natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The measures at issue therefore only concern the scheduled public transport by road sector in Île-de-France.
Komisija glede na navedeno ugotavlja, da je mehanizem subvencij, uveden z dodatkom št. 3 k pogodbi CT1, lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission also points out that a selection from among the undertakings in that sector is made prior to the award of the subsidies, when the undertakings which are to discharge the PSOs are selected.
Argument, naveden v uvodni izjavi 228, se uporablja tudi za obdobje pogodbe CT2, tako da lahko tudi pomoč, dodeljena prek prispevka C2 iz pogodbe CT2, izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
As selectivity is applied both at the sector level and within the sector, there is no need to demonstrate the geographical character of the selectivity as well, contrary to what RATP Dev appears to suggest in referring to the Azores ruling [30].
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja državne pomoči
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures implemented by the Region, and by STIF under CT1 and CT2, are selective.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so subvencije za naložbe in nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe, ki jih je naprej dodelila regija, nato pa so bili dodeljeni na podlagi dodatka št. 3 k pogodbi CT1 in nazadnje prek prispevka C2 iz pogodbe CT2, državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
It is necessary to examine whether the measures are such as to distort competition to the extent that they may have an effect on trade between the Member States.
Zakonitost pomoči
As regards the mechanism set up by the Region, the Commission, concurring with the Paris Administrative Court [31], finds that ‘undertakings operating in the scheduled passenger transport sector also operate in the occasional passenger transport sector […] hence, scheduled passenger transport undertakings which have received the above-mentioned subsidies may find themselves in competition with occasional passenger transport undertakings which have not been able to benefit from those subsidies, which are, as has been stated, reserved for undertakings operating scheduled routes’.
Komisija želi najprej odgovoriti na trditve regije in nekaterih drugih zainteresiranih tretjih strani glede morebitne opredelitve spornega mehanizma regije kot veljavne sheme pomoči.
Thus, during the first five years, the equipment concerned could be assigned, outside the normal periods of utilisation, to other uses, including uses in the occasional transport market.
Komisija pojasnjuje, da se vprašanje veljavne pomoči nanaša samo na shemo regije, saj datum uvedbe te sheme ni tako jasen kot pri poznejših shemah, ki ju je izvajalo združenje STIF.
Furthermore, there was no provision or stipulation prohibiting subsidised undertakings which operated the scheduled passenger transport routes in Île-de-France from bidding for the award of other scheduled or occasional passenger transport contracts that were put out to tender in France or in Europe.
Kar zadeva shemo regije, so stranke v postopku, ki so poudarjale njeno domnevno naravo veljavne sheme pomoči, primarno trdile, da je bila pravna podlaga, s katero je bil uveden mehanizem subvencij regije, odlok št. 49-1473 z dne 14. novembra 1949 o koordiniranju in usklajevanju železniškega in cestnega prevoza.
The national court which ruled in the administrative dispute described in recitals 27 to 32 arrived at the same finding, which led it to conclude that the subsidised undertakings were ‘likely, owing to the savings made when acquiring subsidised vehicles and equipment, to enjoy a competitive advantage over undertakings which did not receive aid’ and that, as a consequence, the mechanism in question was ‘such as to affect trade between the Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition’ [32].
V tem odloku, ki je bil razveljavljen septembra 2012, je bilo namreč določeno, da lahko „ozemeljska skupnost subvencionira cestni prevoz, tako da s podjetjem sklene pogodbo, s katero se določijo obveznosti, ki so temu podjetju naložene poleg obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz njegovega pravilnika o izvajanju prevozov“ (člen 19(1)).
The Commission endorses this conclusion and confirms that, from the point at which the regional mechanism was set up, and particularly during the whole of the period under consideration, the investment subsidies from the Region were likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Ob tej predpostavki naj bi bilo treba ugotoviti, da je bila pravna podlaga sheme zgodnejša od Rimske pogodbe, zaradi česar naj bi bilo treba mehanizem, ki ga je vzpostavila regija, šteti za veljavno shemo pomoči.
In the ensuing period, the assets for which a subsidy had been awarded by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1 had to be used exclusively for the purpose of carrying out the public-service activities included in the STIF transport plan for a minimum of eight years [33].
