natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the compensation granted after 2000, the question of the presence of aid in financing the construction of a commercially exploited may arise at three different levels: at the level of the users, at the level of the builder of the infrastructure and at the level of the manager of the infrastructure [40].
Zato je sklenila, da četrti pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark ni izpolnjen, zato tudi niso izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, saj so kumulativni.
In this case, while the owner of the infrastructure is CIÉ, the user and the manager of the infrastructure appear to be identical, as the infrastructure in question is managed and used exclusively by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, which are entirely owned by CIÉ.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da infrastruktura, financirana iz nepovratnih sredstev, ki jo uporablja Bus Éireann, pomeni ugodnost tako za komercialne storitve družbe kot tudi za njene storitve v okviru obveznosti javne službe.
As Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus do not raise any income out of the managing of the infrastructure, for the purpose of this case they can therefore only be considered as users of the infrastructure.
Zato se v primeru Bus Éireann ne zdi verjetno, da je izpolnjen prvi pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, saj financiranje ni povezano zgolj s tem, da mora podjetje prejemnik dejansko izvajati obveznost javne službe.
As regards the construction companies involved in the construction of the different infrastructure elements under assessment, the Commission has no indication that those companies might have received an advantage.
Komisija torej meni, da nepovratna sredstva za financiranje namenske infrastrukture pomenijo selektivno gospodarsko prednost za Dublin Bus in Bus Éireann.
As regards the user of the infrastructure, the Commission notes that the infrastructure in question is managed by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, and that use is exclusively confined to those undertakings.
Komisija bo v zvezi s shemo za prevoz učencev ocenila, ali ta izpolnjuje pogoje iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark [43].
As a general rule, the Commission considers that the financing of infrastructure through State resources does not confer and advantage on its users provided that the infrastructure is open without discrimination to all in accordance with Union legislation, and does not favour one user in particular [41].
Finančna pravila za shemo za prevoz učencev so bile določene v računovodskem sporazumu iz leta 1968, nato pa so bile leta 1975 [44] posodobljena, leta 2011 pa je bila določena zgornja meja za „posredne stroške“ [45].
In this case, that condition is not fulfilled, as the infrastructure in question, which is financed through State resources, exclusively benefits Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus.
V zvezi z uporabo četrtega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark [46] za shemo za prevoz učencev ni bila niti družbi Bus Éireann niti družbi Dublin Bus med odprtim, preglednim in nediskriminatornim razpisnim postopkom naložena zadevna obveznost javne službe.
Ireland also claims that with regard to the financing of infrastructure, the conditions laid down in the Altmark judgment are met [42].
Poleg tega po mnenju Komisije ni verjetno, da se nadomestilo danes še vedno plačuje, vendar bi lahko na podlagi finančnih pravil, določenih pred skoraj štiridesetimi leti, pomenilo osnovo za analizo stroškov tipičnega, dobro upravljanega in primerno opremljenega podjetja.
With regard to the application of the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment to the grants for the financing of infrastructure, neither Bus Éireann nor Dublin Bus were entrusted with the PSOs at issue in the course of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure.
Zato je sklenila, da četrti pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark ni izpolnjen, kar pomeni, da pogoji iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark niso v celoti izpolnjeni, saj so kumulativni.
The Commission has no indication that such an analysis took place.
Shema za prevoz učencev družbo Bus Éireann razbremenjuje izdatkov, ki bi jih običajno imela z izvajanjem navedene dejavnosti, česar ji običajni tržni pogoji ne omogočajo.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the fourth Altmark condition is not met, and that the Altmark conditions are not fulfilled, since the four criteria are cumulative.
Komisija je zato sklenila, da financiranje sheme za prevoz učencev pomeni selektivno gospodarsko prednost za Bus Éireann.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the grant-funded infrastructure used by Bus Éireann benefits both the companies' commercial and PSO services.
