natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the present case, the activities considered by the Commission to be economic are nevertheless separate from these (other) activities mentioned in the previous sentence.
Davčna ugodnost, ki jo ima pristanišče zaradi obravnavane sheme, je sorazmerna z dobičkom, ki ga to pristanišče ustvari, in ni v ničemer povezana z (nepovrnjenimi) stroški negospodarskih dejavnosti, ki mu jih potencialno naloži država.
The Commission also notes that, although the national authorities have ‘wide discretion […] in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users’ [37], this does not preclude these activities being of an economic nature.
Tega Komisija torej ne more upoštevati pri presoji sheme.
It is settled case-law that the concept of ‘economic activity’ itself derives from matters of fact, in particular the existence of a market for the services concerned [38], and does not depend on national choices or assessments.
Dejstvo – če se predpostavlja, da je dokazano [41] –, da pristanišča nimajo pridobitnega namena in da sistematično reinvestirajo svoje dobičke: v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso namreč neobstoj pridobitnega namena tistega, ki opravlja storitev, ne pomeni, da je ta storitev negospodarska [42].
The Commission is therefore justified in classing certain port activities as economic, even though the national authorities consider these activities to constitute non-economic services of general interest.
Poleg tega sistematično reinvestiranje dobička v dejavnost ni odločilno za razlikovanje med gospodarsko in negospodarsko dejavnostjo.
Finally, the following considerations do not per se call into question the economic or non-economic nature of the activities carried out:
Pri opredelitvi „podjetij“ je prav tako brezpredmetna trditev belgijskih organov in nekaterih zainteresiranih strani, da so tarife za storitve pristaniških organov javne, nediskriminatorne, določene vnaprej enostransko s strani pristaniških organov, in ne na podlagi ponudbe in povpraševanja [43].
The fact that the tasks of ports are of general interest and imposed on or delegated to them by the public authorities: this is the case for all services of general economic interest (‘SGEIs’), which are nevertheless economic activities.
Komisija najprej navaja, da so značilnosti tarif, ki jih uporabljajo pristanišča (javnost, nediskriminatornost itd.), podobne značilnostim tarif, ki se uporabljajo v okviru storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [44], ki pa so gospodarske dejavnosti in zanje velja zakonodaja o državni pomoči.
More generally, ‘the fact that a particular service is provided in-house has no relevance for the economic nature of the activity’ [39].
Poleg tega so tudi pri večini gospodarskih dejavnosti tarife javne, nediskriminatorne in določene vnaprej enostransko s strani ponudnika storitev.
Absent or imperfect compensation by the State for the costs associated with non-economic activities that it imposes on the ports confirms, rather than refutes, the fact that ports engage in economic activities alongside certain non-economic activities.
Valonija in valonska pristanišča navajajo, da dajatve za uporabo infrastrukture ne krijejo povrnitve vloženega kapitala, vendar v podporo svoji trditvi niso predložili nobenega dejstva.
The tax benefit derived by a port from the scheme at issue is proportional to the profits made by that port and is in no way linked to the (uncompensated) cost of the non-economic activities imposed on it by the State.
Poleg tega je ta trditev predstavljena kot dokaz, da gre pri pristaniški dejavnosti za dejavnost splošnega pomena, kar samo po sebi ni upoštevno pri določanju, ali imajo pristaniške dejavnosti gospodarsko naravo ali ne.
The Commission cannot therefore take account of this in its assessment of the scheme.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da – glede na njihovo opredelitev – stroški storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena (ki so gospodarske dejavnosti) na splošno niso povsem pokriti s prihodki, pobranimi pri uporabnikih, tako da obstoj finančnega primanjkljaja ne izključuje nujno obstoja gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
The fact, assuming it to have been established [41], that the ports do not have a profit motive and systematically reinvest their profits: it is settled case-law that the absence of profit motive on the part of the person providing a service does not imply that this service is of a non-economic nature [42].
Zgolj dejstvo, da cene oblikujejo pristaniški organi, torej ne pomeni, da povpraševanje ni upoštevano.
Likewise, the systematic reinvestment of the profits in the activity is not decisive in differentiating an economic activity from a non-economic activity.
Nasprotno, pristaniški organi upoštevajo okoliščine na trgu (ponudba in povpraševanje, med drugim cene, ki jih uporabljajo konkurenti, ter gibanje povpraševanja uporabnikov in strank), ko oblikujejo tarife, med drugim pristaniške pristojbine [46].
