natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The measures could be deemed compatible with the internal market if they fulfilled the conditions of the Regulations applicable, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 or Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
zakonitosti pomoči, izplačanih pred 3. decembrom 2009, ker je Uredba (EGS) št. 1191/69 uredba o izvzetju, s katero so nadomestila, izplačana v skladu s temi določbami, oproščena obveznosti priglasitve;
Additional comments by RATP Dev, Transdev, OPTILE and Keolis submitted on 21 June 2016
zakonitosti in združljivosti pomoči, izplačanih na podlagi pogodb, ki so veljale 3. decembra 2009 in so se nadaljevale različno dolga obdobja, določena v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
Firstly, the four interested third parties who wished to make additional comments drew the Commission's attention to a decision it had taken when examining the compatibility of a State aid scheme set up by the Czech Republic (the ‘Autobus pořízení decision’) [22].
V skladu s sodbo Jorgen Andersen, ki jo mora Komisija upoštevati v obravnavani zadevi, bo morala pomoči, izplačane pred 3. decembrom 2009, preučiti na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69, vključno z nadomestili, izplačanimi v obliki cen v okviru sistema pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe.
The circumstances underlying that decision were, according to the third parties, very similar to those associated with the mechanism set up by the Region (taken over by the CT1).
Poleg tega so bila podrobna pravila za izračun nadomestil, izplačanih v obliki cen, določena s sodno prakso v zadevi Danske Bus [23], s katero se zahteva, da so ta nadomestila „neposredno in izključno potrebna za izvajanje javne storitve prevoza kot take“ [24].
The Commission had examined the Czech system of investment subsidies taking into account the repercussions of the subsidies on operating compensation granted under the operating agreements, and had declared it compatible on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
Če Komisija Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69 izjemoma ne bi štela za uredbo o izvzetju, bo morala v skladu s svojo prakso odločanja ugotoviti združljivost regionalnih subvencij, ki izhajajo iz mehanizma regije.
The interested parties went on to argue that the Jørgen Andersen judgment settled the question of which Regulation relating to public passenger transport applied in the present case: it was Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 as amended in 1991, not Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Če bi Komisija zavrnila uporabo načel iz sodbe Jorgen Andersen in uporabila Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007, bi morala ugotoviti, da so pogoji, ki jih je treba uporabiti v zvezi s preučitvijo združljivosti nadomestil, izplačanih v obliki cen, enaki pogojem iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1191/69.
The interested parties argued primarily that the regional subsidies paid under the system set up by the Region did not constitute State aid.
Nazadnje, zainteresirane tretje strani dopolnjujejo tudi svoja pisanja o uporabi veljavne sheme pomoči po sklepu Komisije z dne 15. oktobra 2014 v zadevi Dublin Bus in Irish Bus [25].
They arrived at this conclusion by taking into account the fact that the mechanism included an annual interest rate which applied to subsidies for the purchase of rolling stock.
Komisija je namreč v tem sklepu menila, da je sistem subvencije za naložbe, ki je bil uveden leta 1985 in je zelo podoben mehanizmu, ki ga je uvedla regija, pomenil veljavno shemo pomoči.
As far as the question of the applicable Regulation was concerned, the interested parties pointed out that the Jørgen Andersen judgment laid down temporal rules for applying Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EC) No 1370/2007.
OCENA ZADEVNIH UKREPOV, KI JO OPRAVI KOMISIJA
By that judgment, the Court ruled that Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 applied when assessing:
Analiza Komisije zajema tri mehanizme podpore za naložbe, na katere se nanaša sklep o začetku postopka, in sicer: (i) mehanizem subvencij za naložbe regije, opredeljen v zaporednih sklepih CR 34-94, CR 44-98 in CR 47-01, (ii) mehanizem, ki ga je nasledil z uvedbo dodatka št. 3 k pogodbi CT1, in nazadnje (iii) prispevek C2 iz pogodbe CT2.
the lawfulness of the aid payments made before 3 December 2009, since Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 was an exemption regulation which exempted compensation paid in compliance with those provisions from the notification requirement;
Kar zadeva pogodbo CT2, Komisija pojasnjuje, da je njena preučitev omejena na prispevek C2, ki je povezan s problematiko naložb.
the lawfulness and compatibility of aid paid in performance of the contracts in force at 3 December 2009 and extended for varying periods laid down under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Sklep o začetku postopka se namreč nanaša le na ukrepe, ki bi lahko pomenili neko obliko podpore za naložbe, kar dejansko izključuje prispevek C1 iz pogodbe CT2.
