natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To this end, the expert calculated the net financial effect following the methodology indicated in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council [9].
Alessandria–Voghera (medregionalna storitev)
In contrast to the claim made by the Italian authorities, the expert considers that it is possible to determine, on the basis of Arfea's accounts, which were the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations allegedly imposed by the Piedmont Region.
31.12.1993 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja septembra 1996
According to the expert, some costs can be allocated directly, while some common costs can only be separated by making an indirect attribution of such costs to Arfea's public and private activities.
Acqui–Spinetta–industrijski obrati (linea operaia)
The indirect allocation of common costs was done on the basis of parameters indicated in the so-called ‘base model’ (modelli base) prepared by Arfea allegedly on the basis of instructions provided by the Region (so called ‘Instructions 97’).
1996 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja oktobra 1998
Such parameters indicated the percentage of activity for the urban and inter-city public service performed in the Region and the percentage of other private activities (e.g. bus rentals).
Oviglio–Asti fs
As regards compliance with the Altmark judgment, the expert does not take a view on whether Arfea was actually entrusted with clearly defined PSOs as this was not within his mandate.
1986 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1994
The expert agrees with the calculations made by Arfea's consultants on the reasonable profit, which is defined as an average remuneration of capital, based on the following assumptions:
31.12.1997 – podpisano leta 1999 – v koncesiji so omenjena plačila družbe Arfea za leti 1997 in 1998
The amount was then reduced to reflect the proportion of the assets used to provide public services only, using the relevant percentage of Arfea's activities.
1983 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1994
The resulting amount for 1997 was ITL 1,6 billion.
Arquata–Spinetta–Alessandria–industrijska obrata Michelin in Montedison (linea operaia)
Based on the formula chosen by the consultant for calculating the required return on invested capital, the relevant rate of return was set at 12,39 % for 1997 and 10,81 % for 1998;
1997 – podpisano leta 1998
Finally, the expert maintains that the unit costs of Arfea in 1997 and 1998 are coherent with those of a typical well-run undertaking providing similar services on the market.
Cassano Spinola–Novi–industrijski obrat (ILVA)
As a result, the additional compensations for 1997 and 1998 (EUR 1196780 for 1997 and EUR 102814 for 1998) would correspond to the difference between the verified deficit and the net financial effect, minus the public contributions already paid by the Region.
31.12.1993 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja septembra 1997
The Italian authorities provided 28 concessions (disciplinari di concessione) granted by the Provinces to Arfea for the provision of services on 27 regional routes and one interregional route, with different validity dates.
31.12.1983 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1995
Some of the concessions were clearly in force during the period under review, while for others there is no evidence of renewal but only of subsequent modifications:
Moretti–Acqui Terme
Concession
31.12.1993 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1996
Alessandria - Voghera (interregional service)
1998 (omenjena je prejšnja koncesija iz leta 1994)
Acqui – Mombaruzzo
Sarizzola–Tortona
evidence of modifications, the last one in September 1996
Fontanile–Alessandria
Acqui - Spinetta - industrial factories (linea operaia)
31.12.1993 – podpisano leta 1996
Oviglio - Asti fs
Antonio–Tortona
1986 - evidence of modifications, the last one in 1994
1993 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja novembra 1996
(signed in 1999 - the concession mentions payments from Arfea for both 1997 and 1998)
18.10.1993 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja junija 1996
1983 - evidence of modifications, the last one in 1994
31.12.1998 – podpisano leta 1999
1997 (signed in 1998)
1997 – podpisano oktobra 1998
evidence of modifications, the last one in September 1997
31.12.1993 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1997
evidence of modifications, the last one in 1995
31.12.1996 – podpisano novembra 1996
evidence of modifications, the last one in 1996
31.12.1993 – zadnje spremembe dogovorjene oktobra 1997, od aprila 1997
1998 (previous concession from 1994 is mentioned)
Zahteva 1993 – dokaz o obnovitvi v letih 1994, 1995, 1996 in 1997
Sarizzola-Tortona
S. Agata Fossili–Tortona
Fontanile-Alessandria
Torre Garofoli–Tortona
signed in 1996
1973 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1993
Isola s.
Castelnuovo S.–Spinetta M.
