natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As explained under recital 46, the financing of the MCE was included in the budget line reflected by column 5 until 2004 and thereafter financed from the new budget line covered by column 6.
Jeseni 2007 je bil kupljen še en avtobus, ki je bil dan na voljo avtobusnemu podjetju Wessels iz občine Geeste pod enakimi pogoji.
According to the German authorities, four staff members carried out the following three tasks: organisation of regional public transport (including the set-up of the NVP), school transport and running the MCE.
Nemški organi so trdili, da EEB s sistemom avtobusnih prevozov na zahtevo ne more ustvarjati dobička, in Komisiji predložili kopijo dopisa z dne 16. februarja 2007 avtobusnim podjetjem, ki delujejo v okrožju, ter s tem dokazali, da so imela vsa dostop do avtobusov pod enakimi pogoji.
A comparison with the standard salaries for the concerned salary grades (as provided by the Kommunale Gemeinschaftsstelle) showed that EEB could have requested EUR 169312,26 instead of EUR 138015,11 for the staff and material cost.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
The German authorities also claimed that only material and personnel costs were covered and that no profit margin was added.
PRITOŽNIKI
Column 6 includes payments to the Mobility Centre Emsland and the financing of rolling stock for the call-a-bus system as explained in recitals 50 f.
FINANČNA PODPORA ZA IZVAJANJE ŠOLSKEGA PREVOZA (STOLPCA 3 IN 4)
The German authorities stressed that the payments correspond to real costs incurred by EEB in discharging public duties.
Pritožniki so izpodbijali trditev, da je podjetje EEB le posredovalo zneske, ki jih je prejelo od okrožja, podjetjem, ki so zagotavljala šolski prevoz.
With regard to the call-a-bus system, the German authorities explained that the Landkreis Emsland had invited the bus undertakings in November 2005 to submit proposals for the enlargement of the call-a-bus system.
Menili so, da je podjetje EEB prejelo pavšalni znesek in šolski prevoz organiziralo tako, da je povečalo svoj dobiček.
On the Landkreis' orders EEB acquired 4 call-busses in spring 2006.
Izpodbijali so tudi trditev, da je podjetje EEB z organiziranjem šolskega prevoza opravljalo javne naloge ter delovalo v svojem imenu, in ne v imenu okrožja Emsland.
These busses were made available to all undertakings on the basis of the following conditions:
Če bi se nekatere dejavnosti podjetja EEB štele za javne naloge, bi morale biti prikazane v ločenih računih.
the Landkreis Emsland maintains control over the busses because EEB is the owner of the vehicles and puts them at the disposal of the bus undertakings on the basis of a contract (Fahrzeugüberlassungsvertrag);
Trdili so, da je podjetje EEB opravljalo gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti.
the bus undertakings support the current costs of the use and maintenance of the vehicles;
V zvezi s šolskim prevozom v južnem delu okrožja Emsland so pritožniki trdili, da so pogodbe med združenjem VGE-Süd in podjetjem EEB vedno temeljile na uspešnosti, in predložili preglednico, v kateri so prikazana plačila, ki jih je prejelo združenje VGE-Süd (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 29(f)).
citizens call the MCE to request a call-bus and the MCE transfers the request to the relevant bus undertakings.
Trdili so, da če je vsota stolpcev 3 in 4 pomenila skupna plačila podjetjem, ki so izvajala šolski prevoz, je nenadno zmanjšanje med letoma 2005 in 2006 znak predhodnega čezmernega nadomestila.
In autumn 2007, an additional bus was acquired which was put at the disposal of the bus undertaking Wessels from Geeste under the same conditions.
Trdili so, da se cene vozovnic v obdobju 1997–2006 niso zvišale za več kot 10 %.
The German authorities claimed that EEB cannot make any profits with the call-a-bus system and provided the Commission with a copy of a letter of 16 February 2007 to the bus undertakings operating in the Landkreis showing that all of them had access to the busses at the same conditions.
PRIPRAVA NVP (STOLPEC 5)
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Pritožniki so trdili, da je podjetje EEB pripravilo NVP tako, da je ustrezal njegovim interesom, in da je to pomenilo prednost za EEB glede dovoljenj za linijski prevoz (Liniengenehmigungsanträge).