In accordance with the Jørgen Andersen judgment, which was binding on the Commission in the case in point, it would have to assess the aid paid before 3 December 2009 under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, including compensation paid in the form of prices under the public-service contract system.
Shema pomoči ali individualne pomoči
Furthermore, the procedures for calculating compensation paid in the form of prices had been laid down in case law in the Danske Busvognmænd ruling [23], which required such compensation to be ‘directly and exclusively necessary for the performance of the public transport service per se’ [24].
Več kot sto podjetij ali režijskih obratov je skozi leta prejelo subvencije, ki sta jih izplačevala regija in nato združenje STIF.
In the extraordinary event that the Commission were to refuse to regard Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 as an exemption regulation, it would, in conformity with its decision-making practice, have to conclude that the regional subsidies deriving from the mechanism set up by the Region were compatible.
Pred oceno obstoja pomoči in njihove morebitne združljivosti z notranjim trgom se postavlja vprašanje, ali so bile te subvencije dodeljene individualno, kar bi pomenilo, da jih mora Komisija preučiti posamično, ali v okviru shem, kar bi pomenilo, da se lahko Komisija omeji na preučitev ključnih parametrov zadevnih shem.
If the Commission were to refuse to apply the principles handed down in the Jørgen Andersen judgment by applying Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, it would have to find that the conditions for considering the compatibility of compensation paid in the form of prices were identical to those set out in Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.
V Uredbi Sveta (EU) 2015/1589 [26] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: postopkovna uredba) je shema pomoči opredeljena kot „vsak akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov dodeliti individualno pomoč podjetjem, opredeljenim v aktu na splošen in abstrakten način, in kateri koli akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče dodeliti pomoč, ki ni povezana z določenim projektom, enemu ali več podjetjem za nedoločen čas in/ali v nedoločenem znesku“.
Lastly, the interested third parties also added to their submissions on the implementation of the existing aid scheme following the Commission decision on Dublin Bus/Irish Bus of 15 October 2014 [25].
Iz te opredelitve izhaja, da se Komisija za razlikovanje sheme pomoči od celote individualnih pomoči prizadeva zlasti oceniti diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo ima v posameznem primeru organ, ki dodeljuje pomoči.
By that decision, the Commission considered that an investment subsidy system set up in 1985 and very similar to the mechanism put in place by the Region constituted an existing aid scheme.
Kar zadeva mehanizem, ki ga je vzpostavila regija, Komisija ugotavlja, da so bila v sklepu regionalnega sveta iz leta 1994 podjetja, ki so se lahko potegovala za subvencije, opredeljena splošno in abstraktno, in sicer so v obravnavanem primeru to bila podjetja ali režijski obrati, ki so z javno skupnostjo regije Île-de-France sklenili pogodbo za izvajanje prevozov na rednih avtobusnih linijah.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES IN QUESTION BY THE COMMISSION
Poleg tega so bile v istem sklepu jasno in natančno opredeljene vrsta sredstev, ki se lahko subvencionirajo, zgornje cene teh sredstev in stopnja subvencije za vsako vrsto sredstev.
The Commission's assessment covers the three investment support mechanisms referred to in the opening decision, namely: (i) the Region's investment subsidy mechanism defined in successive decisions CR 34-94, CR 44-98 and CR 47-01; (ii) the mechanism which succeeded it with the introduction of Rider No 3 to the CT1; and, lastly, (iii) the C2 contribution under the CT2.