Any undertaking for that matter has the choice between distribution and reinvestment of all or part of the profits it has made.5.1.1.2.
V zvezi s koncesijskimi dajatvami pristanišči Anvers in Zeebruges navajata, da se tarife določajo glede na objektivne parametre v zvezi z naravo zemljišča ali dejavnosti in odražajo ustvarjeni „notranjo vrednost“ in „dodano vrednost“.
Concerning the tariffs applied
Zato so tarife dejansko povezane z značilnostmi storitev, ki jih zagotavljajo pristanišča, in značilnostmi podjetij ali dejavnosti, ki jih želi pristanišče pritegniti.
Also irrelevant with regard to the classification of ports as ‘undertakings’ is the argument put forward by the Belgian authorities and certain interested parties that the tariffs of the services provided by the port authorities are public, non-discriminatory and fixed in advance unilaterally by the port authorities and are not determined directly by the interaction of supply and demand [43].
Tako so tarife očitno pomembno orodje poslovne politike pristanišča za spodbujanje ladjarjev in vkrcevalcev k uporabi infrastrukture pristanišča ter podjetij k namestitvi v njem, da bi razvijali proizvodne ali storitvene dejavnosti.
The Commission notes first that the characteristics of the tariffs applied by the ports (publicity, non-discrimination, etc.) are similar to those of tariffs applied in the context of SGEIs [44], which are economic activities and are subject to the law on State aid.
Zato je dajanje pristaniške infrastrukture in zemljišč na voljo za plačilo storitev, ponujena na trgu, in torej gospodarska dejavnost.
Likewise, prices are also public, non-discriminatory and set unilaterally in advance by the provider for the vast majority of economic activities.
Dajanje pristaniške infrastrukture na voljo ladjarjem za plačilo in zagotavljanje posebnih storitev pristaniških organov ladjarjem za plačilo
Although the proportion of expenditure associated with a given activity that is covered by revenue collected from users and, conversely, the proportion that is covered by tax (the taxpayer) may sometimes point to the existence of a market and an economic activity, the way in which the prices are set is not as such decisive from this point of view.
Kar zadeva storitve, ki jih ponujajo pristanišča za plačilo pristaniških pristojbin (dostop do pristaniške infrastrukture na splošno in morebitne posebne storitve), Komisija ugotavlja, da sklep belgijskega ustavnega sodišča z dne 19. novembra 2015 (št. 162/2015), v katerem je priznano, da so pristaniške pristojbine „čisto nadomestilo“ tretjih oseb za poseg pristaniških organov, in navedbe v flamskem pristaniškem odloku z dne 2. marca 1999, ki določa, da morajo biti pristaniške pristojbine določene v „razumnem sorazmerju“ z vrednostjo zagotovljene storitve, potrjujejo dejstvo, da pristanišča ponujajo storitve na trgu za plačilo.
Incidentally, it is not contested that the prices paid by users and customers of the ports (general and particular port charges, concession fees) cover at least the bulk of the costs incurred by the port authorities when they offer their services on the market [45].
Na podlagi dejstva, da naj bi to nadomestilo razumno pokrilo vrednost zagotovljene storitve, je mogoče a priori izključiti, da se storitve, zagotovljene uporabnikom pristanišč, financirajo predvsem iz davka, in ne iz dejanskega nadomestila za storitev, ki jo prejmejo ti uporabniki, kar ponovno potrjuje gospodarski pristop, ki ga Belgija uporablja v razmerju med pristanišči in njihovimi uporabniki, ter gospodarsko naravo obravnavanih dejavnosti.
Furthermore, although the Walloon Region and the Walloon ports point out that the fees for the use of the infrastructure do not cover the reconstitution of the capital invested, they do not provide any factual evidence in support of their argument.
Komisija poleg tega poudarja, da je flamska vlada pred belgijskim ustavnim sodiščem trdila, da so splošne pristaniške pristojbine (splošno nadomestilo za dostop do pristaniške infrastrukture) primerljive „s plačilom za uporabo ceste, na kateri se plačuje cestnina, ali predora“ [47].
Incidentally, this argument is presented as the demonstration of the general interest nature of the port activity, which, as such, is not relevant to determine the economic or non-economic nature of the port activities.
Iz prakse odločanja Komisije namreč izhaja, da je upravljanje cest ali predorov, za katere se plačuje cestnina oziroma predornina, gospodarska dejavnost [48].