Iste stranke so podredno trdile, da če bi Komisija menila, da dejstvo, da je mehanizem, ki ga je vzpostavila regija, spadal v splošni okvir, določen z odlokom iz leta 1949, ne zadostuje, da bi bil opredeljen kot veljavna shema pomoči, bi bilo treba upoštevati datum, ko je regionalni svet formalno uvedel ta mehanizem.
The Commission notes, however, that the argument set out in recital 226 remains valid after the eighth year of service.
Posledica tega naj bi bila, da shema ob uvedbi ni pomenila pomoči.
What is more, even supposing that the buses and coaches subsidised by STIF had only been used to perform public-service tasks on the market in scheduled passenger transport by road in Île-de-France, that would not be enough to rule out any possibility that competition had been distorted and trade between Member States had been affected by the measure in question.
Komisija se ne more strinjati s tema trditvama.
The assumption of responsibility by a public authority for costs normally borne by an undertaking gives it an advantage over its direct competitors in the various markets in which it is likely to operate, and therefore distorts competition.
Kar zadeva primarno trditev, Komisija ugotavlja, da v odloku iz leta 1949 ni bil natančno opredeljen noben od ključnih parametrov sheme: trajanje, proračun, opredelitev upravičencev, narava sredstev, upravičenih do subvencije, stopnja subvencije.
As observed in the Altmark judgment, since 1995 several Member States have started opening certain transport markets up to competition by undertakings established in other Member States.
S tem besedilom samim ni bila vzpostavljena nikakršna pravica do prejemanja subvencij.
In the case of France, it began opening up its market prior to 1995, as early as 1993 [34].
Zato odloka iz leta 1949 ni mogoče šteti za pravno podlago mehanizma pomoči, ki ga je vzpostavila regija, kot izhaja iz opisa v tem sklepu.
Any public subsidy awarded by France to a road transport undertaking after 1993 was therefore likely to affect trade between Member States.
Kar zadeva podredno trditev, se zdi, da je razlogovanje zainteresiranih strani napačno.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the subsidy mechanism brought in by Rider No 3 to the CT1 was likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Namreč, tudi če bi se sklep iz leta 1984 uporabil kot pravna podlaga, s katero je bil uveden mehanizem regije, Komisija opozarja, da je bilo merilo vpliva na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami na ta datum že izpolnjeno glede na razlogovanje, predstavljeno v uvodni izjavi 226.
The argument put forward in recital 228 also applies to the CT2 period, so that aid awarded through the C2 contribution in CT2 is also likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Ni torej mogoče meniti, da shema regije ob uvedbi ni pomenila pomoči, in sicer ne glede na to, kateri datum med letoma 1979 in 2008 se upošteva za vzpostavitev sheme.
The Commission concludes that the investment subsidies and public-service compensation awarded successively by the Region, then under Rider No 3 to the CT1, and finally through contribution C2 in CT2, are State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija na to vprašanje odgovarja, da tudi če bi bila shema uvedena pred letom 1994 (na primer s sklepom iz leta 1984), pravila o zastaranju, veljavna na področju državnih pomoči, ne bi omajala ugotovitve, v skladu s katero pomoči, ki jih je regija izplačevala od leta 1994, pomenijo nove pomoči.
Lawfulness of the aid
Zastaranje se namreč nanaša samo na plačila, izvedena pred datumom zastaranja, in ne na shemo v celoti.
To start with, the Commission wishes to respond to the arguments put forward by the Region and certain other interested third parties regarding the potential classification of the Region's contentious mechanism as existing State aid.
Zastaranje pa je bilo prekinjeno s tožbo, ki je bila maja 2004 vložena pri nacionalnem sodišču.
The Commission would make clear that the question of existing aid arises only with respect to the scheme set up by the Region, as the date when the scheme was set up is not as clear as in the case of the later schemes implemented by STIF.
Ta prekinitev zastaranja pred nacionalnim sodiščem velja tudi za Komisijo, saj je cilj pooblastil nacionalnega sodišča ohraniti posebne pravice, ki so Komisiji dodeljene s členom 108(3) PDEU.
In the case of the latter, it is clear, in particular, that the subsidy scheme brought in by Rider No 3 to the CT1 was set up in 2008 and cannot be seen as merely a continuation of the Region's scheme, despite similarities in the spirit of both of these schemes, if only because the authority which awards the subsidies in these two schemes is not the same.
