natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Compatibility of the aid
Točka 5 te priloge določa, da „kadar izvajalec javne službe opravlja hkrati storitve, za katere prejema nadomestila in za katere veljajo obveznosti iz opravljanja javne prevozne storitve, ter druge dejavnosti, mora biti računovodstvo omenjenih javnih storitev razdeljeno tako, da izpolnjuje vsaj naslednje pogoje:
Since it has not been shown that the measure under review was exempted from prior notification pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the compatibility of those payments with the internal market will need to be examined, as they are considered to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, as explained in section 6.1.
konti vsake poslovne dejavnosti so ločeni ter del ustreznih sredstev in fiksni stroški se dodelijo v skladu z veljavnimi računovodskimi in davčnimi pravili,
In that regard, Article 93 of the Treaty contains rules for the compatibility of State aid in the area of coordination of transport and PSOs in the field of transport and constitutes a lex specialis with respect to Article 107(3), as well as Article 106(2), as it contains special rules for the compatibility of State aid.
vsi variabilni stroški, ustrezni prispevek k fiksnim stroškom in primeren dobiček, povezan z morebitnimi drugimi dejavnostmi izvajalca javne službe, ne morejo v nobenem primeru bremeniti zadevne javne službe,
The CJEU has ruled that this provision ‘acknowledges that aid to transport is compatible with the internal market only in well-defined cases which do not jeopardise the general interests of the [Union]’ [17].
stroški opravljanja javne službe se uravnotežijo s prihodki iz poslovanja in plačili organov brez možnega prenosa prihodkov v drugo panogo dejavnosti izvajalca javne službe“.
On 3 December 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force and repealed Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of the Council [18].
Vendar, kot je bilo že navedeno v uvodni izjavi 59, družba Arfea ni vodila ustrezno ločenih računovodskih evidenc za svoje dejavnosti, ki so bile domnevno predmet obveznosti javne službe, in druge dejavnosti v skladu s točko 5 Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 applies to the compensation of PSOs concerning public passenger transport services by rail and by road.
Zato ni mogoče dokazati, da nadomestilo, ki je na koncu dodeljeno, ne presega zneska, ki ustreza finančnemu neto učinku, ki ustreza vsoti pozitivnih ali negativnih posledic upoštevanja obveznosti javne službe na stroške in prihodke izvajalca javne službe (točka 2 Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007).
The Commission considers that the examination of the compatibility of the non-notified measure should be conducted under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, since that is the legislation in force at the time the present Decision is adopted.
Poleg tega parametri za nadomestilo niso bili določeni vnaprej, zaradi česar je bilo treba vsak izračun nadomestila obvezno izvesti naknadno, na podlagi poljubnih predpostavk, kot so tudi naredili svetovalci družbe Arfea in strokovnjak, ki ga je pooblastilo regionalno upravno sodišče v Piemontu.
The Commission also notes that the additional compensation awarded to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court was paid on 7 February 2014 [19].
Nazadnje, kakor je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 60 do 63, je dobiček, ki ga je strokovnjak upošteval pri izračunu zneskov nadomestil, večji od zneska, ki se lahko šteje kot razumen dobiček.
Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 states ‘[p]ublic service compensation for the operation of public passenger transport services or for complying with tariff obligations established through general rules paid in accordance with this Regulation shall be compatible with the [internal] market.
Tretjič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba Arfea sama priznala, da zahteve iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 v zadevnem primeru niso bile izpolnjene, in to utemeljila s tem, da bi bila takšna skladnost zakonsko in logično nemogoča, saj je zadevna situacija nastala več let, preden je začela veljati omenjena uredba.
Such compensation shall be exempt from the prior notification requirement laid down in Article [108(3)] of the Treaty’.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da dodatno nadomestilo, ki ga je odredilo regionalno upravno sodišče, ni bilo plačano v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, zato to dodatno nadomestilo ni združljivo z notranjim trgom.
For the reasons set out below, the Commission considers that the non-notified compensation does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, so that it cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under Article 9(1) of that Regulation.
Nadomestilo, ki ga je dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče, ni nadomestilo za škodo
First, the Commission notes that the concessions agreements do not meet the requirements of Article 4 of this Regulation, which establishes the mandatory content of general rules and public service contracts establishing public service obligations:
V sklepu o začetku postopka je Komisija zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe na vprašanje, ali sodbe regionalnega upravnega sodišča zadevajo nadomestilo za škodo zaradi domnevne kršitve prava, in ne nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe na podlagi veljavnih uredb Sveta.
Article 4(1)(b) requires the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated to be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner in a way that prevents overcompensation.
