better public transport and improved services for the public) and that those infrastructural improvements are necessary and proportional to the objectives set.
Usposabljanje o invalidnosti je zdaj del običajnih postopkov uvajanja v navedenih državnih družbah in ni več financirano iz sredstev za izboljšano dostopnost.
Finally, Ireland submits that Article 106(2) of the Treaty applies to the undertakings in question: CIÉ, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, and that that provision forms an exception to the other rules contained in the Treaty, including those relating to transport.
Irska trdi, da finančna sredstva, prejeta v zvezi z zagotavljanjem programa usposabljanja o invalidnosti, ne pomenijo gospodarske prednosti za družbi Dublin Bus ali Bus Éireann.
Disability awareness training
S programom je bilo zagotovljeno ustrezno usposabljanje za zaposlene, da znajo poskrbeti za osebe s senzorično ali gibalno invalidnostjo.
According to Ireland, the funding is social in character being directed at assisting the mobility of people with disabilities.
Program je bil v celoti skladen s smernicami irske vlade, predpisi Unije v zvezi z javnimi naročili in politikami CIÉ v zvezi z javnimi naročili, poleg tega pa ga je spremljalo tudi pristojno ministrstvo.
Improvements to infrastructure and services have to be accompanied by relevant training if public transport services are to become accessible for people with disabilities.
Irska nadalje poudarja, da so od leta 2006 finančna sredstva za usposabljanje o invalidnosti zasebnim izvajalcem na voljo pod enakimi pogoji kot družbama Dublin Bus in Bus Éireann.
For that reason, funding was provided initially to the State owned CIÉ group of companies (as the main public transport providers) to develop and implement disability awareness training courses.
Po navedbah Irske financiranje usposabljanja o invalidnosti ni državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Disability awareness training is now part of the normal induction training processes in those State owned companies and is no longer funded by the accessibility improvement allocation.
Poleg tega po besedah irskih organov financiranje takega usposabljanja spada v izjemo iz člena 107(2)(a) Pogodbe, saj je socialne narave, posamezne stranke, ki so invalidi, so končni upravičenci do ukrepa, dodeljena pa je brez diskriminacije v zvezi s poreklom zadevnih produktov, saj so finančna sredstva vsem izvajalcem na voljo pod enakimi pogoji.
The programme provided appropriate training to enable staff to cater for people who have mobility and sensory impairments.
Združljivost pomoči na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007
The programme fully complied with Irish Government guidelines, Union procurement regulations and CIÉ procurement policies, and was subject to monitoring by the relevant government department.
Ker je Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007 začela veljati 3. decembra 2009, je Komisija Irsko pozvala, naj predstavi stališče do združljivosti zadevnih ukrepov z notranjim trgom na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Ireland further points out that since 2006, financing of disability awareness training has been available to private operators on the same terms as those provided to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.
Irska v odgovoru ni dodala ničesar, kar ni navedla že v svojih prejšnjih odzivih v zvezi z združljivostjo z razveljavljenima uredbama (EGS) št. 1191/69 in (EGS) št. 1107/70, je pa navedla, da so bili izvedeni ukrepi za zagotovitev skladnosti z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, vključno s podpisom pogodb o izvajanju javne službe ter vzpostavitvijo novega organa za promet.
According to Ireland, the financing of disability awareness training is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Irska navaja, da „shema za prevoz učencev ni v pristojnosti Komisije, torej ne zadeva domnevnih sprememb memorandumov o soglasju in nacionalnih razvojnih načrtov“.
It does not distort or threaten to distort competition.
Bus Éireann izvaja shemo za prevoz učencev po pogodbi z ministrstvom za izobraževanje in usposabljanje.
Nor does it affect trade between Member States.
Po navedbah Irske shema za prevoz učencev torej ni predmet nadzora državne pomoči niti ne pomeni obveznosti javne službe.
Furthermore, or in the alternative, according to the Irish authorities the financing of such training falls within the exception provided for in Article 107(2)(a) of the Treaty, since it has a social character, individual consumers with disabilities are the ultimate beneficiaries of the measure, and it is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned as the financing is available to all operators on equal terms.
Kljub temu je Irska v skladu z zahtevo v sklepu o začetku postopka navedla dodatne podatke o shemi za prevoz učencev.
Finally, or in the alternative, the financing of disability awareness training falls within the exception provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
STALIŠČA ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
Compatibility of the aid on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007
Pritožnik (Coach Tourism and Transport Council)
As Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force on 3 December 2009, the Commission requested Ireland to provide its observations on the compatibility of the measures in question with the internal market on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Po navedbah pritožnika je Irska dodelila in še naprej dodeljuje znatne zneske nezakonite državne pomoči.