natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 provides, inter alia, that the amount of the compensation must, in the case of a tariff obligation, be equal to the difference between the following two amounts.
prvi znesek je enak razliki med zmnožkom predvidenega števila prevoznih merskih enot na eni strani in:
The first amount is equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the product of the anticipated number of units of measure of transport and:
bodisi najugodnejšo veljavno tarifo, ki bi jo lahko zahtevali uporabniki, če zadevna obveznost ne bi obstajala, oziroma,
either the most favourable existing rate which might be claimed by users if the obligation in question did not exist,
če take tarife ni, tisto tarifo, ki bi jo uporabilo podjetje, ki posluje na komercialni osnovi, in ob upoštevanju stroškov zadevnega prevoza ter razmer na trgu,
or where there is no such rate, the rate which the undertaking, operating on a commercial basis and taking into account both the costs of the operation in question and the state of the market, would have applied,
ter zmnožkom dejanskega števila prevoznih merskih enot in tarife, uvedene za zadevno obdobje, na drugi strani,
and, on the other hand, the product of the actual number of units of measure of transport and the rate imposed for the period under consideration.
drugi znesek je enak razliki med stroški, ki bi nastali z uporabo bodisi najugodnejše obstoječe tarife ali tarife, ki bi jo podjetje uporabilo, če bi poslovalo na komercialni osnovi, in stroški, ki so dejansko nastali po obvezni tarifi.
The second amount is equal to the difference between the costs which would be incurred applying either the most favourable existing rate or the rate which the undertaking would have applied if operating on a commercial basis and the costs actually incurred under the obligatory rate.
Zaradi odsotnosti podatkov, potrebnih za določitev navedenih zneskov, je drugi strokovnjak izračunal znesek dolgovanega nadomestila kot razliko med naslednjima zneskoma:
In the absence of the data required to determine those amounts, the second expert calculated the amount of compensation due as the difference between the two amounts as interpreted below.
zaradi odsotnosti pričakovanega in dejanskega števila prevoznih merskih enot je prvi znesek enak znesku, potrebnemu za kritje dejanskih stroškov (ali, če so nižji, „standardnih stroškov“), zmanjšanemu za prihodke od obsega prometa,
In the absence of the anticipated and the actual number of units of measure of transport, the first amount is equal to the amount necessary to cover the real costs (or the ‘standard costs’ if lower), minus the revenues obtained from the traffic carried.
drugi znesek bi moral biti po mnenju strokovnjaka enak dejanskim stroškom (ali, če so nižji, „standardnim stroškom“), zmanjšanim za razliko med dejanskimi stroški (ali, če so nižji, „standardnimi stroški“) in že prejetim zneskom nadomestila.
As regards the second amount, the expert considered that it should be equal to the real costs (or the ‘standard costs’ if lower) minus the difference between the real costs (or the ‘standard costs’ if lower) and the amount of compensation already received.
Po mnenju drugega strokovnjaka je iz navedenih izračunov mogoče sklepati, da lahko družba Buonotourist za obravnavano obdobje le za leta 1998, 1999 in 2000 trdi, da je prejela nezadostno nadomestilo zaradi domnevno naloženih tarifnih obveznosti.
According to the second expert, it follows from those calculations that during the period under review Buonotourist could only claim to have been undercompensated in 1998, 1999, and 2000 as a result of alleged tariff obligations being imposed upon it.
Drugi strokovnjak je znesek nezadostnega nadomestila za navedena tri leta izračunal na 838 593,21 EUR, temu pa so bile dodane še zakonite obresti v višini 272 979,13 EUR, kar pomeni dodatno nadomestilo v višini 1 111 572 EUR.
The amount of undercompensation for those three years was calculated by the second expert to amount to EUR 838 593,21, to which legal interest of EUR 272 979,13 was added, resulting in additional compensation of EUR 1 111 572.
To je znesek, ki ga je regija po odločitvi sodišča Consiglio di Stato morala plačati družbi Buonotourist, kar je dejansko storila 21. decembra 2012.
It was this amount which the Consiglio di Stato ordered the Region to pay to Buonotourist, which it actually paid on 21 December 2012.