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR CARRYING-OUT SCHOOL TRANSPORT (COLUMNS 3 AND 4)
Poleg tega so izpodbijali ugotovitev Komisije iz sklepa o začetku postopka, da priprava NVP ni gospodarska dejavnost.
The Complainants contested that EEB merely forwarded the amounts received from the Landkreis to the undertakings providing school transport.
Edina javna odločitev, sprejeta v zvezi s tem, je bilo po njihovem to, da je okrožje proučilo in sprejelo NVP.
They believed that EEB received a lump-sum and organised school transport in a way as to maximize its own profit.
Pripravljalno delo, ki ga je opravilo podjetje EEB, je pomenilo gospodarsko dejavnost, ki bi se lahko izvajala po posvetovanju s pritožniki.
The Complainants contested that EEB fulfilled public duties when organising school transport and acted in its own name rather than in the name of the Landkreis Emsland.
Pritožniki so trdili, da so imeli tudi potrebno znanje in izkušnje za izvedbo teh nalog.
If certain activities of EEB were to be considered as public duties, then these should come from separate accounts.
Poleg tega so trdili, da nakup programske opreme DIVA ni specifičen za pripravo NVP, ampak da se lahko uporablja tudi za druge namene, kot je optimizacija avtobusnih podjetij njihove ponudbe prevozov.
They claimed that EEB was mixing its economic and non-economic activities.
Podjetje EEB bi pridobilo prednost, če bi programsko opremo DIVA prejelo brezplačno.
Regarding school transport in southern Emsland the Complainants argued that the contracts between VGE-Süd and EEB were always performance based and they submitted a table showing the payments received by the VGE-Süd (see also recitals 29 f.).
FINANCIRANJE VOZNEGA PARKA ZA SISTEM AVTOBUSNIH PREVOZOV NA ZAHTEVO (VKLJUČENO V STOLPCU 6)
The Complainants claimed that if the sum of columns 3 and 4 represented the total payments to undertakings carrying out school transport, then the sudden reduction between 2005 and 2006 is an indication of previously existing overcompensation.
V zvezi z avtobusi za prevoz na zahtevo (Rufbusse) so pritožniki izpodbijali trditev, da so bili avtobusi na voljo vsem podjetjem, ki delujejo v okrožju Emsland.
According to the Complainants, the costs for school transport by VGE-Süd varied only marginally (ca.
Podjetje EEB je ponujalo avtobuse samo tistim podjetjem, ki registrirajo avtobusne prevoze prek centra za mobilnost okrožja Emsland.
6 %) between 1997 and 2007.
Pritožniki so trdili, da je to avtobusna podjetja prisililo, da so zagotovila gospodarsko občutljive podatke v zvezi s potniškim prevozom svojemu konkurentu, podjetju EEB.
They had no explanation for the doubling of the amounts listed in column 4 over the same time span.
Poleg tega je podjetje EEB po navedbah pritožnikov uporabljalo avtobuse ne le na linijah za avtobusne prevoze na zahtevo, ampak tudi na rednih linijah (kot je Haselünne–Meppen).
They claimed that fare increases of no more than 10 % occurred between 1997 and 2006.
Pritožniki so trdili, da noben od njih ni pridobil avtobusa za prevoz na zahtevo.
DRAFTING OF THE NVP (COLUMN 5)
Zlasti pritožnika Albers in Elbert sta trdila, da sta bila pri postopkih za izdajo dovoljenj (Genehmigungswettbewerb) v slabšem položaju, saj domnevno nista imela dostopa do sistema avtobusnih prevozov na zahtevo.
The Complainants argued that EEB drafted the NVP to suit its own interests and that this constituted an advantage for EEB with regard to the route authorizations (Liniengenehmigungsanträge).
Podjetje Nahverkehrsberatung Südwest je izpodbijalo ugotovitev Komisije iz sklepa o začetku postopka, da so bila plačila v skladu s členom 45a PBefG nadomestila za obveznosti javne službe in so izpolnjevala merila iz sodbe Altmark.