V zvezi s tem so pripombe predložili samo italijanski organi, ki trdijo, da zadevni ukrep pomeni dodelitev nadomestila za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, in ne nadomestila za škodo.
However, as explained above in recitals 54 to 57 concerning the fulfilment of the second Altmark condition, the additional compensations granted to Arfea were not calculated on the basis parameters established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da nadomestilo za škodo zaradi protipravnega dejanja ali drugega ravnanja nacionalnih organov [20] v določenih okoliščinah ne daje prednosti in se zato ne šteje za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe [21].
Article 4(1)(c) and Article 4(2) require that the public service contract provides the arrangements for the allocation of costs and revenues connected with the provision of the services.
Nadomestilo za utrpelo škodo se razlikuje od državne pomoči, saj je njegov namen, da se oškodovana stran vrne v stanje, v katerem je bila pred škodnim dejanjem, kot da se to ne bi pojavilo (restitutio in integrum).
However, the concession agreements did not contain any arrangements regarding the allocation of costs and revenues and, as explained in recital 59 above, Arfea did not apply a proper separation of accounts between its different activities.
Vendar mora nadomestilo za škodo temeljiti na splošnem pravilu o nadomestilu, da se zanj ne bi uporabljala pravila o državni pomoči.
Second, the Commission notes that the measure at stake does not meet the relevant requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the calculation of the amount of compensation.
Poleg tega je Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Lucchini odločilo, da nacionalno sodišče ne sme uporabljati nacionalnega prava, če bi uporaba navedenega prava „onemogočila uporabo prava Skupnosti, saj bi onemogočila vračilo dodeljene državne pomoči, s tem, da bi kršila pravo Skupnosti“.
Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that, in the case of directly awarded public service contracts, compensation must comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and with the provisions laid down in the Annex to ensure that the compensation does not go beyond what is necessary to carry out the public service obligation.
Načelo, na katerem temelji ta razglasitev, je, da pravila nacionalnega prava ni mogoče uporabiti, če bi taka uporaba onemogočila pravilno uporabo prava Unije.
Point 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that the compensation may not exceed an amount corresponding to the financial amount composed of the following factors: costs incurred in relation to the PSO minus ticket revenue, minus any positive financial effects generated within the network operated under the public service obligation, plus a reasonable profit.
V zvezi s tem je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 3. marca 2016 v zadevi T-15/14, Simet, odločilo, da nadomestilo za škodo, ki bi pomenilo nadomestilo za škodo, nastalo kot posledico obveznosti opravljanja javne službe, ne more uiti opredelitvi državne pomoči le zato, ker je šlo za nadomestilo škode, saj bi to omogočilo neupoštevanje členov 107 in 108 Pogodbe.
Point 4 of that Annex requires that costs and revenues be calculated in accordance with the accounting and tax rules in force.
[25]
Point 5 of the annex provides that: ‘where a public service operator not only operates compensated services subject to public transport service obligations, but also engages in other activities, the accounts of the said public services must be separated so as to meet at least the following conditions:
Kar zadeva dodatna nadomestila, ki jih je regionalno upravno sodišče dodelilo družbi Arfea, Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da se sodbe regionalnega upravnega sodišča nanašajo na pravico družbe Arfea do prejetja zneskov v obliki nadomestila v skladu s členi 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ki jih mora določiti uprava na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov.
the operating accounts corresponding to each of these activities must be separate and the proportion of the corresponding assets and the fixed costs must be allocated in accordance with the accounting and tax rules in force,
To pomeni, da pravica družbe Arfea do dodatnega nadomestila po mnenju regionalnega upravnega sodišča ne izhaja iz splošnega pravila o nadomestilu za škodo zaradi protipravnega dejanja ali drugega ravnanja nacionalnih organov, temveč iz pravic, ki domnevno izhajajo iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
all variable costs, an appropriate contribution to the fixed costs and a reasonable profit connected with any other activity of the public service operator may under no circumstances be charged to the public service in question,
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba Arfea 6. junija 2014 pred italijanskimi sodišči vložila zahtevek za plačilo nadomestila za škodo regije Piemont, poleg nadomestil, ki ji jih je regionalno upravno sodišče že odobrilo.
the costs of the public service must be balanced by operating revenue and payments from public authorities, without any possibility of transfer of revenue to another sector of the public service operator's activity.’
Arfea v vlogi zatrjuje, da je utrpela škodo zaradi poznega priznavanja in plačila nadomestil, ki ji jih je regija dolgovala za leti 1997 in 1998.