Natančno so bili določeni tudi pogoji za odobritev pomoči, predvsem obveznost skupnosti, nosilke projekta, in podjetja, da predlagata količinsko in kakovostno izboljšanje ponudbe prevoza.
As regards the CT2, the Commission would point out that its scrutiny is limited to contribution C2 relating to investment problems.
Kar zadeva subvencije, izplačane v okviru pogodbe CT1, Komisija ugotavlja, da so bile vključene v pogodbeni vzorec, ki ga je leta 2006 izdelalo in potrdilo združenje STIF.
The opening decision concerns only measures that could constitute a form of investment support, which de facto excludes the C1 contribution under the CT2.
Posamični primerki te pogodbe niso smeli odstopati od osnovnih načel in parametrov, določenih v vzorcu, na kar je bilo opozorjeno v preambuli vsake pogodbe CT1: „ta pogodba je sklenjena tudi na podlagi in ob upoštevanju usmeritev in načel, opisanih v regionalni specifikaciji, ki jo je na seji 13. decembra 2006 sprejel svet združenja STIF, ter je skladna z vzorcem tipa 1, ki ga je prav tako sprejel svet“.
Aid scheme or individual aid
V vzorcu dodatka št. 3 (zlasti njegovi Prilogi I) so bile jasno in natančno opredeljene vrsta sredstev, ki so se lahko subvencionirala, zgornje cene teh sredstev in stopnja subvencije za vsako vrsto sredstev.
More than 100 undertakings or state-owned companies have, over the years, benefited from subsidies paid successively by the Region and then by STIF.
Podobno razlogovanje se uporablja za prispevek C2 iz pogodbe CT2.
Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [26] (‘the Procedural Regulation’) defines as an aid scheme ‘any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount’.
Vsako podjetje, ki ima pogodbo CT2, se lahko poteguje za nadomestilo C2 za svoje naložbene izdatke, pri čemer združenje STIF nima nikakršne diskrecijske pravice pri izračunu tega nadomestila.
It follows from this definition that, in order to distinguish an aid scheme from a set of individual aid measures, the Commission must give particular attention to evaluating how much margin for discretion the authority providing the aid has on a case by case basis.
Komisija glede na navedeno meni, da posamična preučitev vsake subvencije ni potrebna, da bi se ocenila obstoj pomoči in njihova morebitna združljivost.
Furthermore, the same decision defined clearly and precisely the types of asset which could be subsidised, the price ceilings on the said assets and the rate of subsidy for each type of asset.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
Thus, the exercise of discretionary authority by the Region in awarding the subsidies was strictly regulated by the provisions of the 1994 decision and then by the decisions replacing it in 1998 and 2001.
Subvencije regije so bile dodeljene na podlagi sklepov regionalnega sveta in iz proračuna regije Île-de-France.
The Commission therefore considers that those decisions constitute the legal basis of a scheme.
Komisija posledično ugotavlja, da ukrepi, ki jih je izvajala regija, vključujejo državna sredstva in jih je mogoče pripisati francoski državi.
As regards the subsidies paid under the CT1, the Commission notes that they fell within the scope of the model contract drawn up and validated by STIF in 2006.
Ker je združenje STIF javnoupravna ustanova, je njegove odločitve mogoče pripisati javnemu organu in njegova sredstva so javna.
Individual variations under that contract could not deviate from the principles and parameters laid down in the model, as was pointed out in the preamble to each CT1: ‘this contract is also concluded pursuant to and in compliance with the guidelines and principles described in the Regional Specification adopted by STIF's Board of Directors at its meeting of 13 December 2006 and conforms to the Type 1 model also adopted by the Board’.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da ukrepi, ki jih je izvajalo združenje STIF, vključujejo državna sredstva in jih je mogoče pripisati francoski državi.
This comment applies, in particular, to the amendments made by Rider No 3, following the decision by STIF's Board of Directors on 2 October 2008.
Komisija uvodoma pojasnjuje, da je treba režijske obrate, upravičene do ukrepov, ki sta jih izvajala regija in združenje STIF, šteti za podjetja, ker ne glede na svoj pravni status v obravnavani zadevi opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, in sicer storitve prevoza v cestnem prometu.
