natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Arfea argues first that the compatibility and legality of the measure at stake should be assessed by the Commission only under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and not under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
PRIPOMBE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJE STRANI
According to Arfea, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 cannot apply to situations which originated before its entry into force, i.e. 3 December 2009, as would have been confirmed by the General Court in its judgment of 20 March 2013 in Andersen case T-92/11.
Italijanski organi so v svojih pripombah na pripombe družbe Arfea brez dodatnih pripomb potrdili stališče, ki so ga zavzeli v pripombah na sklep o začetku postopka.
Arfea maintains however that, in any event, the compensations granted to it comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
OCENA POMOČI
Second Arfea claims that it was entrusted with public services obligations in the meaning of Article 2(1) and 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Obstoj pomoči
According to Arfea, local public transport services are public services.
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
In Italy, these services would be assigned by way of administrative concessions and public services obligations attached to the provision of these services would be laid down in the concession agreements as well as in agreements and regulations attached to these concessions agreements.
Da bi se torej podporni ukrep štel za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, mora kumulativno izpolnjevati vse naslednje pogoje:
In Arfea's case, these public service obligations would concern operating programmes, bus routes, stops and tariffs.
dodeliti ga mora država ali pa mora biti zagotovljen iz državnih sredstev,
As regards the fact that the concessions specified that the services was to be operated at the companies own risk, Arfea argues that this relates to safety risks for passengers and third parties, not to a general business risk.
zagotavljati mora selektivno prednost z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga,
Third, Arfea claims that its failure to request the termination of these PSOs, as required by Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, does not deprive it of its right to compensation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
izkrivljati mora konkurenco ali groziti z njenim izkrivljanjem in
According to Arfea, the procedure imposed by Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 would not apply to PSOs which were imposed on an undertaking after the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
vplivati mora na trgovino med državami članicami.
This interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 would, according to Arfea, be supported by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 March 2014 in CTP case C-518/12.
Odgovornost in državna sredstva
Fourth, as regards the calculation of the amount of compensation granted to it by the Regional Administrative Court of the Region of Piedmont, Arfea argues that the report of the expert mandated by the court cannot be questioned by the Commission because it is a preliminary technical activity that would fall exclusively under the responsibility of the national courts.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sodbe regionalnega upravnega sodišča od regije zahtevajo, da družbi Arfea plača dodatno nadomestilo za opravljanje storitev linijskega avtobusnega prevoza v letih 1997 in 1998 na regionalnih progah.
In any event, according to Arfea, the parameters for the calculation of the compensation would have been set in advance in the decision of the Regional Council of 16 February 1984 and it would not have been overcompensated.
Strokovnjak je potrdil, da je družba Arfea utrpela gospodarsko izgubo zaradi nezadostnega zneska nadomestila v znesku 1196780 EUR za leto 1997 in 102814 EUR za leto 1998, in sicer zaradi domnevno naloženih obveznosti javne službe.
The compensations at stake would therefore comply with the requirements set in that regard by Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Z namenom izvršitve teh sodb je regija 7. februarja 2014 ta znesek družbi Arfea tudi plačala.
Fifth, according to Arfea, the arguments summarised in recitals 37 to 39 above would also apply for the assessment of the compatibility of the compensation at stake with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Dejstvo, da nacionalno sodišče od regije zahteva, da plača nadomestilo podjetju, ne pomeni, da pomoči ni mogoče pripisati regiji, ki izvršuje zadevno sodbo, saj se domača sodišča zadevne države štejejo za njene organe in so torej obvezana k lojalnemu sodelovanju.
However, as regards the compliance of these compensations with the formal requirements imposed by this Regulation cited by the Commission in recitals 64 and following of its opening decision, Arfea argues that they should not apply in the case at stake.
[11]
According to Arfea, it would be legally and logically impossible to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, as the situation at stake predates by many years the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Ukrep je torej mogoče pripisati državi, sredstva, iz katerih je bilo zadevno nadomestilo plačano, pa so državna sredstva.
Finally, Arfea claims that the compensations awarded to it by the Regional Administrative Court of the Region of Piemonte meet the four Altmark conditions.
Selektivna gospodarska prednost
First, Arfea would have been entrusted with clearly defined public service obligations, in accordance with the first Altmark condition.
Komisija za začetek poudarja, da družba Arfea opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, tj. prevoz potnikov za plačilo.
Second, the parameters for compensation would have been set in advance in a transparent and objective manner in the decision of the Regional Council of 16 February 1984, in accordance with the second Altmark condition.
Zato bi jo bilo treba šteti za „podjetje“ v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Third, the expert report would have established that the compensation did not exceed the cost of the discharge of the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit, in accordance with the third Altmark condition.