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK POSTOPKA
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Kot je pojasnjeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, je Komisija izrazila številne pomisleke v zvezi z združljivostjo ukrepa z notranjim trgom.
As explained in the opening decision, the Commission had several doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the internal market.
Prvič, Komisija je dvomila, da so bili izpolnjeni vsi štirje pogoji, ki jih je Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče) določilo s sodno prakso v zadevi Altmark.
First, the Commission questioned whether the four conditions laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the CJEU’) in its Altmark case-law had been fulfilled.
Drugič, Komisija je imela pomisleke v zvezi z izvzetjem iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Second, the Commission had doubts regarding the exemption from the notification obligation under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
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 Buonotourist dejansko enostransko naložila obveznost javne službe in ali nadomestilo, plačano v skladu s to obveznostjo, izpolnjuje zahteve Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
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 Buonotourist by the Region and, second, on whether the compensation paid pursuant to that obligation complies with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, ali je nadomestilo, dodeljeno družbi Buonotourist, izpolnjevalo navedene pogoje.
The Commission could not conclude whether the compensation awarded to Buonotourist fulfilled those conditions.
Tretjič, Komisija je imela pomisleke v zvezi z morebitno združljivostjo ukrepa v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta.
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.
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 če 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.
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.
PRIPOMBE ITALIJE
COMMENTS BY ITALY
Italijanski organi na nacionalni ravni niso predložili pripomb glede sklepa o začetku postopka.
The Italian authorities at the national level did not provide any comments on the opening decision.
Pripombe je predložila le regija Campania.
Only the Campania Region did.
Prvič, regija je predložila dokumentacijo, iz katere naj bi bilo razvidno, da je družba Buonotourist v zadevnem obdobju poleg storitev v okviru koncesije opravljala „dovoljene storitve“ na lastno odgovornost.
First, the Region submitted documentation meant to show that Buonotourist performed ‘authorised services’ at its own risk, in addition to the services under concession in the period concerned.
Družba Buonotourist naj bi v obravnavanem obdobju na primer opravljala storitve mednarodnega in medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza.
For example, Buonotourist appears to have provided international and interregional bus transport services in the period under review.
Poleg tega je regija pojasnila, da je družba Buonotourist imela ločene računovodske izkaze le za storitve oddajanja in storitve avtobusnega prevoza, tj. brez kakršnega koli nadaljnjega ločevanja „dovoljenih storitev“, ki jih je opravljala na lastno odgovornost.
In addition, the Region explained that Buonotourist only had accounting separation between rental services and bus transport services, without further distinguishing the ‘authorised services’ that the company performed at its own risk.
Drugič, regija je ponovno poudarila, da v obravnavanem obdobju družbi Buonotourist niso bile enostransko naložene nobene obveznosti javne službe.
Second, the Region reiterated that no unilateral imposition of PSOs took place during the period under review.
Po navedbah regije je družba v skladu s takrat veljavnimi pravili zaprosila za letno obnovo koncesijskih storitev, tako da noben koncesijski akt ni vključeval enostranske naložitve obveznosti javne službe.
The Region noted that the company, under the rules then in force, requested yearly renewal of the concession services and that none of the concession acts entailed the unilateral imposition of PSOs.
Poleg tega je regija po sodbi sodišča Consiglio di Stato iz leta 2009 večkrat zaprosila družbo Buonotourist za akte ali pogodbe o naložitvi obveznosti javne službe, da bi to sodbo izvršila.
Moreover, following the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato in 2009, the Region repeatedly asked Buonotourist to provide the acts or contracts imposing PSOs on it in order to comply with the judgment.
Po navedbah regije se družba na te prošnje ni nikoli odzvala.
According to the Region, the company never replied to these requests.
Kar zadeva omejitev tarif, je regija ugotovila, da so tarife iz koncesijskih pogodb izhajale iz splošnih ukrepov cenovne politike, ki jo uporabljajo vse družbe, ki delujejo v istem sektorju.
Regarding the cap on tariffs, the Region noted that the tariffs indicated by the concession contracts derived from general measures of price policy applied by all companies operating in the same sector.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANi
COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
Edina tretja stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba Buonotourist, tj. upravičenka do ukrepa.