The Commission also notes that, by definition, the costs of SGEIs (which are economic activities) are not in general covered in full by the revenue collected from users, so the existence of a funding shortfall does not necessarily preclude the existence of an economic activity within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so v Belgiji pristaniške pristojbine načeloma obdavčene z DDV, tako kot drugo opravljanje storitev [49].
Moreover, the mere fact that prices are set by the port authorities does not mean that demand is not taken into account.
Sklepi Komisija ali Sodišča, ki jih navajajo zainteresirane strani in belgijski organi, te ugotovitve ne postavljajo pod vprašaj.
On the contrary, the port authorities do take the market conditions into consideration (supply and demand, especially the prices charged by competitors and the demand behaviour of users and customers) when they determine their tariffs and especially the port charges [46].
Komisija v zadevi N110/2008, JadeWeserPort [50], ni razrešila vprašanja gospodarske ali negospodarske narave obravnavanih dejavnosti, saj uvodnim izjavam, ki jih navajajo zainteresirane strani in belgijski organi v podporo svojemu razlogovanju (uvodne izjave od 52 do 63 sklepa), sledijo uvodne izjave, v katerih je navedeno, da bi se dejavnost lahko štela za gospodarsko (uvodne izjave od 64 do 66 sklepa).
As regards the concession fees, the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge point out that the tariffs are set according to objective parameters relating to the nature of the land or the activity concerned and reflect the ‘intrinsic value’ and the ‘added value’ generated.
V zvezi z zadevama N390/2005, gradnja naprav za pretovarjanje na železniški progi Lanaken – Maastricht [51], in N478/2004, Coras Iompair Eireann [52], Komisija ugotavlja, da se nanašata na financiranje gradnje železniške infrastrukture in ne na dajanje pristaniške infrastrukture na voljo za plačilo ter da se v vsakem primeru stališče Komisije v navedenih zadevah ne sklada več s sodno prakso Sodišča [53] niti s sedanjo prakso odločanja Komisije, v skladu s katerima je gradnja infrastrukture, namenjene gospodarskemu izkoriščanju, gospodarska dejavnost.
Consequently, the tariffs are linked to the characteristics of the service provided by the ports and to the characteristics of the undertakings or activities that the port is seeking to attract.
Sodba sodišča v zadevi C-18/01, Korhonen [54], se ne nanaša na zakonodajo o državni pomoči, temveč na Direktivo Sveta 92/50/EGS [55].
On this basis, the tariffs obviously constitute an important instrument of the commercial policy implemented by the port to encourage shipowners and shippers to use the port infrastructure and undertakings to establish themselves there to develop their production or service activities.
Dajanje zemljišč in infrastrukture na voljo podjetjem za plačilo
Consequently, making available both port infrastructure and land against payment of remuneration in fact constitute services offered on a market and therefore economic activities.
Sklep Komisije v zadevi SA.36346 [56], ki je naveden v točki 17(f) obvestila z dne 19. julija 2016 ter na katerega se sklicujejo zainteresirane strani in belgijski organi, ne pomeni, da je upravljanje ali razvoj pristaniškega prostora in posebej oddajanje v najem ali dajanje na voljo posebnih zemljišč in infrastrukture za plačilo gospodarska dejavnost.
Concerning the making available of the port infrastructure to shipowners against remuneration and the supply of specific services by the port authorities to shipowners against remuneration
Zadeva SA.36346 se je namreč nanašala na podporo oživitvi javnih zemljišč, in ne na oddajanje zemljišč ali infrastrukture v najem za plačilo.
As regards the services offered by the ports in exchange for the payment of port charges (access to the port infrastructure in general and any specific services), the Commission points out that the judgment of the Belgian Constitutional Court of 19 November 2015 (No 162/2015) recognising that the port charges constitute ‘pure remuneration’, by third parties, for the intervention of the port authorities, as well as the references made in the Flemish Port Decree of 2 March 1999 establishing that the port charges must be set in ‘reasonable proportion’ to the value of the consideration received, confirm that the ports offer services on a market against remuneration.
Komisija je v svoji praksi že izrazila mnenje, da oddajanje javnega prostora v najem za plačilo pomeni gospodarsko dejavnost, zlasti kadar pogodbeni partner pristanišča strankam zagotavlja pristaniške storitve [57].
The fact that this remuneration is supposed to reasonably cover the value of the consideration means that it can be ruled out a priori that the services provided to users of the ports are financed essentially by taxation rather than by real remuneration for the service obtained by these users, which again confirms the economic approach adopted by Belgium in the relationship between the ports and their users and the economic nature of the activities at issue.