Dodelitev ukrepa bi bilo treba prav tako šteti za selektivno, saj koristi le družbi Arfea.
Finally, Arfea would qualify as a typical and well run undertaking in the meaning of the fourth Altmark criterion, as evidenced by the fact that its average cost/km was below the standard regional costs.
Kar zadeva zagotavljanje gospodarske prednosti, iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark izhaja, da nadomestilo, ki ga je zadevnim podjetjem dodelila država ali ki jim je bilo zagotovljeno iz državnih sredstev za opravljanje naloženih obveznosti za opravljanje naloženih obveznosti javne službe, ne daje take prednosti zadevnim podjetjem in se torej ne šteje za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, če so izpolnjeni naslednji štirje kumulativni pogoji:
COMMENTS ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS
prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe, te obveznosti pa so jasno opredeljene,
In their comments on Arfea's comments, the Italian authorities reaffirm their position expressed in their comments to the opening decision without additional comments.
drugič, merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, so bila določena vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno,
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
tretjič, nadomestilo ne presega tistega, kar je potrebno za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti,
Existence of aid
četrtič, če podjetje, ki se mu naloži izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi, zato da lahko zadosti zahtevam javne službe, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
According to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the provision of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
V skladu s sodbo v zadevi Altmark morajo biti kumulativno izpolnjeni vsi štirje pogoji, da se izključi prisotnost gospodarske prednosti, kadar se nadomestilo dodeli zadevnim podjetjem za opravljanje naloženih obveznosti javne službe.
Accordingly, for a support measure to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) the Treaty, it must cumulatively fulfil all of the following conditions:
Prvi pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark
it must be granted by the State or through State resources,
Kar zadeva prvi pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, Komisija najprej poudarja, da morajo države članice izkazati, da je bilo zadevnemu podjetju naložena obveznost javne službe ter da je naložitev takih obveznosti javne službe upravičena zaradi splošnega interesa.
it must confer a selective advantage, by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods,
Vendar italijanski organi niso pojasnili, katere obveznosti javne službe, upravičene zaradi splošnega interesa, so bile naložene družbi Arfea.
it must distort or threaten to distort competition, and
Nasprotno, navedli so, da družbi Arfea ni bila naložena nikakršna obveznost opravljanja javne službe.
it must affect trade between Member States.
Drugič, Komisija opozarja, da je pojem obveznosti javne službe povezan s pogoji, naloženimi izvajalcu storitev, ki jih ta, če bi upošteval le lastni poslovni interes, ne bi prevzel oziroma jih ne bi prevzel v enakem obsegu brez plačila.
Imputability and State resources
Poleg tega mora pristojni organ te pogoje jasno opredeliti v aktu o pooblastitvi.
The Commission notes that the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court require the Region to pay additional compensation to Arfea with respect to the provision of scheduled bus services in 1997 and 1998 concerning regional routes.
V zvezi s tem družba Arfea ni mogla natančno pojasniti, katere obveznosti javne službe so ji bile naložene, niti dokazati, da so te obveznosti javne službe jasno opredeljene v aktu o pooblastitvi.
The expert verified that Arfea suffered an economic disadvantage in the form of an undercompensation in the amount of EUR 1196780 for 1997 and EUR 102814 for 1998, as a result of PSOs allegedly being imposed upon it.
Poleg tega zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v uvodnih izjavah 77 do 82, Komisija meni, da obstajajo resni znaki, da družbi Arfea niso bile naložene jasno opredeljene obveznosti izvajanja javne službe.
On 7 February 2014, the Region effectively paid this sum to Arfea in order to comply with these judgments.
Drugi pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark
The fact that the Region is obliged by a national court to pay compensation to an undertaking does not render the Region complying with that judgment unimputable, since the domestic courts of that State are to be considered organs of that State and are thus bound by their duty of sincere cooperation [11].
V zvezi z drugim pogojem iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark Komisija ugotavlja, da parametri za izračun nadomestila, ki jih je družbi Arfea dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče s svojimi sodbami, niso bili vnaprej določeni.
The measure is thus imputable to the State and the resources from which that compensation has been paid are State resources.
Določeni so bilo izključno na podlagi naknadnega izračuna, ki ga je strokovnjak opravil na podlagi raznovrstnih neustrezno utemeljenih domnev in brez ločevanja računovodskih evidenc.
Selective economic advantage
Tak pristop je v nasprotju z drugim pogojem iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark in vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno na tej podlagi, pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission notes at the outset that Arfea is engaged in an economic activity, namely passenger transportation against remuneration.
