natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The compensation to a large extent stems from State (as opposed to county) funds, and the Ministry of Transport (i) has the power to give guidelines on the content and publication of route schedules, (ii) has the power to approve tariffs, (iii) sets national rebates, (iv) can give guidelines for the use of ticketing systems, and (v) has the authority to approve general terms and conditions for scheduled transport.
Nadomestilo v veliki meri izhaja iz državnih (namesto okrožnih) sredstev, Ministrstvo za promet pa (i) ima pooblastila za zagotavljanje smernic o vsebini in objavi voznih redov za uporabo proge, (ii) ima pooblastila za odobritev tarif, (iii) določa nacionalna znižanja, (iv) lahko zagotavlja smernice za uporabo sistema izdaje vozovnic ter (v) ima pooblastila za odobritev splošnih pogojev za redni prevoz.
Finally they argue that the consistent administrative practice in Oslo demonstrates that the aid has been disbursed on the basis of a scheme.
Norveški organi tudi trdijo, da dosledna upravna praksa v Oslu kaže, da je pomoč izplačana na podlagi sheme.
The quality bonus/malus system
Sistem bonusov/malusov za kakovost
The Norwegian authorities argue that the quality bonus/malus system is part of the general public service compensation for the provision of local scheduled bus transport in Oslo, and that consequently, it is an integrated part of the aid scheme.
Norveški organi trdijo, da je sistem bonusov/malusov za kakovost del splošnega nadomestila za javno storitev za izvajanje lokalnega rednega avtobusnega prevoza v Oslu in da je zato sestavni del sheme pomoči.
They add that the bonus payment of 2004 amounted to NOK 3,9 million, which represents 0,8 % of the revenue of AS Sporveisbussene that year (NOK 483,5 million).
Dodajajo tudi, da je izplačani bonus v letu 2004 znašal 3,9 milijona NOK, kar pomeni 0,8 % prihodka podjetja AS Sporveisbussene v navedenem letu (483,5 milijona NOK).
It is additionally argued that this, in any event, represents a part of the reasonable profit on the hand of AS Sporveisbussene.
Poleg tega trdijo, da je to v vsakem primeru del primernega dobička podjetja AS Sporveisbussene.
Allocation of common costs and intra-group services
Dodelitev skupnih stroškov in storitve znotraj skupine
The Authority understands that, on the basis of the information provided, the Norwegian authorities claim that there is no state aid involved as regards the allocation of common costs and the payment of intra-group services, given that the transactions between the companies of the group and to a lesser extent between companies of the group and AS Oslo Sporveier are based on normal commercial terms and principles.
Nadzorni organ na podlagi posredovanih informacij razume, da norveški organi trdijo, da pri dodelitvi skupnih stroškov in plačilih za storitve znotraj skupine ni nobene državne pomoči, saj transakcije med podjetji skupine in v manjši meri med podjetji skupine ter podjetjem AS Oslo Sporveier temeljijo na običajnih komercialnih pogojih.
Commercial activities capital injection
Kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti
The Norwegian authorities argue that the approximate NOK 430300 part of the 2004 capital injection that went to cover the pension costs related to purely commercial activities outside the public service remit (the commercial activities capital injection), does not represent state aid, but rather an investment on market terms in accordance with the market economy investor principle (“MEIP”).
Norveški organi trdijo, da približni znesek 430300 NOK, del kapitalskega vložka v letu 2004, ki je bil namenjen kritju pokojninskih stroškov, povezanih s povsem komercialnimi dejavnostmi zunaj področja javnih storitev (kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti), ne pomeni državne pomoči, temveč gre za naložbo pod tržnimi pogoji v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
On this basis, and with reference to the market economy investor test as drawn up by the Authority in the opening decision [73], the Norwegian authorities argue that the commercial activities capital injection was globally more profitable than liquidating the company and investing the same amount elsewhere, given the high costs involved in such liquidation that would well exceed the cost of the capital injection.