Iz tarifnih pogojev, ki so jih objavili pristaniški organi [58], prav tako izhaja, da so koncesijske dajatve obdavčene z DDV, kar kaže na njihovo gospodarsko naravo.
The Commission points out, moreover, that the Flemish Government argued before the Belgian Constitutional Court that the general port charges (consideration for access to the general port infrastructure) were comparable ‘to the toll payable for use of a toll-road or tunnel’ [47].
Prav tako je oddajanje zemljišč v najem s strani pristanišč gospodarska dejavnost, obdavčena z DDV [59].
However, it is clear from the Commission's decision-making practice that the use of a toll-road or toll tunnel is an economic activity [48].
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da pristanišči Anvers in Zeebruges v svojih pripombah poudarjata, da se koncesionar izbere na podlagi „javnega razpisa“, kar potrjuje, da ti pristanišči, kadar omogočata dostop do pristaniške infrastrukture, ponujata blago ali storitve na trgu.
Finally, the Commission notes that the port charges are in principle subject to VAT in Belgium, just like other supplies of services [49].
Pomožne ali glavne gospodarske dejavnosti
The decisions of the Commission or the Court of Justice mentioned by the interested parties and the Belgian authorities do not undermine this conclusion.
Dejstvo, da so gospodarske dejavnosti subjekta manjšinske ali obrobne glede na njegove negospodarske dejavnosti, načeloma ne omogoča, da se za te gospodarske dejavnosti ne bi uporabila pravila o državni pomoči.
In case N110/2008 JadeWeserPort [50], the question of the economic or non-economic nature of the activities at issue was not decided by the Commission; the recitals cited by the interested parties and the Belgian authorities in support of their reasoning (recitals 52 to 63 of the Decision) are followed by recitals indicating that the activity could be regarded as economic (recitals 64 to 66 of the Decision).
Poleg tega, ne da bi bilo treba za vsako pristanišče posebej ovrednotiti delež različnih gospodarskih dejavnosti, iz zgornjih preudarkov izhaja, da je precejšen del dejavnosti, ki jih zainteresirane strani in belgijski organi štejejo za negospodarske (oddajanje zemljišča v najem, dostop do infrastrukture za plačilo), dejansko gospodarskih.
As far as cases N390/2005 Construction of transhipment facilities on the railway line Lanaken – Maastricht [51] and N478/2004 Coras Iompair Eireann [52] are concerned, the Commission points out that they relate to the financing of the construction of railway infrastructure and not to making available port infrastructures against remuneration, and that in any case, the position taken by the Commission in those cases no longer corresponds to the Court of Justice case-law [53] or even to the Commission's current decision-making practice, according to which the construction of infrastructure to be exploited economically constitutes an economic activity.
Kot je poudarjeno zgoraj, ni sporno, da pristaniške pristojbine in koncesijske dajatve predstavljajo veliko večino prometa belgijskih pristanišč, ti prihodki pa so v primeru pristanišča Anvers celo višji od celotnih tekočih odhodkov.
Finally, the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-18/01 Korhonen [54] does not concern State aid law but Council Directive 92/50/EEC [55].
Čeprav se Komisija strinja, da je lahko v primeru, ko se infrastruktura uporablja skoraj izključno za negospodarske dejavnosti, njeno financiranje v celoti zunaj področja uporabe pravil o državni pomoči, če ostane gospodarska uporaba zgolj pomožne narave [60], dejstvo, da pristanišča opravljajo negospodarske dejavnosti, ne pomeni, da se pristaniška infrastruktura sama uporablja skoraj izključno za negospodarske dejavnosti.
Concerning making available land and infrastructure to undertakings against remuneration
Sklepne ugotovitve
The Commission Decision in case SA.36346 [56], referred to in paragraph 17(f) of the Notice of 19 July 2016 and cited by the interested parties and the Belgian authorities, does not imply that the management or development of the port area and, in particular, the renting or making available of specific land and infrastructure against remuneration, is a non-economic activity.
Komisija zato meni, da so dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo belgijska pristanišča, na katere se ukrep nanaša, vsaj delno gospodarske dejavnosti.
Case SA.36346 in fact concerned support for the revitalisation of public land and not the renting of land or infrastructure against remuneration.
GOSPODARSKA PREDNOST
The Commission practice has already been to consider that renting public property against remuneration constitutes an economic activity, especially where the port's co-contractor provides port services to its customers [57].
