natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Italian authorities submitted their observations on the opening decision by letters dated 21 and 25 March 2014.
Italijanski organi so predložili pripombe v zvezi s sklepom o začetku postopka v dopisih z dne 21. in 25. marca 2014.
The only third party to submit observations in reply to the opening decision was CSTP, the beneficiary of the measure.
Edina tretja stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba CSTP, tj. upravičenka do ukrepa.
Its comments were received on 25, 26, 27 and 28 March 2014.
Njene pripombe so bile prejete 25., 26., 27. in 28. marca 2014.
Italy did not submit any comments on the third-party observations.
Italija v zvezi s pripombami tretje strani ni predložila pripomb.
After acceptance of a deadline extension by the Commission, the Italian authorities provided additional information by letter of 15 September 2014.
Italijanski organi so po tem, ko je Komisija sprejela podaljšanje roka, z dopisom z dne 15. septembra 2014 predložili dodatne informacije.
THE COMPANY
DRUŽBA
CSTP is a public limited liability company providing local public transport services based on regional and municipal concessions.
Družba CSTP je delniška družba, ki opravlja storitve lokalnega javnega prevoza na podlagi regionalnih in občinskih koncesij.
More specifically, according to the Italian authorities, CSTP operated a network of bus routes as concessionaire of the Region throughout the period under review covering approximately 9 million km per year.
Natančneje, družba CSTP je po navedbah italijanskih organov v celotnem obravnavanem obdobju kot koncesionarka regije upravljala omrežje avtobusnih prog, ki so obsegale približno 9 milijonov km letno.
From the information provided by the Italian authorities, the Region has already paid EUR 131 632 525,80 to CSTP for the above-mentioned service during the period under review, of which EUR 125 869 212,47 for the operation and management of the service and EUR 5 763 313,32 for investments.
Glede na informacije, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, je regija za navedeno storitev v obravnavanem obdobju družbi CSTP že plačala 131 632 525,80 EUR, od tega 125 869 212,47 EUR za opravljanje in upravljanje storitve ter 5 763 313,32 EUR za naložbe.
Since it appears that that compensation was awarded to CSTP more than 10 years before the Commission sent its first request for information to the Italian State, that compensation will not be subject to an assessment in the current proceedings.
Ker se zdi, da je bilo to nadomestilo dodeljeno družbi CSTP več kot deset let, preden je Komisija Italiji poslala prvi zahtevek za informacije, se v tem postopku ne bo ocenjevalo.
In addition to the above-mentioned sums already received, CSTP requested from the Region additional compensation of EUR 14 545 946 on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 for the economic disadvantages it allegedly suffered as a result of public service obligations (‘PSOs’) allegedly being imposed upon it.
Družba CSTP je poleg navedenih zneskov, ki jih je že prejela, na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 od regije zahtevala dodatno nadomestilo v višini 14 545 946 EUR za gospodarsko izgubo, ki jo je domnevno utrpela zaradi domnevno naloženih obveznosti javne službe.
In 2008, the Regional Administrative Court in Salerno rejected CSTP’s claim for additional compensation on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Leta 2008 je regionalno sodišče za upravne zadeve v Salernu zavrnilo zahtevek družbe CSTP za nadomestilo na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
That court held that, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, CSTP could not request compensation for economic disadvantages resulting from the imposition of PSOs without having previously requested the termination of those PSOs.
Navedeno sodišče je odločilo, da v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 družba CSTP ne more zahtevati nadomestila za gospodarsko škodo zaradi uvedbe obveznosti javne službe, dokler najprej ne zahteva, da se navedene obveznosti javne službe prenehajo.
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CONSIGLIO DI STATO
SODBI SODIŠČA CONSIGLIO DI STATO
By judgment of 27 July 2009 (Sentenza No 4683/09), the Consiglio di Stato upheld the appeal by CSTP against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Salerno and concluded that CSTP was entitled to receive additional compensation for the public service it had carried out in accordance with Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Sodišče Consiglio di Stato je s sodbo z dne 27. julija 2009 (Sentenza no.
That judgment does not precisely define from which legal act and in what form the PSOs were imposed, but stresses that an undertaking operating a public service cannot be denied its claim for repayment of the costs effectively incurred in performing that service.