Vsako pomoč, ki jo je regija izplačala po maju 1994, tudi če bi bilo treba za pravno podlago, s katero je bila odobrena dodelitev teh pomoči, šteti, da je iz obdobja pred tem datumom, je torej treba šteti za novo pomoč v okviru tega postopka.
In the case of the Region's scheme, the parties to the procedure, having highlighted its alleged character as an existing aid scheme, have claimed principally that the legal basis which established the Region's subsidy mechanism was Decree No 49-1473 of 14 November 1949 on the coordination and harmonisation of rail and road transport.
Ker sta bili vprašanji veljavnih pomoči in morebitnega zastaranja spornih ukrepov pojasnjeni, se zdaj postavlja vprašanje zakonitosti zadevnih pomoči.
This decree, which was repealed in September 2012, laid down that ‘a local authority may subsidise a road service by signing a contract with an undertaking laying down the obligations imposed on the latter over and above those to which it is subject under its operating rules’ (Article 19, first subparagraph).
Subvencije za naložbe, ki sta jih dodelila regija in nato združenje STIF na podlagi dodatka št. 3 k pogodbi CT1, niso bile priglašene Komisiji.
In this case, it would have to be found that the legal basis for the scheme dated from before the Treaty of Rome, which would mean that the mechanism set up by the Region would have to be regarded as an existing aid scheme.
Zato so to nezakonite pomoči.
In the alternative, the same parties argue that, if the Commission were to consider that the fact that the mechanism set up by the Region fell within the general framework laid down by the 1949 decree was not sufficient grounds for classifying it as an existing aid scheme, the date on which the mechanism concerned was officially established by the Regional Council would have to be taken into account.
Kar zadeva prispevek C2 iz pogodbe CT2, je v členu 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 določeno, da so nadomestila, dodeljena v skladu z njenimi načeli, oproščena obveznosti priglasitve iz člena 108(3) PDEU.
The salient date would be the date of publication of Decision CR 84-07 of 14 February 1984 which, still according to the parties, first set up the mechanism in the form in which it operated until 2008.
Sodišče je v sodni praksi v zadevi Dilly's Wellnesshotel [35] pojasnilo, da morajo biti izpolnjeni vsi pogoji uredbe o izvzetju, vključno s formalnimi, da bi se uporabljalo izvzetje iz obveznosti priglasitve.
In this case, it would have to be found that the criterion regarding an effect on competition and trade between Member States was not met on the date when the scheme was established, since the French market in scheduled public transport by road was not open to competition.
V obravnavani zadevi bo v oddelku 6.3.2 tega sklepa dokazano, da prispevek C2 iz pogodbe CT2 izpolnjuje bistvena merila iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
The consequence of this would be that the scheme was not aid at the time it was established.
Nasprotno pa Komisija ugotavlja, da združenje STIF ni upoštevalo obveznosti objave, določenih v členu 7(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
The Commission cannot accept these two arguments.
Francoski organi so namreč priznali, da kar zadeva podjetja organizacije OPTILE, obvestil o oddaji naročila ni bilo mogoče objaviti kljub obveznosti iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007.
As regards the principal argument, the Commission points out that the 1949 decree did not precisely define any of the key parameters of the scheme: duration, budget, definition of the beneficiaries, type of asset eligible for the subsidy, subsidy rates.
Kar zadeva pogodbe, sklenjene s podjetjem RATP in družbo SNCF Mobilités, Komisija ugotavlja, da so bila obvestila o oddaji naročila objavljena v uradnem listu Bulletin officiel des annonces de marché public in Uradnem listu Evropske unije po dodelitvi pogodb in ne, kot se zahteva, najmanj eno leto pred datumom neposredne dodelitve.
On its own, that enactment did not establish any entitlement to receive subsidies.
Določbe člena 7 Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 torej niso bile upoštevane, zato pomoči, ki jih je združenje STIF dodelilo v okviru pogodbe CT2, niso zajete z oprostitvijo obveznosti priglasitve iz člena 9 navedene uredbe.
Therefore, the 1949 decree cannot be regarded as the legal basis for the aid mechanism set up by the Region, as described in this Decision.
Ker pomoči niso bile priglašene, Komisija ugotavlja, da pomenijo nezakonite pomoči.
As regards the argument in the alternative, it is clear that the case made by the interested parties is vitiated by error.
Komisija opozarja, da morajo nacionalni organi izpeljati vse posledice, ki izhajajo iz nezakonitosti pomoči, zlasti kar zadeva izterjavo obresti na nezakonito pomoč, kot so opredeljene v sodbi CELF [36].