They also claimed that even though they were consulted during the elaboration of the NVP, their views were not taken into account.
Trdilo je, da člen 45a PBefG ne opredeljuje obveznosti javne službe, da ni nadzora nad čezmernimi nadomestili in da je primerjava z reprezentativnim gospodarskim in učinkovito delujočim podjetjem pomanjkljiva.
The Complainants also contested the Commission's conclusion in the opening decision that the establishment of the NVP is not an economic activity.
ANONIMNA PRIPOMBA
The only public decision taken in this context in their view was the assessment and adoption of the NVP by the Landkreis.
Anonimna stran, ki je predložila pripombo, je izrazila pomisleke, ali se zneski, navedeni v stolpcu 3 zgornje preglednice, ujemajo s plačili za šolski prevoz.
The preparatory work carried out by EEB constituted an economic activity that could have been carried out by any consultancy.
Po njenem mnenju gre za neposredne subvencije avtobusnim podjetjem za pridobitev drugih ugodnosti (vpliv na vozne rede, udeležbo podjetja EEB v združenju VGE-Süd, boljši vozni redi za potnike, ki niso učenci, podizvajalske pogodbe za podjetja, ki so bila prvotno dejavna na področju neintegriranega šolskega prevoza).
The Complainants argued that they also have the necessary know-how to execute these tasks.
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE NA PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
The Complainants claimed that the acquisition of DIVA-software was not specific to the establishment of the NVP, but that it can also be used for other purposes such as optimization of transport supply by a bus undertaking.
Nemški organi so trdili, da zmanjšanje plačil za šolski prevoz (stolpca 3 in 4) med letoma 2005 in 2006 ni bilo znak čezmernega nadomestila pred letom 2006, kot so trdili pritožniki.
EEB would have received an advantage by receiving the DIVA-software for free.
Zmanjšanje so pojasnili, kot sledi:
FINANCING OF ROLLING STOCK FOR THE CALL-A-BUS SYSTEM (INCLUDED IN COLUMN 6)
Za preostali neintegrirani šolski prevoz je bil objavljen javni razpis.
With regard to the call busses (Rufbusse), the Complainants contested that the busses were offered to all undertakings active in the Landkreis Emsland.
To je privedlo do znižanja stroškov,
EEB only offered the busses to those undertakings which register their bus trips via the Mobility Centre Emsland.
ob koncu leta 2005 je bila razveljavljena tudi pogodba z združenjem VGE-Süd, s katero je bil določen pavšalni znesek (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 29(f)), plačila združenju VGE-Süd pa so se zmanjšala z 1840000 EUR leta 2005 na 1719000 EUR leta 2006,
The Complainants claimed that this forced the bus undertakings to provide economically sensitive data with regard to passenger transport to their competitor EEB.
poleg tega se je izkazalo, da je bil znesek predplačil, plačanih leta 2005, precejšen, kar je leta 2006 prispevalo k precejšnjemu znižanju zneska, navedenega v stolpcu 4.
The Complainants claimed that none of them obtained a call bus.
Leta 2007 so se stroški po precejšnjem zvišanju tarif za vozovnice za šolski prevoz na rednih avtobusnih linijah združenja VGE-Süd močno povečali.
In particular, the Complainants Albers and Elbert claimed that they suffered a disadvantage in the authorization procedures (Genehmigungswettbewerb) as allegedly they had no access to the call-a-bus system.
Organi so predložili podatke o spreminjanju tarif na območju, ki ga pokriva VGE-Süd, ki kažejo do 45-odstotno zvišanje.
Nahverkehrsberatung Südwest contested the Commission's conclusion in the opening decision that payments according to §45a PBefG were compensations for public service obligations and fulfil the Altmark criteria.
Pojasnili so še, da se je število upravičenih učencev od leta 1997 do leta 2003 povečalo za približno 20 % (s 15429 na 18454).
It claims that §45a PBefG does not define public service obligations, that there is no control against over-compensation and that the comparison with a representative economically and efficiently operating undertaking is flawed.
Ob upoštevanju tega povečanja so organi navedli, da so se skupni stroški šolskega prevoza na učenca dejansko zmanjšali, večinoma zaradi vključitve šolskega prevoza v linijske avtobusne prevoze.