4683/09) ugodilo pritožbi družbe CSTP zoper sodbo regionalnega sodišča za upravne zadeve v Salernu in sklenilo, da je bila družba CSTP upravičena do dodatnega nadomestila za javno službo, ki jo je opravljala v skladu s členi 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Consiglio di Stato further considered that CSTP was entitled to receive public service compensation even in the absence of a prior request for the elimination of the PSOs.
V navedeni sodbi ni točno opredeljeno, na podlagi katerega pravnega akta in v kakšni obliki so bile obveznosti javne službe naložene, vendar je v njej poudarjeno, da podjetju, ki opravlja javno službo, ni mogoče zavrniti zahtevka za povračilo stroškov, ki so dejansko nastali pri opravljanju javne službe.
According to the Consiglio di Stato, the precise amount of the additional compensation owed to CSTP had to be determined by the Region on the basis of reliable data taken from the accounts of the company, showing the difference between the costs attributable to the portion of CSTP’s activities associated with the PSO and the corresponding revenues.
Poleg tega je sodišče Consiglio di Stato menilo, da je družba CSTP upravičena do nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe tudi ob odsotnosti predhodne prošnje za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe.
However, the Region claimed that it was unable to do so, due to a lack of clear and reliable data.
Po navedbah sodišča Consiglio di Stato bi morala regija določiti točen znesek dodatnega nadomestila, dolgovanega družbi CSTP, na podlagi zanesljivih računovodskih podatkov družbe, iz katerih je razvidna razlika med stroški, ki jih je mogoče pripisati tistemu delu dejavnosti družbe CSTP, povezanemu z obveznostjo javne službe, in ustreznimi prihodki.
By order (ordinanza) No 8736/2010 of 13 December 2010, the Consiglio di Stato appointed an expert to undertake that task.
Vendar je regija trdila, da zaradi pomanjkanja jasnih in zanesljivih podatkov tega ni mogla storiti.
On the basis of those calculations, the experts concluded that CSTP was undercompensated only for 1998 as a result of the application of the formula provided in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (i.e. tariff obligation).
Strokovnjaka za izračun (morebitnega) nezadostnega nadomestila na podlagi člena 10 (tj. obveznosti upravljanja ali izvajanja prevoza) navedene uredbe nista mogla uporabiti induktivne metode zaradi pomanjkanja zanesljivih podatkov in nevarnosti podvajanja nadomestila, izračunanega v skladu s členom 11.
The experts could not use an inductive method to calculate the undercompensation (if any) on the basis of Article 10 (i.e. obligation to operate or carry) of the same Regulation because of the lack of reliable data and the risk that such a method would duplicate the compensation calculated under Article 11.
Tako sta posredno domnevala, da je bila družbi CSTP naložena tarifna obveznost.
Accordingly, the Consiglio di Stato issued Judgment No 5649/2012 of 7 November 2012 quantifying the additional compensation the Region was obliged to pay to CSTP at EUR 4 951 838, which represented the amount of undercompensation it suffered in 1998, and ordered payment of this sum to take place by 7 December 2012.
DODATNE INFORMACIJE/PRIPOMBE, KI SO JIH PREDLOŽILI ITALIJANSKI ORGANI
Payment of that sum was made by the Region to CSTP on 21 December 2012.
Po navedbah italijanskih organov je družba CSTP tako kot drugi izvajalci storitev regionalnega linijskega avtobusnega prevoza opravljala dejavnosti na podlagi začasnih dovoljenj (koncesij), ki so bila na zahtevo družbe vsako leto obnovljena.
It is the payment of this additional compensation by the Region to CSTP as a consequence of judgment No 5649/2012 that constitutes the non-notified measure and the subject matter of this Decision.
Navedene koncesije so družbi zagotovile izključno pravico do opravljanja zadevnih storitev.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES
Italijanski organi trdijo tudi, da je družba CSTP vsako leto obravnavanega obdobja regijo zaprosila za koncesije za opravljanje storitev na zadevnih progah ter da so navedene koncesije vedno določale, da se storitve izvajajo na izključno odgovornost zadevnih podjetij in, natančneje, da „opravljanje storitve ne pomeni pravice do kakršne koli subvencije ali nadomestila“.
According to the Italian authorities, CSTP, like other providers of regional scheduled bus transport services, operated on the basis of provisional licences (concessions) which had to be renewed annually upon the request of the company.