Komisija je v zvezi z obstojem prednosti na podlagi financiranja usposabljanja o invalidnosti v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da morajo javna finančna sredstva za usposabljanje o invalidnosti običajno zagotoviti podjetja, saj jih razbremenjuje stroškov, ki bi jih običajno imela s tekočim poslovanjem.
Consequently, it seems unlikely in the case of Bus Éireann, that the first Altmark condition is met, since the funding does not solely relate to the recipient undertaking actually being required to discharge PSOs.
Kljub temu je Komisija ugotovila, da lahko ima ta vrsta usposabljanja socialni značaj in lahko izboljša mobilnost invalidov.
The Commission therefore concludes that the grants for the financing of dedicated infrastructure confer a selective economic advantage on Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.
Irska trdi, da financiranje usposabljanja o invalidnosti ni državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe in da ne izkrivlja konkurence niti ni možnosti, da bi jo izkrivljalo, prav tako pa ne vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
With regard to the School Transport Scheme, the Commission will assess whether the scheme fulfils the conditions set out in the Altmark judgment [43].
Vendar Irska ni predložila utemeljitve za take argumente.
The financial arrangements for the School Transport Scheme were set out in an Accounting Agreement from 1968, and then updated in 1975 [44], albeit with a cap on ‘indirect costs’ from 2011 onwards [45].
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 [47].
With regard to the application of the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment [46] to the School Transport Scheme, Bus Éireann was not entrusted with the PSOs at issue in the course of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da se je financiranje usposabljanja o invalidnosti, ki se proučuje v tem sklepu, pojavilo v obdobju 2001–2003, kot je navedeno v preglednici 5, ter da v času tega financiranja le-to ni bilo na voljo vsem izvajalcem.
Moreover, the Commission considers it unlikely that compensation still being paid in the present day, but based on financial arrangements set out nearly 40 years ago, could constitute the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical, well run and adequately equipped undertaking.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da financiranje usposabljanja o invalidnosti pomeni selektivno gospodarsko prednost za družbi Dublin Bus in Bus Éireann, saj ju razbremenjuje stroškov, ki bi jih običajno imeli pri tekočem poslovanju.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the fourth Altmark condition is not met, and considers that the Altmark conditions are not fulfilled, since the four criteria are cumulative.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami
The School Transport Scheme relieves Bus Éireann of expenses it would normally have to bear in the operation of that activity, which it could not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Nadalje je treba preveriti, ali gospodarska prednost, dodeljena iz državnih sredstev, lahko izkrivlja konkurenco in s tem vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission therefore concludes that the funding of the School Transport Scheme confers a selective economic advantage on Bus Éireann.
V zvezi s tem je v sodbi v zadevi Altmark [48] poudarjeno:
With regard to the presence of an advantage resulting from the financing of disability awareness training, the Commission noted in the Opening Decision that the public financing of disability awareness training should normally be financed by undertakings, since it relieves them of a burden they would normally have to bear in the operation of their business.
„[…] nikakor ni izključeno, da bi javna subvencija, dodeljena nekemu podjetju, ki opravlja le lokalni ali regionalni prevoz in ki ne opravlja tega prevoza zunaj države članice izvora, lahko vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
Nevertheless, the Commission noted that this type of training might have a social character and might improve the mobility of the disabled people.
[49]“
Ireland argues that the financing of disability awareness training is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and that it does not distort or threaten to distort competition, or affect trade between Member States.
Kadar država članica dodeli javno subvencijo nekemu podjetju, lahko to ohrani ali poveča opravljanje storitev prevoza, tako da so možnosti podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah za opravljanje storitev prevoza v tej državi zmanjšane [50].
However Ireland does not provide any reasoning for these arguments.
V tem primeru ta ugotovitev ni zgolj hipotetična, saj je, kot ugotavlja zlasti Komisija, več držav članic leta 1995 začelo odpirati posamezne prevozne trge konkurenčnim podjetjem, ustanovljenim v drugih državah članicah, tako da številna podjetja ponujajo svoje storitve mestnega, primestnega ali regionalnega prevoza v državah članicah, iz katerih ne izvirajo.