Antonio – Tortona
1981 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1997
1993 - evidence of modifications, the last one in November 1996
1994 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1999
Altavilla-Alessandria
Alessandria–Acqui Terme
evidence of modifications, the last one in June 1996
1994 – dokazi o spremembah, zadnja leta 1996
Arquata – Tortona
Vse koncesije so letne koncesije, pri katerih sta za obnovitev potrebna oddaja vloge za obnovitev vsaj en mesec pred iztekom koncesije in plačilo koncesnine.
signed in 1999
V vseh koncesijah je določeno, da se storitve izvajajo na izključno odgovornost podjetja.
Garbagna – Tortona
Več koncesij se nanaša na regionalne tabele, ki določajo tarife.
1997 - signed in October 1998
V petih koncesijah je navedeno, da opravljanje storitve ne pomeni pravice do kakršne koli subvencije ali nadomestila.
Bassignana - Alessandria
V preostalih 23 koncesijah je navedeno, da je dostop do javnih prispevkov mogoč le ob skladnosti z določbami koncesij in da se ustrezni izračuni izvedejo na podlagi okvirnega sklepa iz leta 1984.
evidence of modifications, the last one in 1997
[10]
Caldirola - Alessandria
Razlogi za začetek postopka
signed November 1996
Kot je pojasnjeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, je Komisija izrazila več pomislekov v zvezi z združljivostjo ukrepa z notranjim trgom.
Masio - Alessandria
Prvič, Komisija je dvomila, da so bili izpolnjeni štirje pogoji, ki jih je Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče) določilo s sodno prakso v zadevi Altmark.
last modifications agreed in October 1997 as from April 1997
Drugič, Komisija je imela pomisleke v zvezi izvzetjem zadevnega ukrepa iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu s členom 17(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Quattordio - Alessandria
Komisija je zlasti izrazila pomisleke, prvič, ali je regija družbi Arfea enostransko naložila obveznost javne službe in, drugič, ali je zadevno nadomestilo skladno z vsemi zahtevami Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Request 1993 - evidence of the renewal in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997
Če bi se izkazalo, da nobeden od teh pogojev ni bil izpolnjen, bi se morala združljivost priglašenega ukrepa proučiti v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007.
S.Agata Fossili - Tortona
Tretjič, Komisija je imela pomisleke v zvezi z združljivostjo obravnavanega ukrepa v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Torre Garofoli - Tortona
Komisija je dvomila, da so bile družbi Arfea obveznosti javne službe naložene v smislu Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 s pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe ali na podlagi splošnih pravil.
1973 - evidence of modifications, the last one in 1993
Če bi se lahko koncesijske pogodbe obravnavale kot pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, Komisija dvomi, da te pogodbe izpolnjujejo zahteve iz člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, ki določa obvezno vsebino pogodb o izvajanju javne službe.
Castelnuovo S.- Spinetta M.
Komisija je imela pomisleke tudi o tem, ali je izračun dodeljenega nadomestila družbi Arfea izpolnjeval zahteve iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007, da se prepreči čezmerna kompenzacija.
1981 - evidence of modifications, the last one in 1997
Četrtič, Komisija je imela pomisleke glede točne narave obravnavanega ukrepa.
Acqui - Alessandria
Komisija je zlasti dvomila, ali bi se lahko zadevni ukrep namesto dodelitve nadomestila za izvajanje javne službe obravnaval kot nadomestilo za škodo zaradi protipravnega dejanja, kar ne pomeni prednosti v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
1994 - evidence of modifications, the last one in 1999
PRIPOMBE ITALIJE
Alessandria - Acqui Terme
Italijanski organi so v svojih pripombah izrazili mnenje, da priglašeni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, zlasti ker niso izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, ki jih je Sodišče določilo v sodbi v zadevi Altmark.
1994 - evidence of modifications, the last one in 1996
Menili so še, da nadomestilo, ki ga je regija odobrila, ni v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69 niti z Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007.
All concessions are annual concessions, the renewal of which was subject to the introduction of a request for renewal at least one month before the expiry of the concession and to the payment of a concession fee.
Italija je v zvezi s tem predložila predvsem naslednje argumente.
They all stipulate that the services were carried out entirely at the risk of the undertaking.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da za avtobusne storitve v obravnavanem obdobju ni obstajala ne enostranska ne pogodbena obveznost javne službe.
Several concessions refer to regional tables establishing tariffs.