Italijanski organi so predložili izvod vzorčne koncesijske pogodbe iz leta 1973 in trdili, da ustreza koncesijski pogodbi z družbo CSTP v obravnavanem obdobju.
Those concessions provided the company with the exclusive right to provide the relevant services.
Vendar niso predložili koncesijskih pogodb, ki so bile v obravnavanem obdobju dejansko sklenjene z družbo CSTP.
The Italian authorities further maintain that CSTP requested concessions to provide services on the relevant routes from the Region in each year of the period under review and that those concessions always stipulated that the services were carried out entirely at the risk of the undertakings in question and, specifically, ‘without the performance of the service constituting a right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind’.
Italijanski organi trdijo, da je imela družba CSTP na podlagi navedenih koncesij pravico predlagati nadomestitev oblik prevoza, ki naj bi jih uporabljala, ali zaprositi za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe v celoti ali delno, kadar ji taka obveznost povzroča gospodarsko izgubo, vendar navedene pravice ni nikoli uveljavila.
The Italian authorities provided a copy of a sample concession contract from 1973 and claimed that this corresponded to the one used with CSTP as regards the period under review.
Italijanski organi trdijo tudi, da družba ni nikoli obvestila regije o tem, da se sooča z gospodarsko izgubo ali da izpolnjuje obveznosti, ki jih ne bi izpolnjevala, če ne bi bila k temu obvezana na podlagi obveznosti javne službe.
However, the Italian authorities did not provide any concession contracts actually concluded with CSTP during the period under review.
Poleg tega po navedbah italijanskih organov družba CSTP ni nikoli zaprosila za prenehanje obveznosti javne službe, kot to zahteva člen 4(1) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Italian authorities maintain that under those concessions CSTP was free to propose the substitution of the forms of transport to be used by it or to apply for the termination in whole or in part of its PSOs where such obligations entailed an economic disadvantage to it, but that the company never exercised that right.
Po navedbah italijanskih organov so javni prispevki, ki so bili v preteklosti dodeljeni družbi CSTP, temeljili na metodologiji za standardne stroške in so bili izračunani na podlagi določenih parametrov iz regionalnega zakona št. 16/1983, kot so število dodeljenih kilometrov v primerjavi s prevoženimi kilometri, število zaposlenih in avtobusov, ki se razlikuje glede na vrsto opravljane storitve (storitve v mestnih, gorskih ali hribovitih območjih), pravno in gospodarsko obravnavanje zaposlenih, velikost podjetja in stroški avtobusov.
The Italian authorities further allege that the company never informed the Region that it was suffering economic disadvantages or that it was carrying out obligations that it would not have performed if not obliged to do so under a PSO.
Poleg tega italijanski organi dvomijo, da je družba CSTP dokazala, da je učinkovito in pravilno izpolnjevala obveznosti javne službe v skladu z zahtevami Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, in menijo, da ni imela sistema za ločevanje računov, kot to zahteva člen 1(5) navedene uredbe.
Finally, according to the Italian authorities, CSTP never requested the termination of the PSO as allegedly required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
VIŠINA NADOMESTILA
According to the Italian authorities, the public contributions granted to CSTP in the past were based on standard cost methodology, calculated on the basis of certain parameters established in Regional Law No 16/1983, such as the number of kilometres awarded vis-à-vis the kilometres travelled, the number of employees and buses, which would vary depending on the type of service performed (urban, mountain, hill services), the legal and economic treatment of employees, the size of the undertaking, and the costs of the buses.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 15, je sodišče Consiglio di Stato imenovalo dva strokovnjaka za določitev dodatnega nadomestila, ki ga je regija dolgovala družbi CSTP, na podlagi členov 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Italian authorities also doubt whether CSTP has demonstrated that it had efficiently and correctly operated the PSOs in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and submit that CSTP did not have an account separation system as required by Article 1(5) of that same Regulation.
Strokovnjaka sta 27. septembra 2012 izdala vsak svoje poročilo, vendar je dodatno nadomestilo, ki ga je regija dolgovala družbi CSTP, lahko izračunal le drugi strokovnjak.
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
Kar zadeva dodatno nadomestilo za obveznost upravljanja ali izvajanja prevoza (člen 10 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69), strokovnjaka v svojih poročilih pogosto poudarjata, da zahtevki družbe CSTP za dodatno nadomestilo niso bili podprti z zadostnim dokumentarnim gradivom za natančen izračun tega zneska.