On the basis of that decision, any transport undertaking holding a Type 1 contract with STIF could apply for the investment subsidies referred to in Rider No 3.
Posledično se vsi upravičenci do teh ukrepov – zasebna podjetja ali režijski obrati – ukvarjajo z gospodarsko dejavnostjo in jih je treba šteti za podjetja v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Furthermore, the same decision defined clearly and precisely the types of asset which could be subsidised, the price ceilings on those assets and the rate of subsidy for each type of asset.
Komisija se je v sklepu o začetku postopka spraševala o naravi ukrepov za podporo naložbam, ki sta jih izvajala regija in nato združenje STIF, in ali so to bile subvencije za naložbe ali nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe.
Thus, the exercise of discretionary authority by STIF in awarding the subsidies established by Rider No 3 was strictly regulated by the model which emerged from the 2008 decision.
Francoski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani so v odgovor na ti vprašanji menili, da so bili ukrepi, ki sta jih izvajala regija in združenje STIF, nadomestila, ki so bila režijskim obratom in zasebnim podjetjem za avtobusni prevoz dodeljena kot plačilo za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe, in da, ker so bila poleg tega skladna z merili iz sodne prakse Altmark, z njimi prejemniki niso pridobili gospodarske prednosti.
The Commission therefore considers that the decision referred to constitutes the legal basis of a scheme.
Nadomestilo za stroške, ki nastanejo zaradi opravljanja storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, namreč ne pomeni prednosti v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če so izpolnjeni štirje kumulativni pogoji [27].
Similar reasoning applies to the C2 contribution in the CT2.
Prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe, te obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene.
This is calculated by following procedures strictly regulated by the model CT2 ratified by STIF's Board of Directors.
Drugič, merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno.
Any undertaking holding a CT2 may claim C2 compensation in respect of its investment costs, with no discretionary power left to STIF in the calculating of that compensation.
Tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju realiziranih prihodkov in razumnega dobička.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that individual scrutiny of each subsidy is not necessary for the purpose of assessing whether there has been aid and whether it is compatible.
Četrtič, če podjetje, ki se mu naloži izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, ki omogoča, da se izbere tisti ponudnik, ki lahko te storitve opravlja z najnižjimi stroški za skupnost, se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s sredstvi, da lahko zadosti zahtevam javne službe, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prihodkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
In the remainder of this Decision, the Commission therefore argues on the basis of the general parameters laid down in the legal basis for each of the three schemes involved.
Komisija je svoje razumevanje teh pogojev podrobneje pojasnila v Sporočilu o uporabi pravil Evropske unije o državni pomoči za nadomestilo, dodeljeno za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [28].
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Komisija bo torej zadevne ukrepe analizirala z vidika sodne prakse Altmark.
Accordingly, to be classed as State aid, the measures under investigation must (i) be granted by the State, i.e. involve state resources and be imputable to the State; (ii) confer an economic advantage on their beneficiary; (iii) be selective, as opposed to a measure with general effect; and (iv) be likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Subvencije za naložbe regije
The subsidies from the Region were awarded on the basis of decisions by the Regional Council and from the budget of the Île-de-France Region.
Z uporabo prvega merila iz sodbe Altmark se poskuša ugotoviti, ali izplačila pomenijo nadomestila, dodeljena v zameno za izvajanje jasno opredeljenih obveznosti javne službe.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures implemented by the Region involve State resources and are therefore imputable to the French State.
Komisija v obravnavanem primeru ugotavlja, da so se za subvencije regije lahko potegovali samo režijski obrati in prevozna podjetja, ki jim bilo naloženo izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe.
As STIF is a public administrative institution, its decisions are attributable to a public authority and its resources are public.
Obveznosti javne službe so bile opredeljene v pogodbah o izvajanju prevozov, sklenjenih med vsakim prevoznikom in njegovo skupnostjo ali skupnostmi, nosilkami projekta.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures implemented by STIF involve State resources and are imputable to the French State.