Prvič, Italija trdi, da je družba Arfea ravnala na podlagi koncesij, ki jih je bilo treba letno obnavljati na zahtevo družbe.
Five concessions indicate that the provision of the service does not constitute a right to a subsidy or compensation of any kind.
Te koncesije (skupaj 28, navedene v uvodni izjavi 19 zgoraj) so vključevale obveznost uporabe tarifnega sistema, ki ga je regija v zameno za izključno pravico do opravljanja zadevnih storitev odobrila za vnaprej določen urnik, vendar niso določale posebnih obveznosti javne službe v smislu člena 2 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The remaining 23 concessions indicate that access to public contributions is subordinated to compliance with the provisions of the concessions and that the relevant calculations shall be made on the basis of the 1984 Framework Decision [10].
Poleg tega po mnenju italijanskih organov v navedenih koncesijah niso bili navedeni parametri nadomestila, ki bi bili za specifične obveznosti javne službe vnaprej določeni.
Grounds for initiating the procedure
Naknadna dodelitev nadomestila na podlagi sodbe nacionalnega sodišča ne bi bila združljiva s to zahtevo.
As explained in the opening decision, the Commission had several doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the internal market.
Drugič, v vseh koncesijskih dokumentih je navedeno, da se storitev izvaja na izključno odgovornost podjetja in da stroške v celoti nosi izvajalec storitev.
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.
Čeprav je bilo v koncesijah, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, določeno, da se storitve izvajajo na izključno odgovornost podjetja, je družba Arfea večkrat zahtevala podaljšanje navedenih koncesij.
Second, the Commission had doubts whether the measure at stake was exempted from the notification obligation under Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Tretjič, iz koncesijskih dokumentov je še razvidno, da so bile proge, ki jih oskrbujejo avtobusi družbe, večkrat spremenjene na zahtevo družbe, zato je mogoče izključiti, da je regionalni ali pokrajinski organ, ki je dodelil nadomestilo, čeprav implicitno, naložil kakršne koli obveznosti javne službe.
In particular, the Commission expressed doubts first whether any PSO had been unilaterally imposed on Arfea by the Region and, second, whether the compensation at stake complied with all the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Tako naj bi se v celoti pokril primanjkljaj iz poslovanja družbe.
If neither of these conditions was shown to have been satisfied, the compatibility of the notified measure would need to be assessed under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
V italijanski zakonodaji so bili tovrstni operativni prispevki izvajalcem storitev na voljo, da bi dosegli gospodarsko ravnovesje, vsi drugi primanjkljaji pa bi se pripisali izvajalčevemu neučinkovitemu upravljanju.
Third, the Commission had doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure at stake under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
V skladu s tem je bilo izrecno določeno, da vse take primanjkljaje nosi družba, ker ni sprejela vseh potrebnih ukrepov za znižanje stroškov in povečanje prihodkov.
To the extent that the concession agreements could be considered as public service contracts, the Commission doubted that these agreements met the requirements of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, establishing the mandatory content of public service contracts.
Po navedbah italijanskih organov je strokovnjak, ki ga je določilo sodišče, le proučil stroške in prihodke, ki jih je predložil svetovalec družbe, stroški pa so bili ugotovljeni naknadno in brez ustreznega ločevanja računovodskih evidenc.
The Commission also had doubts on whether the calculation of the compensation granted to Arfea met the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in order to avoid overcompensation.
Nato je sklenil, da so bili, razen v nekaj točkah, pri katerih so bile najdene neskladnosti, dobljeni rezultati načeloma pravilni.
Fourth, the Commission had doubts regarding the exact nature of the measure at stake.
Poleg tega italijanski organi menijo, da nadomestilo ne izpolnjuje nobene od zahtev iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
In particular, the Commission questioned whether the measure at stake could, instead of an award of public service compensation, be considered as an award of damages for wrongful act, which does not constitute an advantage in the meaning of 107(1) of the TFEU.
Natančneje, v izračunu zneska nadomestila ni upoštevana metoda iz Priloge 1 k Uredbi (ES) št. 1370/2007 za izračun neto finančnega učinka skladnosti z obveznostmi javne službe.
COMMENTS FROM ITALY
Nazadnje, italijanski organi trdijo, da je regionalno upravno sodišče v svojih sodbah odredilo, da se družbi Arfea izplača finančno nadomestilo za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe v letih 1997 in 1998, ni pa dodelilo nadomestila za škodo zaradi neizplačila navedenih prispevkov.