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 [47].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča ne obstaja prag ali odstotek, do katerega bi se lahko štelo, da trgovina med državami članicami ni prizadeta.
In this regard the Commission notes that the financing for disability awareness training examined in this decision occurred in the period 2001-03, as set out in Table 5, and at the time of that financing it was not available to all operators.
Sorazmerno majhen obseg pomoči ali sorazmerna majhnost podjetja, ki prejme pomoč, a priori namreč ne izključuje možnosti, da bi bila trgovina med državami članicami prizadeta [51].
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the financing of disability awareness training confers a selective economic advantage on Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann since it relieves them of a burden they would normally have to bear in the operation of their business.
Drugi pogoj za uporabo člena 92(1) Pogodbe, tj. da lahko pomoč vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, zato ni odvisen od lokalnega ali regionalnega značaja prevoznih storitev ali od obsega zadevnega področja dejavnosti.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
Komisija zato meni, da zadevno javno financiranje v tem primeru lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami ter izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljalo konkurenco na notranjem trgu.
It furthermore needs to be verified whether the economic advantage granted from State resources is liable to distort competition and to thereby affect trade between Member States.
Sklepna ugotovitev: obstoj državne pomoči
In this respect, as the Altmark judgment [48] points out:
Komisija ob upoštevanju navedenih ugotovitev meni, da vsi zadevni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
‘It is not impossible that a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States [49].’
Opredelitev ukrepov kot veljavne pomoči
Where a Member State grants a public subsidy to an undertaking, the supply of transport services by that undertaking may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of providing their transport services in the market in that Member State [50].
Irska trdi, da vsi zadevni ukrepi pomenijo veljavno pomoč v smislu člena 1(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
In this case, that finding is not merely hypothetical, since, as appears in particular from the observations of the Commission, several Member States have, since 1995, started to open certain transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other Member States, so that a number of undertakings are already offering their urban, suburban or regional transport services in Member States other than their State of origin.
Komisija bo to trditev proučila v naslednjem oddelku.
Finally, according to the Court's case-law, there is no threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected.
Splošne ugotovitve
The relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected [51].
Člen 1(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 novo pomoč opredeljuje kot „vsako pomoč, to je sheme pomoči ali individualno pomoč, ki ni veljavna pomoč, vključno s spremembami veljavne pomoči“.
The second condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, does not therefore depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.
V skladu s členom 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 veljavna pomoč pomeni „pomoč, za katero se šteje, da je veljavna, ker je mogoče ugotoviti, da takrat, ko se je začela izvajati, ni bila pomoč, pozneje pa je postala pomoč zaradi razvoja skupnega trga in je država članica ni spremenila“.
The Commission thus considers the public financing at issue in the current case might affect inter-State trade and distort or threaten to distort competition in the internal market.
Člen 1(b)(v) nadalje določa: „Če nekateri ukrepi postanejo pomoč zaradi liberalizacije dejavnosti s pravnimi predpisi Skupnosti, se takšni ukrepi ne štejejo kot veljavna pomoč po datumu, določenem za liberalizacijo.“
Conclusion: existence of State aid
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da je bil ob začetku veljavnosti zakonov o prometu in prvega nacionalnega razvojnega načrta (1993–1999) trg za storitve javnega prevoza (vključno s cestnim prevozom v mestnem, primestnem in regionalnem prometu) zaprt za konkurenco v celotni Uniji.
In the light foregoing observations, the Commission considers that all the measures at issue constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Zato takrat navedeni ukrepi niso pomenili državne pomoči, saj niso mogli izkrivljati konkurence, če so bili ustrezni trgi za konkurenco zaprti.