Even if the 1984 decision were to be taken as the legal basis on which the Region's mechanism was established, the Commission points out that the criterion regarding an effect on competition and trade between Member States was already met by that date, for the reasons stated in recital 226.
Ocena skladnosti ukrepov z veljavnimi pravili o državni pomoči
It should not, therefore, be considered that the mechanism set up by the Region did not constitute aid at the time of its establishment, whatever date is taken as that on which the scheme was established between 1979 and 2008.
Subvencije za naložbe, ki sta jih dodelila regija in nato združenje STIF na podlagi dodatka št. 3 k pogodbi CT1
If, however, it were to be considered that the establishment of the Region's mechanism dated back to one of the decisions prior to 1994, the question of whether the measures at issue were barred by limitation could arise, since the legal basis for them would date back to more than 10 years prior to the suspension of the limitation, which took effect in May 2004.
Ob upoštevanju velike podobnosti med subvencijami, ki jih je dodelilo združenje STIF na podlagi dodatka št. 3 k pogodbi CT1, in subvencijami, ki jih je v predhodnem obdobju dodelila regija, se za oba mehanizma uporablja enako razlogovanje glede združljivosti z notranjim trgom.
On this question, the Commission would reply that, even supposing the scheme had been set up before 1994 (for example, by the 1984 decision), the rules on limitation applying with respect to State aid would not jeopardise the conclusion that the aid paid by the Region since 1984 was new aid.
Te subvencije za naložbe niso bile potrebne niti za usklajevanje prometa niti kot nadomestilo za opravljanje določenih storitev, ki so del javne službe, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v uvodnih izjavah 206 in 213.
Limitation, in fact, attaches only to the payments made before the date of the limitation, and not to the scheme in its entirety.
Komisija se torej pri oceni njihove združljivosti z notranjim trgom ne bo mogla opreti na člen 93 PDEU (ali na sekundarno pravo, ki izhaja iz njega).
The limitation was suspended, however, by the appeal lodged with the national court in May 2004.
Vendar pa se lahko na podlagi člena 107(3) PDEU za združljivo z notranjim trgom šteje pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
This suspension of limitation before the national court also applies to the Commission, as the purpose of the powers of the national court is to safeguard the prerogatives granted to the Commission by Article 108(3) TFEU.
To lahko med drugim velja za pomoči za naložbe, s katerimi se izboljša način opravljanja zadevne gospodarske dejavnosti.
Any aid paid by the Region after May 1994, even if the legal basis authorising the award of such aid were to be deemed to be prior to that date, must therefore be considered as being new aid in the current proceedings.
Francoski organi trdijo, da se ta določba uporablja za mehanizem pomoči za naložbe, ki ga je vzpostavila regija Île-de-France.
Now that the questions relating to existing aid and the possibility of time-barring of the measures at issue have been clarified, the question of the lawfulness of the aid must be addressed.
Izvajanje mehanizma pomoči za naložbe v opremo za količinsko ali kakovostno izboljšanje ponudbe rednega javnega prevoza v cestnem prometu, ki je presegala raven obveznosti, na kateri so morali upravičenci opravljati svoje storitve pred dodelitvijo subvencij, je bilo tako, da je lahko izboljšalo privlačnost ponudbe v primerjavi z drugimi možnostmi prevoza z osebnim avtomobilom.
The investment subsidies awarded by the Region and then by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1 were not notified to the Commission.
S tem in ob upoštevanju posebnih razmer v regiji Île-de-France, na katere je bilo opozorjeno v uvodnih izjavah 16 in 17, sta zadevna mehanizma prispevala k doseganju cilja splošnega interesa, kot je opredeljen z belo knjigo o enotnem evropskem prometnem prostoru iz leta 2011 [37], in sicer prehodu z uporabe osebnih vozil na uporabo javnih prevoznih sredstev.
They therefore constitute unlawful aid.
Prevozniki ne bi mogli izvesti teh izboljšanj brez subvencij.
In the case of the C2 contribution under CT2, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that compensation awarded in accordance with its principles is exempt from the prior notification requirement referred to in Article 108(3) TFEU.
Linije, ki so prejele subvencije, so namreč ustvarjale izgube, njihovo ekonomsko ravnotežje pa je že bilo odvisno od nadomestil za opravljanje javne službe, ki so se izplačevala.