As explained in recital (15), the Consiglio di Stato appointed two experts to determine the additional compensation owed to CSTP by the Region on the basis of Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Poleg tega sta strani (tj. družba CSTP in regija) predložili podatke, ki se niso ujemali ali niso bili dovolj natančni, saj so pomenili le približek.
On 27 September 2012, the two experts each issued their respective reports, but only the second expert was able to calculate the additional compensation due to CSTP by the Region.
Na podlagi tega sta strokovnjaka v svojih poročilih sklenila, da strani nista predložili zadostnega dokumentarnega gradiva za oceno nedobičkonosnih avtobusnih prevoznih linij, zaradi česar menita, da zanesljiva ocena, tudi po „induktivni metodi“, ki jo je določilo sodišče Consiglio di Stato, ni mogoča.
As regards additional compensation for the obligation to operate or carry — Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — the experts frequently reiterate in their report that CSTP’s additional compensation claims were not supported by sufficient documentary data to calculate this amount precisely.
Zato sta sklenila, da bi moralo dodatno nadomestilo za obveznost upravljanja ali izvajanja prevoza, izračunano na podlagi člena 10 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, znašati nič.
Moreover, the parties (i.e. CSTP and the Region) also submitted data that did not match or that were not precise enough, constituting only an approximation.
Kar zadeva dodatno nadomestilo v zvezi s tarifnimi obveznostmi (člen 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69), sta strokovnjaka sklenila, da ga ni bilo mogoče izračunati na podlagi odstavka 2 navedenega člena, saj strani nista nikoli opredelili položaja na trgu, in da bi bilo treba zaradi tega morebitno nadomestilo izračunati na podlagi odstavka 1 navedenega člena.
Accordingly, the experts conclude in their report that the parties have provided inadequate documentary evidence for the assessment of unprofitable bus transport lines, which makes it impossible to have a reliable estimate in their regard, even using the ‘inductive method’ prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato.
Vendar priznavata, da izračun na podlagi odstavka 1 zaradi pomanjkljivih ali nezanesljivih podatkov ni mogoč.
The experts therefore conclude that the additional compensation for the obligation to operate or carry, calculated on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, should be zero.
Zato je bila uporabljena „induktivna metoda“, ki jo je določilo sodišče Consiglio di Stato, pri čemer je izračun tega, ali je družba CSTP v obravnavanem obdobju prejela nezadostno nadomestilo za naložene tarifne obveznosti, temeljil na konceptu „standardnih stroškov“ na podlagi „standardnih stroškov na enoto“ in številu kilometrov, ki jih je obsegala koncesija.
As regards additional compensation in relation to tariff-related obligations — Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — the experts conclude that it could not be calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 of that provision, since the parties never defined the state of the market, and that, accordingly, any compensation should be calculated on the basis of paragraph 1 of that provision.
Na podlagi tega sta strokovnjaka znesek dodatnega nadomestila izračunala po formuli iz člena 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 in ob predpostavki, da so bile družbi CSTP v obravnavanem obdobju naložene tarifne obveznosti, kot je povzeto v spodnji preglednici:
However, the experts acknowledge that a calculation on the basis of paragraph 1 is not possible either because of missing or unreliable data.
A Prihodki, ki jih je mogoče pripisati poslovnemu upravljanju
Therefore, the ‘inductive method’ prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato was applied, whereby the concept of ‘standard costs’ based on a ‘standard cost per unit’ and the number of kilometres concerned by the concession were used to calculate whether CSTP was undercompensated during the period under review for the tariff obligations imposed on it.
B Dejanski prihodki, ki jih je v tem primeru mogoče pripisati upravljanju
On that basis, the experts calculated the amount of additional compensation using the formula provided in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, assuming that the tariff obligations were imposed on CSTP during the period under review, as summarised in the table below:
C Prispevki, ki so bili že plačani
A Revenues attributable to commercial management
A - (B + C)
B Actual revenues attributable to management in the present case
Iz navedenih izračunov je mogoče sklepati, da lahko družba CSTP le za leto 1998 trdi, da je prejela nezadostno nadomestilo zaradi domnevno naloženih tarifnih obveznosti.