However, as already noted in recital 59, Arfea did not apply a proper separation of account between its activities allegedly subject to PSOs and its other activities, as required by point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Iz tega sledi, da družba Arfea ne meni, da nadomestila, ki ji jih je že dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče, pomenijo nadomestilo za škodo.
Consequently, it is impossible to demonstrate that whatever compensation is ultimately awarded does not exceed an amount corresponding to the net financial effect equivalent to the total of the effects, positive or negative, of compliance with the public service obligation on the costs and revenue of the public service operator (Point 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007).
Tretjič, Komisija v vsakem primeru meni, da bi dodelitev nadomestila za škodo v korist družbe Arfea kot nadomestila za finančno breme, ki je posledica tega, ker so ji italijanski organi domnevno nezakonito enostransko naložili obveznosti javne službe, v nasprotju s členoma 107 in 108 Pogodbe.
Moreover, in the absence of compensation parameters laid down in advance, any calculation of compensation must necessarily be conducted ex-post on the basis of arbitrary assumptions, as was done by Arfea's consultants and the expert mandated by the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont.
Taka dodelitev bi namreč za družbo Arfea ustvarila enak rezultat kot dodelitev nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe v obravnavanem obdobju, čeprav koncesijske pogodbe, ki urejajo zadevne storitve, niso bile niti izvzete iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve niti niso upoštevale bistvenih zahtev Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 ali Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, kot je bilo že pojasnjeno.
Finally, as explained in recitals 60 to 63 the profit levels taken into account by the expert for the calculation of the amounts of compensation are higher than what can be considered as a reasonable profit.
Razpoložljivost take dodelitve bi zato omogočila učinkovito izogibanje pravilom o državni pomoči ter pogojem, ki jih je določil zakonodajalec Unije in pod katerimi pristojni organi pri nalaganju ali sklepanju pogodb o obveznosti javne službe izvajalcem javne službe dodeljujejo nadomestilo za nastale stroške v zameno za opravljanje obveznosti javne službe.
Third, the Commission notes that Arfea itself has recognised that the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 were not met in the present case, by arguing that such compliance would be legally and logically impossible, as the situation at stake predates by many years the entry into force of the said Regulation.
Dodelitev nadomestila za škodo, ki bi bilo enako vsoti zneskov pomoči, načrtovanih za dodelitev, bi dejansko pomenila posredno dodelitev državne pomoči, za katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni zakonita in združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the additional compensation ordered by the Regional Administrative Court has not been paid in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and therefore that the additional compensation is incompatible with the internal market.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je Splošno sodišče jasno navedlo, da se v takih okoliščinah pravilom o državni pomoči ni mogoče izogniti le zato, ker bi zadevni ukrep pomenil nadomestilo za škodo.
The compensation awarded by the Regional Administrative Court does not constitute damages
[27]
In the opening decision, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the question whether the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court concern an award for damages for alleged breach of law as opposed to an award of public service compensation based on the applicable Council Regulations.
Zato Komisija meni, da sodba regionalnega upravnega sodišča ne pomeni dodelitve nadomestila za škodo, ki jo je družba Arfea utrpela zaradi protipravnega dejanja ali drugega ravnanja nacionalnih organov, temveč dodelitev nezakonite in nezdružljive državne pomoči, ki je prepovedana na podlagi člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Only the Italian authorities submitted comments in that regard, arguing that the measure at stake constituted an award of compensation for the discharge of PSOs, not an award of damages.
Glede na navedeno je Komisija sklenila, da nepriglašeni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Commission notes in this respect that, under certain circumstances, compensation for damages due to the wrongful act or other conduct of the national authorities [20] does not constitute an advantage and is therefore not to be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [21].
VRAČILO POMOČI
The purpose of compensation for damage suffered is different from that of State aid since it aims to bring the damaged party back to the situation in which he found itself prior to the damaging act, as if the latter had not occurred (restitutio in integrum).
Komisija je v skladu s Pogodbo in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država članica ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, za katero je ugotovila, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom [28].
However, for compensation for damages to fall outside the State aid rules, it must be based on a general rule of compensation [22].
Prav tako Sodišče dosledno meni, da je namen obveznosti države članice, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija meni, da je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, ponovna vzpostavitev prejšnjih razmer [29].
Moreover, in its judgment in Lucchini, the CJEU held that a national court was prevented from applying national law where the application of that law would have the effect to ‘frustrate the application of Community law in so far as it would make it impossible to recover State aid that was granted in breach of Community law’ [23].
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče odločilo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik povrne zneske, dodeljene na podlagi nezakonite pomoči, in tako izgubi prednost, ki jo je imel pred konkurenti na trgu, in ko se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred izplačilom pomoči.