Sodišče je v sodbi v primeru Altmark jasno navedlo, da „[č]e država članica izravna izgube nekega podjetja, ne da bi bila pred tem predhodno določena merila za tako nadomestilo, in če se naknadno izkaže, da opravljanje nekaterih storitev v okviru izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe ni bilo ekonomsko učinkovito, se to šteje za finančno intervencijo, ki spada v pojem državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU“ [13].
Therefore, Arfea should be considered an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija je zato sklenila, da priglašeni ukrep ne izpolnjuje drugega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
As regards the granting of an economic advantage, it follows from the Altmark judgment that compensation granted by the State or through State resources to undertakings in consideration for PSOs imposed on them does not confer such an advantage on the undertakings concerned, and hence does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, provided four cumulative conditions are satisfied:
Glede tretjega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark Komisija meni, prvič, da kadar podjetje opravlja dejavnosti, ki so predmet obveznosti javne službe, in dejavnosti, ki niso predmet obveznosti javne službe, ni mogoče natančno določiti, kateri stroški so nastali pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe, če ni ustreznega ločevanja računovodskih evidenc za izvajalčeve raznovrstne dejavnosti.
First, the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge PSOs and those obligations have been clearly defined,
V zadevnem primeru so italijanski organi navedli, da družba Arfea ni vodila ločenih računovodskih evidenc za dejavnosti, ki so predmet obveznosti javne službe, ki ji jih je naložila regija Piemont, in druge dejavnosti.
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner,
Poleg tega je Komisija izrazila pomisleke, da je družba Arfea vodila ločene računovodske evidence, na kar družba Arfea ni podala pripomb.
Third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,
Poleg tega izvlečki računovodskih izkazov družbe Arfea, ki jih je strokovnjak, ki ga je pooblastilo sodišče, uporabil za določitev zneska nadomestila, ne izkazujejo ločenih evidenc za raznovrstne dejavnosti družbe Arfea.
Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able 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.
Razporeditev stroškov, ki jo je pripravil strokovnjak, ki ga je pooblastilo sodišče, je bila narejena naknadno, na podlagi modela, ki so ga pripravili svetovalci družbe Arfea in v katerem so določeni odstotni deleži stroškov, ki se dodelijo različnim dejavnostim družbe Arfea.
The Altmark judgment requires that all four conditions are cumulatively satisfied to exclude the presence of an economic advantage where compensation is granted to undertakings in consideration for public services obligations imposed on them.
Drugič, Komisija meni, da je dobiček, ki ga je strokovnjak upošteval pri izračunu zneskov nadomestil, večji od tega, kar se lahko šteje kot razumen dobiček v smislu tretjega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
First Altmark condition
Po strokovnjakovem mnenju je bila stopnja donosa na vloženi kapital, ki je znašala 12,89 % za leto 1997 in 10,81 % za leto 1998, razumna stopnja dobička; te stopnje temeljijo na donosu italijanskih državnih obveznic za desetletno obdobje (6,8 % za leto 1997), z dodatkom povprečne premije za tveganje (4,8 % za leto 1997), ki je popravljena navzgor, da se upošteva finančni položaj družbe Arfea (1,28 za 1997).
As regards the first Altmark condition, the Commission notes first of all that it is for Member States to show that a particular undertaking was entrusted with public service obligations and that the imposition of such public service obligations is justified by considerations of general interest [12].
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila premija za tveganje, ki jo je določil strokovnjak, zelo visoka glede na to, da je bilo tveganje, ki mu je bila družba izpostavljena, precej omejeno.
However, the Italian authorities did not explain what public service obligations justified by considerations of general interest were imposed on Arfea.
Družba Arfea je res izvajala koncesije na podlagi izključne pravice, ki jo je zavarovala pred konkurenco drugih izvajalcev, nadomestila, ki jih je določil strokovnjak, pa so pokrila celotne domnevne stroške, nastale zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe.
On the contrary, they argued that Arfea had not been entrusted with any public service obligation.
Komisija ugotavlja še, da ob tem ko strokovnjak meni, da je imel transportni sektor koristi od povprečnega tveganja, ki je bilo manjše od tržnega, je bila premija za tveganja popravljena navzgor zaradi upoštevanja finančne izpostavljenosti družbe Arfea, ki je bila večja od povprečja v tem sektorju.
Second, the Commission notes that the notion of public service obligation relates to conditions imposed on an operator, which that operator, if it were considering its own commercial interest, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent without reward.
S tem strokovnjak pri tem ni upošteval tveganja tipičnega prevoznega podjetja, temveč tveganje družbe Arfea, ki je bilo večje od povprečja v sektorju.
Moreover, these conditions must be clearly defined by the authority in an entrustment act.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega Komisija meni, da tretji pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark ni izpolnjen.