In its judgment in Dilly's Wellnesshotel [35], the Court of Justice made clear that all the conditions of an exemption regulation, including formal conditions, had to be met in order for exemption from the notification requirement to apply.
Zadevna mehanizma sta torej imela spodbujevalni učinek.
In the case in point, it will be shown in Section 6.3.2 of this Decision that contribution C2 under CT2 meets the substantive criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta bili osnova in stopnja subvencij omejeni, tako da sta regija in nato združenje STIF neposredno prevzela samo del naložbenih stroškov.
The Commission notes, however, that the publication requirements laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 were not complied with by STIF.
Najvišje stopnje subvencije so znašale 50 % za navadne avtobuse in 60 % za ekološke avtobuse, kar sta zmerni intenzivnosti pomoči.
The French authorities in fact acknowledged that, as regards the OPTILE undertakings, it was not possible to publish the award notices, despite the requirement to do so in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
K temu je treba dodati, da se je subvencionirana oprema, kar so večinoma bili avtobusi, lahko le obrobno namenjala za druge uporabe ali druge linije, kot so bile tiste, za katere je bila subvencija prvotno dodeljena.
As regards the contracts with RATP and SNCF Mobilités, the Commission observes that the award notices were published in the Bulletin officiel des annonces de marché public (Official Bulletin of Public Procurement Notices) and in the Official Journal of the European Union after the award of the contracts and not, as required, at least one year before the direct award date.
Po eni strani je bila uporaba za druge namene, kot je javni potniški prevoz, omejena ali celo prepovedana: v okviru pogodbe CT1 in v regionalnih dodatkih od leta 1999 je bila vsaka uporaba za druge namene v obdobju amortizacije subvencije prepovedana; pred letom 1999 je to veljalo za prvih pet let.
Consequently, the provisions of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 were not complied with and the aid awarded by STIF under CT2 was not covered by the exemption from the notification requirement provided for in Article 9 of the Regulation.
Po drugi strani vozila, namenjena mestnemu prevozu pretežno stoječih potnikov, niso ravno primerna za občasni prevoz, za katerega je treba uporabiti avtobuse, primerne za prevoz sedečih potnikov z uporabo varnostnega pasu.
As it was not notified, the Commission concludes that it is unlawful aid.
Nazadnje, čeprav možnosti vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami ni bilo mogoče izključiti zaradi razlogov, opisanih v uvodnih izjavah 226 in 228, je bil ta učinek po vsej verjetnosti omejen zaradi lokalne razsežnosti zadevnih trgov ter pogodbene ali materialne težavnosti ali celo nezmožnosti uporabe subvencionirane opreme na drugih geografskih območjih (v Franciji ali v Evropi).
The Commission points out that it is for the national authorities to draw all the necessary conclusions that flow from the unlawfulness of the aid, particularly as regards the recovery of interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness as defined in the CELF judgment [36].
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevna mehanizma nista vplivala na trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom, in da sta združljiva z notranjim trgom zaradi njune skladnosti s členom 107(3) PDEU.
Assessment of the compatibility of the measures with the applicable State aid rules
Prispevek C2 iz pogodbe CT2
The investment subsidies awarded by the Region and then by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1
Komisija je v uvodni izjavi 217 že ugotovila, da je treba v nasprotju s subvencijami, ki jih je do leta 2008 dodeljevala regija ali ki jih je na podlagi dodatka št. 3 k pogodbi CT1 dodeljevalo združenje STIF, prispevek C2 iz pogodbe CT2 analizirati kot nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe.
Having regard to the great similarity between the subsidies awarded by STIF under Rider No 3 to the CT1 and those awarded by the Region during the preceding period, the same reasoning regarding compatibility with the internal market applies to both mechanisms.
Združljivost pomoči, dodeljenih kot nadomestilo za opravljanje določenih storitev, ki so del javne službe, z notranjim trgom se preuči na podlagi člena 93 PDEU.
These investment subsidies did not meet the needs of coordination of transport or represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service, as was concluded in recitals 206 and 213.
Člen 3(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1370/2007 določa: „Kadar se pristojni organ odloči, da izvajalcu, ki ga izbere sam, dodeli izključno pravico in/ali nadomestilo, ne glede na vrsto nadomestila, v zameno za izvajanje obveznosti javne službe, to stori v okviru pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe.“