The only third party to submit observations in response to the opening decision was Buonotourist, the beneficiary of the measure.
Slednja se v svojih navedbah ni strinjala s prehodnimi stališči Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka.
In its submissions, Buonotourist disagreed with the preliminary positions taken by the Commission in the opening decision.
Da bi družba Buonotourist podprla svojo trditev, da so ji bile naložene obveznosti, je navedla, da 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“.
Buonotourist explained that Italy had regulated the PSOs by means of Law No 151/81, Regional Law No 16/83, Article 4 of Law No 59/97 and Legislative Decree No 422/97.
„premostitvene pogodbe o opravljanju storitev“, ki sta jo družba Buonotourist in regija podpisali za leto 2003 v skladu s členom 46 regionalnega zakona št. 3/02 ter s katero so se obstoječe koncesije razveljavile in nadomestile,
The public service was entrusted to Buonotourist by the Region by means of a concession act in 1972/73 and renewed every year until 2003.
sklepa regionalne vlade (delibera della Giunta Regionale) št. 8726 z dne 30. decembra 1999, s katerim je družba Buonotourist lahko spremenila nekatere proge na lastno zahtevo in na zahtevo drugih pobudnikov,
That PSOs were imposed on Buonotourist for the years 1996-2002, such as tariff obligations, routes, times and stops, can be allegedly inferred from the following documents:
sklepa regionalne vlade št. 323 z dne 4. maja 2000, s katerim se je podaljšalo trajanje začasne prepovedi zvišanja cen sezonskih vozovnic za storitve avtobusnega prevoza v regiji,
the ‘bridging service contract’ signed by Buonotourist and the Region for the year 2003 in compliance with Article 46 of Regional Law No 3/02, recalling and replacing the existing concessions,
obvestila št. 4770/2000 o razlikovanju med načinom izračuna tarife za navadne sezonske vozovnice in sezonske vozovnice za „delavske linije“ (linee operaie),
decision of the Regional Government (delibera della Giunta Regionale) No 8726 of 30 December 1999, authorising Buonotourist to modify some routes following requests from both the company and other petitioners,
odloka regionalnega svetnika za prevoz (Assessore di Trasporti) št. 1609/2001 o prehodu z lire na euro, s katerim so bili izvajalci storitev opozorjeni, da je kakršno koli zvišanje tarif prepovedano in da ta prepoved pomeni „koncesijsko/pogodbeno obveznost“.
decision of the Regional Government No 323 of 4 May 2000, which extended the duration of the suspension of the increase in costs for season tickets for bus transport services in the Region,
Poleg tega je družba Buonotourist trdila, da je regija večkrat znižala standardne stroške ter jih neenakomerno uporabila za različne proge in koncesije, zaradi česar so se nekateri izvajalci odločili ukiniti določene avtobusne proge, ki so stalno ustvarjale izgubo.
note 4770/2000 communicating the distinction between how to calculate the tariff for ordinary season tickets and season tickets for ‘work lines’ (linee operaie),
Regija naj bi v odgovor na to izjavila, da so izvajalci na podlagi obveznosti javne službe dolžni upravljati proge in da bodo zoper izvajalce, ki bi dejansko prenehali opravljati svoje dejavnosti, sprejeti pravni ukrepi zaradi prekinitve javne službe.
decree of the Region’s Assessore di Trasporti No 1609/2001 concerning the change from lira to euros, reminding the service providers that any irregular increase in tariffs was forbidden and that prohibition constituted a ‘concession/contractual obligation’.
Po navedbah družbe Buonotourist to dokazuje, da so ji bile naložene obveznosti javne službe.
Moreover, Buonotourist argued that since the Region repeatedly reduced the amount of the standard cost and applied that cost unevenly across the different routes and concessions, some operators decided to close certain bus routes consistently operated at a loss.
Vendar družba Buonotourist ni predložila dokazov, ki bi podprli to trditev.
The Region allegedly replied that the operators were duty bound to operate the routes under the PSOs and that legal action would be taken against them for interrupting a public service if indeed they did stop providing their activity.
Družba Buonotourist je trdila tudi, da je delovala predvsem kot izvajalec storitev lokalnega javnega prevoza (80 % dejavnosti).