Na tej podlagi in s sklicevanjem na preskus z vidika načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je Nadzorni organ določil v odločbi o začetku postopka [73], norveški organi trdijo, da je bil kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti na splošno donosnejši kot likvidacija podjetja in vlaganje istega zneska nekam drugam, pri čemer se upoštevajo visoki stroški takšne likvidacije, ki bi precej presegali stroške kapitalskega vložka.
In their observations to the opening decision, the Norwegian authorities furthermore explain that both the employees engaged with the public service activities and the ones engaged with the commercial activities were employed in the same legal entity and were members of the same pension fund.
Norveški organi v ugotovitvah v zvezi z odločbo o začetku postopka še pojasnjujejo, da so bili uslužbenci, ki so izvajali dejavnosti javnih storitev, in uslužbenci, ki so izvajali komercialne dejavnosti, zaposleni pri istem pravnem subjektu ter da so bili člani istega pokojninskega sklada.
Also, under Norwegian law, it is not allowed to exclude certain members of a pension fund when covering the deficit in that fund.
Norveška zakonodaja prav tako ne dovoljuje, da bi določene člane pokojninskega sklada izključili ob pokrivanju primanjkljaja v tem skladu.
According to the Norwegian authorities, this substantiates that a private investor in the same situation would have had to implement the same capital increase.
Po navedbah norveških organov to potrjuje, da bi zasebni vlagatelj v enakih okoliščinah moral izvesti enako povečanje kapitala.
The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that the capital injection for the commercial activities does not constitute state aid as it falls below the de minimis threshold.
Norveški organi poleg tega trdijo, da kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti ne pomeni državne pomoči, saj ne presega praga de minimis.
Taxation of the Oslo Sporveier Group
Obdavčitev skupine Oslo Sporveier
It is inferred from the comments submitted by the Norwegian authorities that the group contribution rules exclude any state aid, due to the fact that these rules apply to all companies that have their residence in Norway and aim to achieve tax consolidation within the group.
Na osnovi pripomb norveških organov je mogoče sklepati, da predpisi o prispevkih znotraj skupine izključujejo vsako državno pomoč, saj se ti predpisi uporabljajo za vsa podjetja, ki imajo svoj sedež na Norveškem in ki želijo doseči davčno konsolidacijo znotraj skupine.
Compatible aid
Združljiva pomoč
The Norwegian authorities argue that the compensation granted for the provision of the public service has not led to overcompensation and is therefore compatible under Article 49 of the EEA Agreement.
Norveški organi trdijo, da nadomestilo za izvajanje javne storitve ni povzročilo prekomernega nadomestila in da je zato združljivo v skladu s členom 49 Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority received comments from two interested parties, the complainant (Konkurrenten.no AS) and Risdal Touring AS, a sister company of the complainant.
Nadzorni organ je prejel pripombe od dveh zainteresiranih strani, tj. pritožnika (Konkurrenten.no AS) in sestrske družbe pritožnika Risdal Touring AS.
The complainant refers to a series of documents submitted to the Authority and the EFTA Court in which it has explained its position on the case at hand.
Pritožnik se sklicuje na niz dokumentov, ki jih je poslal Nadzornemu organu in Sodišču Efte, v katerih pojasnjuje svoje stališče glede te zadeve.
The complainant objects to the Authority, (i) relying almost exclusively on information provided by the Norwegian authorities, provided in an informal manner, (ii) separating the measures identified by the complainant in two different cases, and (iii) allegedly rejecting the complainant public access to the case file.
Pritožnik ugovarja Nadzornemu organu, ki (i) se skoraj izključno sklicuje na neuradno zagotovljene informacije norveških organov, (ii) ločuje med ukrepi, ki jih je pritožnik opredelil v dveh različnih zadevah, in (iii) pritožniku domnevno zavrača javni dostop do spisa zadeve.
The complainant calls into question the Authority’s willingness to conduct an impartial and exhaustive investigation.