Po mnenju Sodišča pojem prednosti ne obsega samo koristi, ampak tudi vse ukrepe, ki v različnih oblikah blažijo stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja [61].
It can also be inferred from the tariff conditions published by the port authorities [58] that the concession fees are subject to VAT, which is evidence of their economic nature.
Komisija poudarja, da v skladu z belgijsko davčno zakonodajo dobiček iz gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki so ga ustvarila belgijska pristanišča iz člena 180(2) CIR, ni obdavčen z davkom od dohodka družb.
Similarly, the renting of land by the ports constitutes an economic activity subject to VAT [59].
Zato tem pristaniščem ni treba plačevati stroškov, ki jih imajo običajno subjekti, zavezani za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb.
The Commission also notes that, in their comments, the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge emphasise that the choice of concessionaire is made after an ‘invitation to tender’, which confirms that these ports, where they give access to the port infrastructure, offer goods or services on a market.
Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb se ne obračuna od celotnega zneska dobička.
Concerning the ancillary or principal nature of the economic activities
Subjekti, zavezani za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, so obdavčeni samo za del dohodkov, ustvarjenih z dejavnostmi pristanišča, in sicer za katastrski dohodek od nepremičnin v Belgiji ter dohodke in prihodke iz kapitala in premičnin [62].
The fact that the economic activities of an entity are minor or marginal in relation to its non-economic activities does not in principle allow these economic activities to be regarded as exempt from the State aid rules.
Zato znesek, obdavčen z davkom od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ne zajema celotnega zneska dobička, ki ga ustvarijo pristanišča, na primer pristaniških pristojbin in dajatev, ki jih plačajo stranke za storitve, ki jih zagotavljajopristanišča, ali dajatve in najemnine, plačane za uporabo pristaniške infrastrukture.
In addition, and without it being necessary to undertake a port-by-port evaluation of the proportion of the different economic activities, it can be inferred from the preceding arguments that a very large part of the activities considered to be non-economic by the interested parties and the Belgian authorities (renting of land, access to infrastructure against remuneration) are, in reality, economic.
Poleg tega so za del teh dohodkov, obdavčenih z davkom od dohodkov pravnih oseb, stopnje na splošno nižje [63] od stopnje, ki se uporablja pri davkih od dohodkov družb (33,99 %).
As indicated above, it is not contested that the port charges and concession fees account for the vast majority of the turnover of the Belgian ports and this revenue even exceeds total current expenditure in the case of the port of Antwerp.
Znesek davka, ki se plačuje za gospodarske dejavnosti, je torej nižji od zneska, ki izhaja iz uporabe pravil o davku od dohodkov družb.
Finally, although the Commission accepts that, if the infrastructure is used almost exclusively for a non-economic activity, its funding may fall outside the State aid rules in its entirety, provided the economic use remains purely ancillary [60], the fact that the ports engage in non-economic activities does not mean that the port infrastructure itself is used almost exclusively for a non-economic activity.
Niti se ni mogoče strinjati z utemeljevanjem flamske pristaniške komisije, da je prednost, ki izhaja iz oprostitve davka od dohodkov družb, v bistvu samo nadomestilo za naraščajoče financiranje pristaniških organov v negospodarsko infrastrukturo, za katero niso pristojna.
Conclusion
Nobena določba notranjega prava namreč ne zagotavlja, da bi bil znesek prednosti omejen na neto strošek te negospodarske infrastrukture [64].
The Commission therefore considers that the activities carried out by the Belgian ports covered by the measure are – at least in part – economic activities.
Oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb, katerega znesek je sorazmeren z ustvarjenim dobičkom, torej pomeni prednost, ki nima nič skupnega z morebitnim stroškom financiranja negospodarske infrastrukture.
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
Zato Komisija meni, da imajo obravnavana pristanišča prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ki je enaka razliki med davkom od dohodkov družb, ki bi ga pristanišča morala plačati za svoje gospodarske dejavnosti, in delom davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki se lahko pripiše tem gospodarskim dejavnostim.
According to the Court of Justice, an advantage comprises not only a positive benefit, but also all the measures which in various forms mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking [61].
DRŽAVNA SREDSTVA IN PRIPISLJIVOST DRŽAVI
Therefore, the ports are not required to bear the costs normally borne by entities subject to corporate tax.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso odpoved sredstvom, ki bi morala načeloma biti nakazana v državni proračun, pomeni transfer državnih sredstev [65].