933 867,03
Drugič, Komisija je imela pomisleke v zvezi z izvzetjem iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
1 289 213,03
Vprašanje, ali je člen 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 v tem primeru dejansko izvzel italijanske organe iz obveznosti predhodne priglasitve, je zato odvisno od tega, ali je regija družbi CSTP dejansko enostransko naložila obveznost javne službe in ali nadomestilo, plačano v skladu s to obveznostjo, izpolnjuje zahteve Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
It follows from those calculations that only in 1998 could CSTP claim to have been undercompensated as a result of the alleged tariff obligations being imposed on it.
Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, ali je nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi CSTP, izpolnjevalo navedene pogoje.
The amount of undercompensation was EUR 3 670 784,68, to which legal interest of EUR 1 281 053,57 was added, resulting in additional compensation of EUR 4 951 838,25.
Tretjič, Komisija je imela pomisleke v zvezi z morebitno združljivostjo ukrepa v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta.
It is this amount which the Consiglio di Stato ordered the Region to pay to CSTP, which it actually paid on 21 December 2012.
Če bi bilo potrjeno, da ni bil izpolnjen vsaj eden od pogojev za izvzetje iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69, in bi bilo treba izvesti oceno v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, bi Komisija dvomila, da so bili v tem primeru izpolnjeni pogoji iz navedene uredbe.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE ITALIJE
As explained in the opening decision, the Commission had several doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the internal market.
Italijanski organi na nacionalni ravni niso predložili pripomb glede sklepa o začetku postopka.
First, the Commission questioned whether the four conditions laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in its Altmark case-law had been fulfilled.
Pripombe je predložila le regija Campania.
Second, the Commission had doubts regarding the exemption from the notification obligation under Regulation (EEC) No 191/69.
Prvič, regija je ugotovila, da družba CSTP ni predložila dokazov o pravilnem ločevanju računovodstva.
The question of whether Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 indeed exempted the Italian authorities from prior notification in the present case thus depends, first, on whether a PSO was in fact unilaterally imposed on CSTP by the Region and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Nato je ponovno poudarila, da v obravnavanem obdobju družbi CSTP niso bile enostransko naložene nobene obveznosti javne službe.
The Commission could not conclude whether the compensation awarded to CSTP fulfilled those conditions.
Družba je namreč v skladu s takrat veljavnimi pravili zaprosila za letno obnovo koncesijskih storitev, tako da noben koncesijski akt ni vključeval enostranske naložitve obveznosti javne službe.
Third, the Commission had doubts regarding the possible compatibility of the measure under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Poleg tega je regija večkrat zaprosila družbo CSTP za dokumentarno gradivo glede aktov ali pogodb o naložitvi obveznosti javne službe, da bi izvršila sodbo, vendar se po njenih navedbah družba na te prošnje ni nikoli odzvala.
If it was confirmed that at least one of the conditions for exemption from notification pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 was not met and an assessment under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had to be conducted, the Commission had doubts whether the conditions of that Regulation were complied with in the present case.
Družba CSTP prav tako ni predložila dokazov, da je regijo zaprosila za spremembo pogojev iz koncesijskih pogodb, kar zadeva proge, vozni red in tarife, ali da je regija take prošnje, če so bile sploh poslane, zavrnila.
COMMENTS BY ITALY
Kar zadeva omejitev tarif, je regija ugotovila, da so tarife, naložene s koncesijskimi pogodbami, izhajale iz splošnih ukrepov cenovne politike, ki jo uporabljajo vse družbe, ki delujejo v istem sektorju.
The Italian authorities at the national level did not provide any comments on the opening decision.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
Only the Campania Region did.
Edina tretja stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba CSTP, tj. upravičenka do ukrepa.
First, the Region observed that CSTP did not provide any evidence of a proper accounting separation.
Slednja se v svojih navedbah ni strinjala s prehodnimi stališči Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka.
It then reiterated that no unilateral imposition of PSOs took place during the period under review.
Prvič, družba CSTP je trdila, da ji je regija v obravnavanem obdobju enostransko naložila obveznosti javne službe.
Rather, the company, under the rules then in force, requested yearly renewal of concession services, so none of the concession acts entailed a unilateral imposition of PSOs.
Da bi podprla svojo trditev, je navedla, da te obveznosti javne službe niso bile določene v dokumentu o dodelitvi koncesije, saj ta dokument ni obstajal, temveč so izhajale izključno iz internih aktov regije, v katerih sta bila organizacija podjetja in nadomestilo vnaprej določena na podlagi mehanizma za „standardne stroške“.