According to Buonotourist, this showed that PSOs were imposed upon it.
Za preostali del raznovrstne gospodarske dejavnosti je imela ločene računovodske izkaze.
However, Buonotourist did not provide evidence to support this claim.
Družba Buonotourist je po tem, ko je opozorila na končno nacionalno odločbo sodišča Consiglio di Stato, izpodbijala naslednja argumenta, ki ju je predložila regija:
Buonotourist also claimed that it mainly operated as a local public transport service provider (80 % of its activity).
izračun ni bil podprt z ločenimi poslovodnimi računovodskimi izkazi s strani stroškovnih centrov, da bi se razlikovale dejavnosti v okviru obveznosti javne službe,
For the remaining diversified economic activity, it maintained separate accounts.
ob odsotnosti računovodskih podatkov, ki bi omogočali opredelitev posameznih elementov, ki bi jih bilo treba izračunati v skladu s členoma 10 in 11 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, je bil izračun izveden po induktivni metodi, ki jo je regija označila za „težko razumljivo in neobičajno“.
After having recalled the final national ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, Buonotourist challenged the following arguments put forward by the Region:
Družba Buonotourist je pojasnila, da so veljavna pravila zahtevala le, da se računovodski podatki o storitvi javnega prevoza, ki se upravlja na podlagi obveznosti javne službe, predložijo ločeno od podatkov o kakršni koli drugi poslovni dejavnosti, pri čemer niso zahtevala nobene nadaljnje razčlenitve računovodskih izkazov, ki bi ločeno prikazovala stroške in prihodke za vsako zadevno progo.
the calculation was not supported by separate management accounts by cost centres such as to distinguish the activities subject to PSOs,
Trdila je, da je imela ločene računovodske izkaze za računovodske podatke o dejavnostih javne službe in o poslovnih dejavnostih, pri čemer je dodala, da regija ni nikoli podvomila v zanesljivost računovodskih podatkov ter da jih je pravilno uporabila kot podlago za izračun in izplačilo letnih prispevkov.
given the absence of accounting data allowing the identification of the specific elements to be calculated pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, the calculation had been performed inductively, with a method the Region termed as ‘abstruse and aberrant’.
Družba Buonotourist je trdila tudi, da predloženih računovodskih dokumentov ni bilo mogoče šteti za nezadostne za podporo zahtevka za nadomestilo zgolj zato, ker so jih sestavljali letni računovodski izkazi in „obrazci E“ ter ker jim niso bili priloženi celoviti izvodi temeljnih računovodskih in upravnih vknjižb (računovodski register, poslovne knjige, izdani in prejeti računi, računi vozovnic itd.).
Buonotourist explained that the applicable rules simply required the accounting data relating to the public transport service operated under a PSO to be supplied separately from those of any other business activities, but did not require any further accounting breakdown showing separately the costs and revenue for each route covered.
Po navedbah družbe Buonotourist bi bilo ta argument preprosto izpodbijati z dejstvom, da je regija v obravnavanem obdobju enake podatke sprejela in jih takrat obravnavala kot zanesljive.
Buonotourist claimed to keep separate accounts for the accounting data concerning public service activities and those concerning the business activities, and it added that the reliability of such accounting data was never questioned by the Region, which on the contrary used them correctly as the basis for calculating and paying out the annual contributions.
Poleg tega je zahteva po hrambi celovite računovodske in upravne dokumentacije za obravnavano obdobje prenehala veljati, zato je zdaj objektivno težko zahtevati izvode.
Buonotourist further disputed that the accounting documents supplied were insufficient to support the compensation claim merely because they consisted of annual financial statements and ‘E forms’ and were not accompanied by full copies of the underlying accounting and administrative entries (accounting register, ledgers, invoices issued and received, ticket receipts, etc.).
Zato je primerno, da se znesek dolgovanega nadomestila izračuna na podlagi induktivnega pristopa, kot ga je določilo sodišče Consiglio di Stato.
According to Buonotourist, this argument could be easily countered by noting that the Region had accepted the same data during the period under review, considering them reliable at the time.
Poleg tega so bili računovodski izkazi ustrezno potrjeni, njihova pravilnost in verodostojnost pa se ni nikoli izpodbijala.