In their submissions, the Italian authorities considered that the notified measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, specifically because it did not satisfy all the conditions laid down by the European Court of Justice in its Altmark judgment.
Italijanski organi so pojasnili, da je družba Arfea 6. junija 2014 vložila zahtevek za dodelitev nadomestila za škodo poleg nadomestila, ki ji ga je regionalno upravno sodišče že odobrilo.
The Italian authorities also considered that the compensation awarded by the Region neither complied with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 nor with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Po navedbah italijanskih organov naj bi to dokazalo, da nadomestilo, ki ga je družbi Arfea dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče in ki je predmet zadevnega sklepa, ni pomenilo nadomestila za škodo.
In this regard Italy submitted essentially the following arguments.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
The Italian authorities stressed that neither a unilateral nor a contractual imposition of public service obligations existed for the bus services during the period concerned.
Edina zainteresirana stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba Arfea, upravičenka do ukrepa.
First, Italy maintains that Arfea operated on the basis of concessions which had to be renewed annually upon the request of the company.
V svojih navedbah se ne strinja s prehodnimi stališči Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka.
Those concessions (28 in total, listed in recital 19 above) included an obligation to use a tariff system approved by the Region for a pre-determined schedule in return for the exclusive right to provide the relevant services, but did not identify any specific PSOs within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Arfea trdi, prvič, da mora Komisija združljivost in zakonitost obravnavanega ukrepa proučiti le na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, in ne na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Similarly, in the opinion of the Italian authorities, those concessions did not indicate compensation parameters established in advance referring to specific PSOs.
Po navedbah družbe Arfea Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 ni mogoče uporabiti za okoliščine, ki so nastale, preden je ta uredba začela veljati, tj. 3. decembra 2009, kot je potrdilo Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 20. marca 2013 v zadevi T-92/11, Andersen.
The award of ex post compensation by means of a judgment from a national court would be incompatible with that requirement.
Kljub temu Arfea trdi, da so nadomestila, ki so ji bila dodeljena, v vsakem primeru skladna z zahtevami Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Second, all concessions documents specify that the service is to be provided entirely at the company's own risk and that the cost is to be borne in full by the service provider.
Drugič, družba Arfea trdi, da so ji bile zaupane obveznosti izvajanja javne službe v smislu člena 2(1) in (2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Despite the fact that the concessions provided by the Italian authorities stipulated that the operation of the service was operated entirely at the company's own risk, Arfea repeatedly requested the prolongation of those concessions.
Po mnenju družbe Arfea so storitve lokalnega javnega prevoza javna služba.
Third, the concession documents also show that the routes served by the company's buses were changed several times at the company's request, and it can therefore be ruled out that any public service obligations were imposed, even implicitly, by the awarding regional or provincial authority.
Te storitve bi se v Italiji dodelile na podlagi upravnih koncesij, obveznosti javne službe, povezane z izvajanjem teh storitev, pa bi bile določene s koncesijskimi pogodbami ter sporazumi in predpisi, priloženimi k tem koncesijskim pogodbam.
Furthermore, the Italian authorities explained that in return for the exclusive right to provide the transport services, on the conditions specified with the changes made at its request, the company received the operating contributions provided for by Italian law as remuneration for the services provided, based on a standard cost calculated on the basis of the 1984 Framework Decision.
V primeru družbe Arfea bi te obveznosti javne službe zadevale operativne programe, avtobusne proge, postaje in tarife.
The standard cost of the service was calculated in accordance with the legislation then in force (Law No 151/81 and Regional Law No 16/82), which made provision for a contribution to the costs of providing local public transport services on the basis of standard eligible expenditure.
V zvezi z dejstvom, da je v koncesijah določeno, da naj bi se storitve izvajale na lastno odgovornost, družba Arfea trdi, da se to nanaša na tveganja za varnost potnikov in tretjih oseb, in ne na splošno poslovno tveganje.
This was intended to fully cover the company's operating deficit.
Tretjič, družba Arfea trdi, da ji dejstvo, da ni zaprosila za prenehanje teh obveznosti javne službe, kot določa člen 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, ne odvzema pravice do nadomestila v skladu z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Under the Italian legislation such operating contributions were intended to enable the service provider to achieve economic balance, whereas any further deficits were to be ascribed to inefficient management by the provider.