In that regard, Arfea has not been able to explain precisely what public service obligations had been imposed upon it nor to show that these PSOs had been clearly defined in an entrustment act.
Sklepna ugotovitev
Moreover, for the reasons explained in recitals 77 to 82 below, the Commission considers that there are serious indications that no such clearly defined public service obligations were imposed upon Arfea.
Glede na kumulativno naravo pogojev iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark in glede na dejstvo, da zadevni ukrep ne izpolnjuje prvih treh pogojev iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, Komisiji ni treba proučiti, ali je izpolnjen četrti pogoj iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
Second Altmark condition
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih dejstev Komisija ugotavlja, da dodatno nadomestilo, ki je bilo družbi Arfea plačano za storitve, izvedene v obravnavanem obdobju, ne izpolnjuje štirih kumulativnih pogojev iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, in zato družbi zagotavlja selektivno gospodarsko prednost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
As regards the second Altmark condition, the Commission observes that, the parameters for the calculation of the compensation awarded to Arfea by the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court were not set in advance.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in učinek na trgovino med državami članicami
They were determined based solely on an ex post calculation made by the expert on the basis of various assumptions which were not properly explained and in the absence of separation of accounts.
Komisija poudarja, prvič, da je zadevna nadomestila družbi Arfea dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče v Piemontu s svojima sodbama z dne 10. oktobra 2013 in jih je regija Piemont plačala 7. februarja 2014, kar je dolgo po tem, ko je bil trg potniškega avtobusnega prevoza odprt za konkurenco v EU.
Contrary to what Arfea argues, it cannot be considered that the parameters for the calculation of these compensations had been established in the decision of the Regional Council of 16 February 1984.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Altmark navedlo, da je od leta 1995 več držav članic odprlo nekatere trge prevoza konkurenci podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, tako da je takrat več podjetij že ponujalo storitve rednega linijskega mestnega, primestnega in regionalnega prevoza v državah članicah, ki niso njihova država članica izvora.
Indeed, the compensations awarded to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court are additional compensations, the purpose of which was precisely to cover the financial burden of the PSOs allegedly imposed on Arfea, which would not have been fully covered by the compensations already granted to it in application of the decision of the Regional Council of 16 February 1984.
Zato bi bilo treba upoštevati, da lahko vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi Arfea, izkrivlja konkurenco za opravljanje storitev avtobusnega potniškega prevoza in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami tako, da zmanjšuje sposobnost prevoznih podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, da bi opravljajo storitve v Italiji, in krepi položaj družbe Arfea na trgu, saj ji znižuje stroške, ki jo sicer bremenijo v okviru izvajanja tekočega poslovanja.
Such an approach is in contradiction with the second Altmark condition and any compensation granted on that basis constitutes State aid.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da družba Arfea deluje tudi na drugih trgih, tj. na trgu zasebnih prevoznih storitev, in tako na teh trgih konkurira drugim podjetjem v Uniji.
The Court has indeed made clear in its Altmark judgment that ‘payment by a Member State of compensation for the loss incurred by an undertaking without the parameters of such compensation having been established in advance beforehand, where it turns out that after the event that the operation of certain services in connection with the discharge of public service obligations was not economically viable, constitutes a financial measure which falls within the concept of State aid within the meaning of 107§1 of the TFEU’ [13].
Vsakršno nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi Arfea, bi lahko izkrivilo konkurenco, vplivalo pa bi lahko tudi na trgovino med državami članicami na teh trgih.
The Commission therefore concludes that the notified measure does not meet the second Altmark condition.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Third Altmark condition
Glede na navedeno je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
As regards the third Altmark condition, the Commission considers first of all that, when an undertaking carries out both activities which are subject to PSOs and activities which are not subject to PSOs, it is not possible to determine precisely what are the costs incurred in the discharge of PSOs in the absence of a proper separation of account between the different activities of the provider.
Izvzetje iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69
In the present instance, the Italian authorities have argued that Arfea did not implement a proper separation of account between its activities allegedly subject to PSOs imposed by the Piedmont Region and its other activities.
Da bi držali argumenti regionalnega upravnega sodišča, da je bila družba Arfea v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69 upravičena do dodatnega nadomestila za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, bi morala družba Arfea pridobiti pravico do dodatnega nadomestila v trenutku, ko je navedene storitve opravljala, in plačila nadomestila bi morala biti izvzeta iz postopka obvezne priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Commission also expressed doubts on whether Arfea had implemented such a separation of accounts and Arfea did not provide any comments on this issue.
Če navedeno nadomestilo ne bi bilo priglašeno, bi se, če bi pomenilo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, štelo za nezakonito v skladu s členom 108 PDEU.