The principle underlying this pronouncement is that a rule of national law cannot be applied where such application would frustrate the proper application of Union law [24].
[30]
In that regard, the General Court has held in its judgment of 3 March 2016 in Simet case T-15/14 that an award of damages that would consist in the indemnification of a prejudice suffered as a result of the imposition of public service obligations could not escape to the qualification of State aid merely because it consisted in an award of damages, as this would allow the circumvention of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty [25].
V skladu s sodno prakso člen 16(1) Uredbe Sveta (EU) 2015/1589 [31] določa, da „če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativni sklepi, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč […]“.
As regards the additional compensations awarded to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court, the Commission notes, first of all, that the Regional Administrative Court's judgments refer to Arfea's right to receive amounts by way of compensation pursuant to Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which must be determined by the administration on the basis of reliable data.
Zato glede na to, da so bili zadevni ukrepi izvedeni ob kršenju člena 108 Pogodbe ter jih je treba šteti za nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, je treba pomoč vrniti, da se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere, kakršne so bile na trgu pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
This indicates that Arfea's right to additional compensation flows, according to the Regional Administrative Court, not from a general rule of compensation for damages as a result of a wrongful act or other conduct of the national authorities, but from rights allegedly derived from Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Vračilo pomoči bi moralo zajeti obdobje od datuma, ko je bila družbi Arfea dodeljena prednost, tj. ko ji je bila pomoč dana na voljo (tj. 7. februarja 2014), do dejanskega vračila, zneskom vračila pa se prištejejo obresti do datuma dejanskega vračila –
Second, the Commission notes that Arfea lodged on 6 June 2014 an application in front of the Italian Courts requesting the payment of damages by the Piedmont Region in addition to the compensations already granted to it by the Regional administrative Court.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
Arfea alleged in its application that it suffered damages as a result of the late recognition and payment of the compensations owed to it for the years 1997 and 1998 by the Region.
Člen 1
This indicates that Arfea itself does not consider that the compensations already awarded to it by the Regional Administrative Court constitute an award of damages.
Državna pomoč v višini 1299594 EUR, ki jo je Italijanska republika nezakonito dodelila družbi Arfea in ki krši člen 108(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Third, the Commission considers that, in any event, an award of damages in favour of Arfea to compensate for the financial burden resulting from the alleged illegal unilateral imposition of PSOs by the Italian authorities would be in breach of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty.
Člen 2
This is because such an award would produce the exact same result for Arfea as an award of public service compensation for the period under review, despite the fact that the concession agreements governing the services in question were neither exempt from prior notification nor complied with the substantive requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, as demonstrated above.
Italijanska republika od upravičenke izterja pomoč iz člena 1.
The availability of such an award would thus effectively enable the circumvention of the State aid rules and the conditions laid down by the Union legislator under which competent authorities, when imposing or contracting for PSOs, compensate public service operators for the costs incurred in return for the discharge of PSOs.
Zneski za izterjavo vključujejo obresti od 7. februarja 2014 do dne, ko so v celoti povrnjeni.
Indeed, an award of damages equal to the sum of the amounts of aid that were envisaged to be granted would constitute an indirect grant of State aid found to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market [26].
Obrestna mera se izračuna na podlagi obrestnoobrestnega računa v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [32] in Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 [33] o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004.
As recalled above, the General Court has made clear that, in such circumstances, State aid rules cannot be circumvented merely because the measure at stake would consist in an award of damages [27].
Italijanska republika prekliče vsa neporavnana plačila pomoči iz člena 1 z datumom sprejetja tega sklepa.
Accordingly, the Commission does not consider the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court to constitute an award of compensation for damages suffered by Arfea as a result of the wrongful act or other conduct of the national authorities, rather than a grant of unlawful and incompatible State aid, which is prohibited under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Člen 3
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the non-notified measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty which is incompatible with the internal market.
Izterjava pomoči iz člena 1 se izvede takoj in učinkovito.
RECOVERY OF THE AID
Italijanska republika zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvede v štirih mesecih od datuma uradnega obvestila o tem sklepu.
According to the Treaty and the Court's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market [28].
Člen 4
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a Member State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [29].
Italijanska republika v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu Komisiji predloži naslednje informacije:
In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [30].
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti), ki se izterja od upravičenke;
In line with the case-law, Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 [31] stated that ‘where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary […]’.
podroben opis že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepov za uskladitev s tem sklepom;
Thus, given that the measures in question were implemented in violation of Article 108 of the Treaty, and are to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, they must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to their granting.
dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da se je od upravičenke zahtevalo vračilo pomoči.