Pritožnik izraža dvom o pripravljenosti Nadzornega organa, da opravi nepristransko in izčrpno preiskavo.
Risdal Touring AS is part of the same corporate group as the complainant.
Podjetje Risdal Touring AS je del iste skupine podjetij kot pritožnik.
It accedes to the concerns raised by the complainant.
S pomisleki, ki jih je izrazil pritožnik, soglaša.
In particular, the company expresses its regret concerning the Authority’s alleged decision to deny public access to the case file and the length of the proceedings in the case at hand.
Podjetje zlasti izraža obžalovanje zaradi domnevne odločitve Nadzornega organa, da zavrne dostop do spisa zadeve, in zaradi dolžine postopkov v tej zadevi.
The company stresses that these circumstances call into question the Authority’s ability and willingness to conduct an impartial and exhaustive investigation.
Poudarja, da v teh okoliščinah izraža dvom o sposobnosti in pripravljenosti Nadzornega organa, da opravi nepristransko in izčrpno preiskavo.
“Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States 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 Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.”
„Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES, države Efte ali je dodeljena v kakršni koli obliki iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma, kolikor škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami“.
Firstly, the Authority assesses whether the group taxation measure involves state aid.
Nadzorni organ oceni, ali ukrep skupinske obdavčitve vključuje državno pomoč.
Secondly, the Authority assesses the state aid nature of the commercial activities capital injection.
Drugič, Nadzorni organ oceni, v kolikšni meri gre pri kapitalskem vložku v komercialne dejavnosti za državno pomoč.
As explained above, this is a part of a larger measure (the 2004 capital injection that was injected to remedy the underfunding of the pension accounts).
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, je to del širšega ukrepa (kapitalski vložek iz leta 2004 za odpravo primanjkljaja na pokojninskih računih).
However, in contrast to the rest of the 2004 capital injection, the commercial activities capital injection went to cover non-public service costs, namely the underfunding of the pension accounts of the employees in the commercial arm of AS Sporveisbussene.
A v nasprotju s preostalim kapitalskim vložkom iz leta 2004 je bil kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti namenjen kritju stroškov storitev, ki ne spadajo med javne storitve, tj. za primanjkljaj na pokojninskih računih zaposlenih v odvisnem podjetju podjetja AS Sporveisbussene, ki se ukvarja s komercialnimi dejavnostmi.
For the purposes of assessing the state aid nature of both parts of the 2004 capital injection, a distinction needs to be drawn between them, given the different legal bases they have to be assessed on.
Da bi se ocenilo, v kolikšni meri gre pri obeh delih kapitalskega vložka iz leta 2004 za državno pomoč, je treba med njima potegniti ločnico glede na različni pravni podlagi, v skladu s katerima ju je treba oceniti.
Thus, whilst public service compensation measures are assessed on the basis of the principles drawn up by the European Court of Justice (the “Court of Justice”) in the Altmark judgment [74], the assessment of measures that do not constitute public service compensation is not based on those principles.
Medtem ko se ukrepi nadomestil za javne storitve ocenjujejo na podlagi načel, ki jih je Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče) določilo v sodbi v zadevi Altmark [74], pa ocena ukrepov, ki ne vsebujejo nadomestil za javne storitve, ne temelji na teh načelih.
Thirdly, the Authority assesses whether the annual compensation and the public service capital injection constitute state aid.
Tretjič, Nadzorni organ oceni, ali letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve pomenita državno pomoč.
The complainant has argued that AS Oslo Sporveier’s negative tax position has been used to reduce the tax burden on AS Sporveisbussene.
Pritožnik je trdil, da se je negativen davčni položaj podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier izkoristil za zmanjšanje davčnega bremena podjetja AS Sporveisbussene.
It appears to the Authority that the complainant refers to the taxation rules regarding contributions between companies belonging to the same corporate group (“group contributions”).