ANONYMOUS COMMENT
Nemški organi niso izpodbijali trditve, da je podjetje EEB izvajalo gospodarske dejavnosti, ampak so trdili, da podjetje EEB v zvezi s plačili za šolski prevoz, povzetimi v stolpcih 3 in 4, ni delovalo kot podjetje, temveč je izvajalo javne naloge v skladu z odstavkom 3 statuta (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 14).
An anonymous commentator expressed doubts whether the amounts listed in column 3 of the above table correspond to payments for school transport.
Podjetje EEB je le posredovalo plačila, ki jih je prejelo od okrožja Emsland, avtobusnim podjetjem, ki so izvajala šolski prevoz, in redno so se izvajale poravnave za zagotovitev, da ne bi bila nadomestila čezmerna ali premajhna.
He believed that they are direct subsidies to the bus undertakings in order to obtain other advantages (influence on schedules, membership of EEB in VGE-Süd, better schedules for non-pupil passengers, subcontracts for undertakings originally active in non-integrated school transport).
Po navedbah nemških organov trditev, da pri pripravi NVP niso bila opravljena zadostna posvetovanja s pritožniki in da je bil NVP prilagojen tako, da je podjetju EEB zagotavljal prednost, ni pravilna.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY ON COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
Avtobusna podjetja so bila leta 1996 pozvana, naj sodelujejo v delovni skupini za razpravo o NVP, kar so tudi storila.
The German authorities claimed the decrease in payments for school transport (columns 3 and 4) between 2005 and 2006 was not an indication of overcompensation prior to 2006, as alleged by the Complainants.
Vendar podjetja Kalmer, Bittner, Elbert, Wessels, Fischer in Richers-Reisen leta 2002 niso želela sodelovati v podobni delovni skupini in so poslala pisna stališča.
They explained the decrease as follows:
Te pripombe so povzeli in o njih razpravljali organi odločanja (Gremien) okrožja Emsland.
As a result of complaints to the Commission by the same Complainants, all contracts for non-integrated school transport were cancelled on 31 December 2005.
Komisiji so bila predložena dokazila.
Consequently school transport was reorganised and certain non-integrated routes were integrated into the regular bus services.
Nemški organi so še pojasnili, da NVP ni vseboval konkretnih informacij o pogostosti posameznih linij ali o poti linij (kopija NVP je bila predložena Komisiji).
The remaining non-integrated school transport was tendered out.
Nemškim organom ni bilo jasno, koliko bi priprava NVP lahko povzročila konkurenčno slabši položaj avtobusnih podjetij.
This led to cost reductions.
Izpodbijali so tudi trditev pritožnikov, da je del priprave NVP gospodarska dejavnost.
The lump-sum contract with VGE-Süd was also cancelled at the end of 2005 (see also recitals 29 f.) and the payments to VGE-Süd decreased from EUR 1840000 in 2005 to EUR 1719000 in 2006.
Potrdili so, da je NVP del javnih nalog okrožja Emsland.
In addition advances paid in 2005 turned out to be high which contributed to the fact that the amount listed in column 4 was considerably lower in 2006.
S statutom (Gesellschaftervertrag) je bila izrecno uvedena obveznost podjetja EEB, da pripravi NVP.
With regard to the overall cost increases between 1997 and 2006, the German authorities caveated that column 4 does not give a precise picture of the real cost evolution as figures for individual years also contain advances for following years.
V zvezi s sistemom avtobusnih prevozov na zahtevo so nemški organi poudarili, da so bili avtobusi na voljo vsem podjetjem v okrožju Emsland pod enakimi pogoji, kar dokazuje dodatni dopis z dne 16. februarja 2007, ki je bil poslan avtobusnim podjetjem.
In 2007, costs went up considerably following important tariff increases for the school bus tickets on the regular bus lines of VGE-Süd.
Nemški organi niso razumeli, kako bi se lahko z obveznim klicem prek centra za mobilnost okrožja Emsland posredovali komercialno občutljivi podatki.