Classification of the measures as existing aid
Komisija je od sodbe v zadevi Altmark v svoji naknadni praksi odločanja [52] sklenila, da je bil od leta 1995 trg za storitve javnega prevoza dejansko delno odprt za konkurenco na notranjem trgu.
Ireland claims that all of the measures at issue constitute existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno v sodbi v zadevi Altmark, trg za prometne storitve ni bil odprt po liberalizaciji dejavnosti z zakonodajo Unije, temveč kot rezultat neodvisnih in spontanih odločitev nekaterih držav članic.
The Commission will examine this claim in the following section.
Vendar je od 3. decembra 2009 trg za javni potniški promet odprt za konkurenco z zakonodajo Unije ob začetku veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
General observations
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [53] nastanka nove pomoči ali spremembe veljavne pomoči ni mogoče ocenjevati glede na obseg pomoči ali zlasti njen znesek v finančnem smislu v katerem koli obdobju delovanja podjetja, če se pomoč dodeli v skladu s predhodnimi zakonskimi določbami, ki se niso spremenile.
Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 defines new aid as ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
To pomeni, da je za ugotavljanje, ali je bila pomoč spremenjena, odločilno, da se prouči, ali so se spremenile določbe v zvezi z njo.
Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 considers as existing aid ‘aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State’.
Poleg tega je ta sistem spremenjen v nov sistem pomoči le, če sprememba vpliva na samo vsebino prvotnega sistema [54].
Article 1(b)(v) further provides that ‘[w]here certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by Community law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation.’.
Veljavna pomoč se v novo pomoč pretvori le na podlagi bistvenih sprememb [55].
In the Opening Decision, the Commission noted that when the Transport Acts and the first National Development Plan (1993-99) were put into effect, the market for public transport services (including urban, suburban and regional transport by road) was closed to competition throughout the Union.
Komisija bo na podlagi teh načel v zvezi z vsakim zadevnim ukrepom proučila, ali se lahko štejejo kot veljavna pomoč, kakor trdi Irska.
Therefore, at that time those measures did not constitute State aid, since they did not have the potential to distort competition, the relevant markets being closed to competition.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka sprejela začasni sklep, da je uvedba letnih memorandumov o soglasju od leta 2003 spremenila mehanizem nadomestil za dva avtobusna prevoznika, tako da se lahko plačila nadomestil za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe, prvotno utemeljena na zakonih o prometu, od leta 2003 štejejo za novo pomoč v smislu člena 1(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Since the Altmark judgment, the Commission has accepted, in its subsequent decisional practice [52], that since 1995 the market for public transport services has been de facto opened to competition in parts of the internal market.
Vendar je Irska v odzivu na sklep o začetku postopka naknadno navedla, da letni memorandumi o soglasju niso spremenili pomoči v smislu plačil letnih nadomestil za izvajanje obema avtobusnima prevoznikoma in da je šlo preprosto za upravno spremembo za boljše upravljanje pomoči, dodeljene CIÉ.
As pointed out in the Altmark judgment, the market for transport services had not been opened following a liberalisation of an activity by Union law, but rather a result of independent and spontaneous decisions of some Member States.
Po navedbah Irske se celotna pomoč, zagotovljena v obliki letnega nadomestila za izvajanje, uporabi za financiranje pravnih obveznosti za zagotavljanje storitev obveznosti javne službe, kot določata zakona o prometu.
As of 3 December 2009, however, the market for public passenger transport has been opened to competition by Union law by the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Irska je v zvezi s tem opozorila, da v skladu z irskim pravom memorandumi o soglasju nimajo pravnega učinka.
According to settled case-law [53], the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered.
To je bilo dokazano s sklicem na sodbo irskega vrhovnega sodišča [56], ki navaja [poudarek dodan]:
In other words, to establish whether an aid has been altered, it is decisive to examine whether the provisions providing for it have been altered.