Furthermore, the requirement to keep full accounting and administrative documentation for the period under review has now expired and it is, therefore, objectively difficult to demand copies at present.
Jasno je torej, da so računovodski izkazi, ki jih je predložila družba Buonotourist, zadostni za izračun nadomestila ob popolnem upoštevanju zahtev Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
It is therefore appropriate to reconstruct the amount of compensation due via an inductive approach, as prescribed by the Consiglio di Stato.
Kar zadeva pravilnost metode za izračun in njeno skladnost s pravom Unije, je družba Buonotourist menila, da bi morala prejeti nadomestilo za izgubo, ki jo je utrpela v smislu razlike med nižjimi prihodki in višjimi stroški ter je bila posledica njenih obveznosti javne službe.
Finally, the financial statements had been duly certified and their correctness and truthfulness had never been called into question.
Družba Buonotourist je za določitev vrednosti nižjih prihodkov na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov najprej upoštevala dejanske letne prihodke iz poslovanja, ki so bili zmnožek dejanskega števila prevoznih merskih enot in uvedene tarife.
In conclusion, the accounts submitted by Buonotourist are clearly sufficient for calculating the compensation in full compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Nato je določila znesek, ki ga je bilo treba odšteti v skladu s pravili Unije, ob upoštevanju prihodkov, potrebnih za kritje dejanskih stroškov, zabeleženih v letnih računovodskih izkazih.
Concerning the correctness of the calculation method and its consistency with Union law, Buonotourist considered that the company had to be compensated for the disadvantage incurred in terms of the difference between lower revenue and greater costs as a consequence of its PSOs.
Višina letnih prihodkov iz poslovanja ustreza dejanskim prihodkom družbe iz dejavnosti, ki jo je opravljala na podlagi tarifne obveznosti, pri čemer so bili ti prihodki ločeno navedeni v njenih letnih računovodskih izkazih in obrazcih E, ki so bili vsako leto poslani regiji, ki ni nikoli podvomila v njihovo zanesljivost.
To establish the value of lower revenue on the basis of reliable data, Buonotourist, first, considered the actual annual operating revenue, which was the product of the actual number of units of measure of transport and the tariff imposed.
Zato ni potrebno, da se navedeni zneski razčlenijo na sestavne dele, čeprav vključujejo prihodke za proge, ki niso bile zajete s koncesijami, in so zato precenjeni.
It then identified the amount to be subtracted in accordance with Union rules, considering the revenue necessary to cover the actual costs as recorded in the annual accounts.
Kar zadeva znesek, ki ga je bilo treba odšteti, je družba Buonotourist trdila, da je uporabila merilo, ki je bilo v celoti v skladu z navodili iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 in je dopuščalo uporabo tarife, ki bi jo družba uporabila, če bi poslovala na komercialni osnovi, pri čemer je morala ta tarifa kriti dejansko nastale stroške.
The amount of the annual operating revenue coincides with the actual revenue obtained by the company in the activity provided under a tariff obligation which was separately indicated in the annual financial statements of Buonotourist and in the E forms sent each year to the Region, which never questioned their reliability.
Kar zadeva razliko med stroški, ki bi jih družba Buonotourist imela, če bi uporabila najugodnejšo obstoječo tarifo ali poslovala na komercialni osnovi, in dejansko nastalimi stroški, je menila, da je njen izračun v celoti v skladu s členom 11 navedene uredbe, saj je zajemal nižje stroške, ki jih je imela zaradi obveznosti javne službe in prispevkov, ki jih je prejela od regije za kritje stroškov poslovanja.
There is, therefore, no need to break down those amounts into their component parts, even though they include revenues for routes that were not subject to concessions and are therefore overstated.
Poleg tega družba Buonotourist meni, da bi bilo v primeru prostega trga nemogoče oceniti obseg potniškega prometa.
As for the amount to be subtracted, Buonotourist claimed that it used a criterion that fully complied with the instructions contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which allowed the use of the tariff that the company would have applied had it operated on a commercial basis, which had to cover the actual costs incurred.
Zato je „induktivna metoda“, ki jo je določilo sodišče Consiglio di Stato, upravičena.