The authorities provided figures on the evolution of tariffs in the area served by VGE-Süd which show increases of up to 45 %.
Izpodbijali so trditev, da podjetjema Albers in Elbert ni bil omogočen dostop do teh avtobusov.
They also explained that the number of eligible pupils increased by roughly 20 % from 1997 to 2003 (15429 to 18454).
Trdili so, da je bilo na sestankih s podjetjem Elbert ugotovljeno, da zadevno podjetje ni sprejelo pogojev uporabe avtobusov.
Considering this increase the authorities stated that overall the cost of school transport per pupil actually decreased, mainly due to the integration of school transport into regular bus services.
V zvezi z avtobusi za prevoz na zahtevo so nemški organi menili, da je podjetje EEB izvajalo javne naloge.
The German authorities did not dispute that EEB carried out economic activities, but insisted that when it comes to the payments for school transport summarised in columns 3 and 4, EEB did not act as an undertaking but carried out public duties in accordance with paragraph 3 of its articles of association (see also recital 14).
Na podlagi sklepa z dne 8. februarja 2006 je Kreistag okrožja Emsland podjetju EEB naročil, naj kupi avtobuse in razširi sistem avtobusnih prevozov na zahtevo.
EEB merely forwarded the payments received from the Landkreis Emsland to the bus undertakings carrying out the school transport and settlements took place regularly to ensure that there was no over or under-compensation.
Okrožje si je z odločitvijo, da bodo avtobusi ostali v lasti podjetja EEB, želelo zagotoviti odločilen nadzor nad uporabo teh avtobusov.
According to the German authorities, the claim that the Complainants were not sufficiently consulted in the elaboration of the NVP and that the NVP was adjusted to EEB's advantage is not correct.
Nemški organi so navedli, da če stran ne bi bila več zainteresirana za opravljanje avtobusnih prevozov na zahtevo, bi se avtobus ponudil drugim zainteresiranim stranem.
In 1996 the bus undertakings were invited to participate in a working group to discuss the NVP, which they did.
Če ne bi bilo mogoče najti nikogar, bi se o uporabi avtobusa odločilo okrožje Emsland.
However, in 2002, the undertakings Kalmer, Bittner, Elbert, Wessels, Fischer and Richers-Reisen refused to participate in a similar working group and sent written submissions.
Eden od petih avtobusov za prevoz na zahtevo je prenehal obratovati avgusta 2012 in nemški organi so pojasnili, da je bil ta avtobus prodan in da so bili prihodki od te prodaje izplačani okrožju Emsland, kar je bil dokaz, da je okrožje ohranilo nadzor nad avtobusi.
These comments were summarised and discussed in the decision making bodies (Gremien) of the Landkreis Emsland.
Enako bi se zgodilo, če bi prenehali obratovati drugi avtobusi.
Supporting documents were provided to the Commission.
Nemški organi so potrdili, da so se avtobusi delno uporabljali zunaj sistema avtobusnih prevozov na zahtevo, natančneje, za šolski prevoz.
The German authorities further explained that the NVP did not contain any concrete information on the frequency of individual lines or on the trajectory of the lines (a copy of the NVP has been provided to the Commission).
Po navedbah nemških organov se je to dogajalo v sodelovanju z okrožjem Emsland.
It was unclear to the German authorities in how far the drafting of the NVP could cause a competitive disadvantage to the bus undertakings.
Podružnice podjetja EEB in tretje osebe so avtobuse za prevoz na zahtevo uporabljali za namene šolskega prevoza od 3,9 % do 24,1 % časa.
The German authorities also contested the Complainants' claim that part of the drafting of the NVP is an economic activity.
PRESOJA UKREPOV
They affirmed that the NVP is part of the public duties of the Landkreis Emsland.
PODROČJE UPORABE SKLEPA
The articles of association (Gesellschaftervertrag) explicitly imposed the duty of drafting the NVP onto EEB.
PODROČJE UPORABE, NAVEDENO V SKLEPU O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
With regard to the call-a-bus system, the German authorities stressed that the busses were offered to all undertakings in the Emsland at the same conditions as an additional letter of 16 February 2007 to the bus undertakings shows.