Po drugi strani sama memoranduma o soglasju iz leta 2003 in 2007 za družbi Dublin Bus oziroma Bus Éireann v skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložila Irska, navajata:
Moreover, it is only where the alteration affects the actual substance of the original scheme that the latter is transformed into a new aid scheme [54].
„Ta memorandum o soglasju o ravneh in ciljih storitev nima pravnega učinka in ni zavezujoč za Bus Átha Cliath [Dublin Bus] ali ministrstvo za promet.“
On the basis of these principles, the Commission will examine in relation to each of the measures at issue whether they can be considered to constitute existing aid as Ireland contends.
Memorandum o soglasju iz leta 2003 nadalje navaja:
In the Opening Decision, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that the introduction of yearly Memoranda of Understanding from 2003 onwards altered the compensation mechanism for the two bus companies, so that the compensation payments for PSOs initially based on the Transport Acts could be considered to constitute new aid, within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, as from 2003.
„Memorandum temelji na obstoječi regulatorni ureditvi in na obstoječih zakonsko določenih dolžnostih družbe Bus Éireann, kot je navedeno v ustrezni zakonodaji in kot je veljalo 10. julija 2003.“
However, Ireland subsequently demonstrated, in response to the Opening Decision, that the yearly Memoranda of Understanding did not change the aid in terms of the annual operating compensation payments to the two bus companies, and, that they were simply an administrative change to better manage the aid provided to CIÉ.
Komisija na podlagi teh informacij meni, da skupne dolžnosti družb Bus Éireann in Dublin Bus za zagotavljanje javne storitve, opredeljene v členu 8(2) in (3) zakona o prometu (reorganizacija CIÉ) iz leta 1986, niso bile spremenjene z uvedbo memorandumov o soglasju.
According to Ireland, all aid provided in the form of annual operating compensation payments is used to fund the legal obligations to provide PSO services, as laid down in the Transport Acts.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da je letno nadomestilo za izvajanje urejal zakon o prometu (reorganizacija CIÉ) iz leta 1986, ki v členu 8(10) navaja: „Odbor [CIÉ] in družbi upoštevajo socialno vlogo Odbora in potrebo po ohranitvi storitev javnega prevoza, ki so v največji možni meri vključene znotraj finančnih sredstev, ki so jim na voljo“ [57].
In this regard, Ireland pointed to the lack of legal effect under Irish law of the Memoranda of Understanding.
1. decembra 2009 sta začeli veljati novi pogodbi o izvajanju javne storitve, ki so ju sklenili nacionalni organ za promet na eni strani ter družbi Bus Éireann in Dublin Bus na drugi strani, s čimer se je končala pravna ureditev, ki je pred tem urejala letne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za avtobusne storitve v mestnem, primestnem in regionalnem prometu.
This was demonstrated by reference to a judgment of the Irish Supreme Court [56], which stated [emphasis added]:
V skladu s tem in ker ni mogoče trditi, da je prišlo do kakršne koli bistvene spremembe pravne ureditve, ki je veljala za letno nadomestilo za izvajanje, plačano družbama Bus Éireann in Dublin Bus do začetka veljave navedenih pogodb o izvajanju javne službe, je treba celotno letno nadomestilo za izvajanje, plačano navedenima podjetjema do 30. novembra 2009, obravnavati kot veljavno pomoč v smislu člena 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
‘There is […] no warrant whatever for regarding the [Statutory] Instrument or any part thereof as being “subject to” the Memorandum of Understanding.
Financiranje novih avtobusov in financiranje infrastrukture
This is not a question of construction but a matter of principle. […] no document which is not of a legislative nature can be regarded as in any way affecting the provisions of such an Instrument.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka sprejela začasni sklep, da sta nacionalna razvojna načrta za obdobji 2000–2006 in 2007–2013 spremenila nacionalni razvojni načrt za obdobje 1993-1999 ter da je zato treba za nacionalna razvojna načrta za obdobji 2000–2006 in 2007–2013 šteti, da pomenita novo pomoč v smislu člena 1(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.