Nadzorni organ meni, da se pritožnik sklicuje na predpise o obdavčitvi v zvezi s prispevki med podjetji, ki spadajo v isto skupino podjetij (v nadaljnjem besedilu: prispevki znotraj skupine).
The Authority observes that these rules are applicable to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, as the latter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the former.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da se ti predpisi uporabljajo za podjetji AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene, saj je slednje odvisno podjetje, ki je v 100-odstotni lasti prvega podjetja.
Thus, AS Oslo Sporveier or any of its subsidiaries could in principle offset taxable profits by distributing contributions within the group.
Podjetje AS Sporveier ali katero koli od njegovih odvisnih podjetij bi načeloma torej lahko pobotalo obdavčljivi dobiček z dodelitvijo prispevkov znotraj skupine.
The Authority points out that the complainant seems to have taken issue with what appears to be an application of the general Norwegian rules on corporate taxation.
Nadzorni organ poudarja, da je pritožnik očitno odprl razpravo o uporabi splošnih norveških predpisov o obdavčitvi podjetij.
The Authority notes that the complainant has neither alleged, nor submitted any information sustaining that the relevant tax rules are drafted in a manner which could lead to state aid being granted to specific companies.
Nadzorni organ opaža, da pritožnik ni ne navedel ne predložil nobenih informacij, ki bi potrjevale, da so zadevni davčni predpisi pripravljeni na način, zaradi katerega bi se lahko državna pomoč dodeljevala določenim podjetjem.
According to established case law, in order to determine whether a measure is selective, it is appropriate to examine whether, within the context of a particular legal system, that measure confers an advantage to certain undertakings in comparison with others that are in a comparable legal and factual situation [75].
Da bi se določilo, ali je ukrep selektiven, je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso primerno proučiti, ali ta ukrep v okviru določenega pravnega sistema daje prednost določenim podjetjem v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju [75].
It may thus be the case that a particular national taxation system does not involve state aid even though is does not correspond to the general system of corporate taxation in a given EEA State.
Torej je možno, da določen nacionalni sistem obdavčitve ne vključuje državne pomoči, čeprav ne ustreza splošnemu sistemu predpisov o obdavčitvi podjetij v določeni državi EGP.
With respect to the contributions concerned, companies within a group are not in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of companies outside a group.
Pravni in dejanski položaj podjetij znotraj skupine v zvezi z zadevnimi prispevki ni primerljiv s položajem podjetij zunaj nje.
When a parent company grants a contribution to a subsidiary and thereby reduces its taxable income, this contribution does not aim to maximise profits for one party at the expense of the other but merely allows for similar tax treatment, as that of a single company that operates several businesses, and ensures tax neutrality between the companies organised as a group and the single company operating several businesses.
Kadar matično podjetje dodeli prispevek odvisnemu podjetju in s tem zmanjša svoj obdavčljivi dohodek, ta prispevek ni namenjen povečanju dobička ene strani na račun druge, temveč zgolj omogoča podobno davčno obravnavo, ki je enaka davčni obravnavi enega samega podjetja, ki izvaja več poslov, ter zagotavlja davčno nevtralnost med podjetji, organiziranimi kot skupina, in enim samim podjetjem, ki opravlja več poslov.
As underlined at section 3.1 of the Authority’s Guidelines on the application of state aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, state aid rules do not restrict the power of EFTA States to decide on the economic policy which they consider most appropriate and, in particular, to spread the tax burden as they see fit across the different factors of production.
Kot je poudarjeno v oddelku 3.1 smernic Nadzornega organa o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči pri ukrepih v zvezi z neposredno obdavčitvijo podjetij, pravila o državni pomoči ne omejujejo pristojnosti držav Efte, da se odločijo za ekonomsko politiko, ki je po njihovem mnenju najprimernejša, in da predvsem razporedijo davčno breme po različnih dejavniki proizvodnje, kot se jim zdi primerno.
The Authority agrees with the Norwegian authorities that the measure is genuinely open to any undertaking resident in Norway that is subject to corporate income tax, including thus foreign companies with subsidiaries in Norway.