Po navedbah družbe Arfea se postopek iz člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 ne bi uporabil za obveznosti javne službe, ki so bile podjetju naložene po začetku veljavnosti Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
Accordingly, it was expressly provided that any such deficits were to be borne by the company, on the ground that it had failed to adopt all the measures required to reduce costs and increase revenues.
To razlago člena 4 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 bi po mnenju družbe Arfea podprla sodba Sodišča z dne 3. marca 2014 v zadevi C-518/12, CTP.
The Italian authorities also maintain that the calculation of the additional compensation made ex post by the Court mandated expert is in clear breach of the requirements of the common compensation procedure set out in Articles 10 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Četrtič, kar zadeva izračun zneska nadomestila, ki ji ga je dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče regije Piemont, družba Arfea trdi, da Komisija ne more izpodbijati poročila strokovnjaka, ki ga je pooblastilo sodišče, saj gre za predhodno tehnično dejavnost, ki je izključno v pristojnosti nacionalnih sodišč.
According to the Italian authorities, the expert consulted by the Court simply analysed the costs and revenues presented by the company's consultant, which had been determined ex post and in the absence of proper separation of accounts.
Po navedbah družbe Arfea bi bili v vsakem primeru parametri za izračun nadomestila vnaprej določeni z odločitvijo regionalnega sveta z dne 16. februarja 1984 in nadomestilo ne bi bilo čezmerno.
It then, concluded that, apart from a few items where discrepancies were found, the result obtained was essentially correct.
Zadevna nadomestila bi zato bila skladna z zadevnimi zahtevami iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The Italian authorities further consider that the compensation does not meet either the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Petič, po trditvah družbe Arfea, bi argumenti, povzeti v uvodnih izjavah 37 do 39 zgoraj, veljali tudi za presojo združljivosti obravnavanega nadomestila z zahtevami iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
In particular, the calculation of the amount of compensation would not respect the method set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 to calculate the net financial effect of compliance with PSOs.
Vendar, kar zadeva združljivost teh nadomestil s formalnimi zahtevami, ki jih določa ta uredba, ki jo je Komisija citirala v uvodni izjavi 64 in naslednjih v svojem sklepu o začetku postopka, družba Arfea trdi, da se te v tej zadevi ne bi smele uporabiti.
Finally, the Italian authorities argue that the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court ordered to pay Arfea financial compensation for the discharge of service obligations in 1997 and 1998, but did not award compensation for damages arising as a result of those contributions not having been paid.
Po mnenju družbe Arfea bi bilo pravno in logično nemogoče prikazati skladnost s temi zahtevami, saj je zadevna situacija nastala več let, preden je začela veljati Uredba (ES) št. 1370/2007.
The Italian authorities explained that Arfea lodged on 6 June 2014 an application for an award of damages in addition to the compensation it had already been granted by the Regional Administrative Court.
Na koncu Arfea trdi, da nadomestila, ki ji jih je dodelilo regionalno upravno sodišče regije Piemont, izpolnjujejo štiri pogoje iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
According to the Italian authorities, this would show that the compensation granted to Arfea by the Regional Administrative Court, and which are the object of the present decision, did not constitute an award of damages.
Prvič, skladno s prvim pogojem iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark bi bila družba Arfea pooblaščena za izpolnjevanje natančno določenih obveznosti javne službe.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Drugič, skladno z drugim pogojem iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark bi bili parametri za nadomestilo določeni vnaprej na pregleden in objektiven način, z odločitvijo regionalnega sveta z dne 16. februarja 1984.
The only interested party to submit observations in response to the opening decision was Arfea, the beneficiary of the measure.
Tretjič, skladno s tretjim pogojem iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark bi se v strokovnjakovem poročilu ugotovilo, da nadomestilo ni preseglo stroškov izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe, vključno z razumnim dobičkom.
In its submissions, Arfea disagrees with the preliminary positions taken by the Commission in the opening decision.
Nazadnje, družba Arfea bi veljala za tipično in dobro vodeno podjetje v smislu četrtega pogoja iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark, kot dokazuje dejstvo, da so bili njeni povprečni stroški na kilometer nižji od standardnih regionalnih stroškov.