V sklepu o začetku postopka je bilo podjetje EEB opredeljeno kot morebitni upravičenec do številnih ukrepov državne pomoči v obdobju 1997–2007, ki so zajeti v stolpcih od 1 do 6 preglednice 1 tega sklepa.
The German authorities did not understand how the compulsory call via the Mobility Centre Emsland could lead to the transfer of commercially sensitive data.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da nekateri ukrepi, zajeti v teh stolpcih, niso vključevali državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The authorities disputed that the undertakings Albers and Elbert were not given access to these busses.
Ti ukrepi niso del tega sklepa, saj je Komisija o njih že sprejela končno stališče.
They claimed that meetings with the undertaking Elbert showed that they did not agree with the conditions of use of the busses.
Pripombe podjetja Nahverkehrsberatung Südwest se nanašajo na plačila v skladu s členom 45a PBefG, za katera je Komisija ugotovila, da niso vključevala državne pomoči.
With regard to the call busses the German authorities considered that EEB carried out public duties.
Ta ugotovitev na sodiščih Unije ni bila izpodbijana in je zato postala dokončna.
Following a decision of 8 February 2006, the Kreisausschuß (decision making body) of the Landkreis Emsland instructed EEB to acquire the busses and to extend the call-a-bus system.
Zato Komisija teh pripomb ne bo dodatno proučila.
By maintaining the busses in the ownership of EEB, the Landkreis wanted to ensure that it keeps the decisive power over the use of these busses.
Del pripomb pritožnikov se nanaša na nekatera plačila, vključena v stolpcu 6, glede katerih je Komisija že sklenila, da ne pomenijo državne pomoči, in sicer plačila za nakup programske opreme DIVA-Geo, osnutek evidence avtobusnih postajališč, čakalnice za potnike v avtobusnem prometu in programsko opremo za načrtovanje lokalnega potniškega prevoza.
The German authorities stated that if a party would no longer be interested in operating a call-bus it would be offered to other interested parties.
Zato Komisija teh pripomb ne bo dodatno proučila.
If no one could be found, the Landkreis Emsland would decide about their use.
UKREPI, ZA KATERE SE NE UPORABLJA VRAČILO NEZAKONITE IN NEZDRUŽLJIVE DRŽAVNE POMOČI
One of the five call-busses ceased to be operational in August 2012 and the German authorities explained that this bus would be sold and that the revenues from this sale would be reimbursed to the Landkreis Emsland, showing that the Landkreis maintained control over the buses.
Zato za te ukrepe ni mogoče več uporabiti zahteve za vračilo nezakonite in nezdružljive državne pomoči v skladu s členom 17 Uredbe Sveta (EU) 2015/1589 [28].
The same would happen if other busses would no longer be operational.
Zadevni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč zaradi razlogov, navedenih v oddelku 7.2.1.
The German authorities confirmed that the busses were partially used outside the call-a-bus system, more specifically for school transport.
Vendar se zadevna pomoč šteje za veljavno pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(iv) Uredbe Sveta (EU) 2015/1589 [29].
According to the German authorities this happened in coordination with the Landkreis Emsland.
Manjši del delnic RWE [30] je bil prenesen šele 12. oktobra 1998 („delnice iz leta 1998“), kar je manj kot 10 let pred tem, ko je bila na Nemčijo naslovljena prva zahteva po informacijah v zvezi s temi prenosi.
EEB's subsidiaries and third parties used the call-busses for school transport purposes between 3,9 % and 24,1 % of the time.
Prenos delnic iz leta 1998 je zato nova pomoč.
SCOPE OF THE DECISION
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV O PODROČJU UPORABE TEGA SKLEPA
SCOPE SET BY THE OPENING DECISION
Glede na navedene ugotovitve bo v sklepu proučeno, ali je podjetje EEB pridobilo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, in, če jo je, ali bi se taka pomoč lahko štela za združljivo, v zvezi z naslednjimi ukrepi:
The opening decision identified EEB as the potential beneficiary of a number of State aid measures between 1997 and 2007 covered by columns 1-6 of Table 1 of this decision.
delnice RWE iz leta 1998 in njihove dividende (stolpca 1 in 2),