V teh pogodbah o izvajanju prevozov je bilo predvideno nadomestilo za izgube, izhajajoče iz izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe, brez upoštevanja morebitnih prihodkov in subvencij.
As a preliminary remark, the Commission would point out that state-owned companies benefiting from the measures implemented by the Region and by STIF must be regarded as undertakings because, regardless of their legal status, in the case in point they are carrying on an economic activity, namely the supply of transport services by road.
Subvencije regije so bile dodane temu pogodbenemu mehanizmu, da bi se spodbudile naložbe in s tem količinsko ali kakovostno izboljšanje ponudbe prevoza.
Consequently, all beneficiaries of the measures — whether private undertakings or state-owned companies — are involved in an economic activity and must be regarded as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Znesek subvencij je bil določen pavšalno z uporabo določenega odstotka za kategorijo izdatkov, ki so omejeni (na primer ceno avtobusa brez davka).
In its opening decision, the Commission raised the question of the nature of the investment support measures implemented by the Region and then by STIF and whether they constituted investment subsidies or public-service compensation.
Skupnosti, nosilke projekta, so se morale, da bi se lahko potegovale za subvencijo, obvezati, da bodo okrepile vsebino obveznosti javne službe, ki so jih sicer nalagale prevoznikom.
In commenting on this point, the French authorities and the interested third parties took the view that the measures implemented by the Region and by STIF were forms of compensation awarded to state-owned companies and private undertakings operating bus transport services in return for the discharge of PSOs and, since, moreover, they complied with the criteria set out in the Altmark ruling, they had not conferred an economic advantage on the recipients.
Kot je razvidno iz samega naslova sklepa iz leta 1994, je bil namreč cilj sheme „izboljšanje storitev javnega prevoza v cestnem prometu“.
Compensation for costs incurred in supplying a service of general economic interest does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if four cumulative conditions are met [27].
Vendar to ne pomeni, da so bile subvencije regije dodeljene kot nadomestilo za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe.
First, the undertaking receiving compensation must actually be responsible for discharging the PSOs and those obligations must be clearly defined.
Tako kot klasična subvencija so bile preprosteje namenjene spodbujanju naložb podjetij in režijskih obratov, ki so opravljali prevozne storitve.
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Vendar pa so skupnosti, nosilke projekta, prevozniku še vedno morale nadomestiti celotni primanjkljaj, izhajajoč iz vseh obveznosti, ki so mu jih naložile (vključno z obveznostmi, dodanimi za možnost potegovanja za subvencije regije).
Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the PSOs, taking the associated revenue and a reasonable profit into account.
Res je, da bi bil ta primanjkljaj brez subvencij regije večji, ker je bil izračunan tako, da so se od stroškov odšteli prihodki in morebitne subvencije.
Fourth, where the undertaking that is to discharge PSOs is not chosen following a public procurement procedure to select a tenderer capable of providing these services at the lowest cost to the local authority, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided with means to meet the public-service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
Vendar se še naprej ohranja konceptualno ločevanje med, na eni strani, sistemom obveznosti javne službe in nadomestil, za katera so bile odgovorne skupnosti, nosilke projekta (in ki niso predmet tega postopka), ter, na drugi strani, sistemom subvencij, ki je bil na splošno namenjen naložbam za izboljšanje prevoznih storitev.
The Commission has further elaborated its understanding of these conditions in its Communication on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest [28].
Tako Komisija kljub upravičeni ekonomski povezavi med subvencijami regije in izračunom nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe meni, da subvencije regije niso bile dodeljene kot nadomestilo za izvajanje jasno opredeljenih obveznosti javne službe.
The Commission will therefore analyse the measures in question from the perspective of the Altmark precedent.
Prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark torej ni izpolnjeno.
The Region's investment subsidies
Ker so štiri merila iz sodbe Altmark kumulativna, preizkus ni opravljen, če eno od meril ni izpolnjeno.