Nadzorni organ se strinja z norveškimi organi, da je ukrep dejansko odprt za vsa podjetja s sedežem na Norveškem, ki morajo plačevati davek od dohodka pravnih oseb, kar vključuje torej tudi tuja podjetja z odvisnimi podjetji na Norveškem.
The statutory capital requirement for the establishment of a limited liability company, namely NOK 100000 during the period of investigation, allowed an individual company to create a second company in Norway, and hence a group.
Zakonska zahteva o kapitalu za ustanovitev družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo, tj. 100000 NOK v času preiskave, je posameznim podjetjem omogočala, da ustanovijo drugo podjetje na Norveškem in s tem oblikujejo skupino.
As a result, the formation of a group could have been made by an individual company without requiring significant capital resources.
Oblikovanje skupine bi lahko zato opravilo katero koli posamezno podjetje, ne da bi za to potrebovalo precejšnja kapitalska sredstva.
The scope of potential beneficiaries of such a scheme is thus broad; and its purpose is to ensure similar tax treatment regardless of company size or structure.
Obseg potencialnih upravičencev takšne sheme je torej širok, njen namen pa je zagotoviti podobno davčno obravnavo ne glede na velikost ali strukturo podjetja.
In view of the above, the Authority considers that the offsetting of taxable income by making a group contribution would not confer an economic advantage on AS Sporveisbussene when it, as a condition for benefitting from the tax deduction, was obliged to make the contribution to another company in the group, and at the same amount as the tax base reduction obtained in this manner.
Glede na navedeno Nadzorni organ meni, da podjetje AS Sporveisbussene s pobotom obdavčljivega dohodka s prispevki znotraj skupine ne bi dobilo gospodarske prednosti, saj je moralo, da bi bilo upravičeno do odbitka davka, vplačati prispevek v drugo podjetje znotraj skupine, in sicer v enakem znesku, kolikor je znašalo na ta način doseženo zmanjšanje davčne osnove.
Thus, this tax treatment does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ta davčna obravnava zato ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The commercial activities capital injection
Kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti
As set out above approximately NOK 430300 of the 2004 capital injection appears to have been related to underfunding of pension accounts in the tour bus division.
V skladu z zgoraj navedenim se zdi, da je bilo 430300 NOK kapitalskega vložka iz leta 2004 povezanih s primanjkljajem na pokojninskih računih oddelka za avtobusna potovanja.
As this part of the injected capital does not relate to public service cost, it is not assessed on the basis of Altmark.
Ker se ta del vloženega kapitala ne nanaša na stroške javne storitve, se ne ocenjuje na podlagi sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
In addition, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 (now 107 TFEU) and 88 (now 108 TFEU) of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid is not applicable in this particular case [76].
V tem posebnem primeru se tudi ne uporablja Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o uporabi členov 87 (zdaj člen 107 PDEU) in 88 (zdaj člen 108 PDEU) Pogodbe pri pomoči de minimis [76].
The amount of approximately NOK 430300 was part of the overall amount of NOK 111760000 that was paid to cover the cost of the public service and constitutes therefore an integral part of it.
Znesek v višini približno 430300 NOK je bil del skupnega zneska v višini 111760000 NOK, plačanega za kritje stroškov javne storitve, in zato tvori njegov sestavni del.
It cannot thus be considered as an individual measure that satisfies the conditions of the de minimis Regulation [77].
Torej se ne more obravnavati kot posamezen ukrep, ki izpolnjuje pogoje uredbe o pomoči de minimis [77].
Furthermore, as the Regulation explicitly states in Article 2, paragraph 2, that “when an overall aid amount provided under an aid measure exceeds this ceiling (of EUR 200000 or EUR 100000 in the road transport sector), that aid amount cannot benefit from this Regulation, even for a fraction not exceeding that ceiling. In such a case, the benefit of this Regulation cannot be claimed for this aid measure either at the time the aid is granted or at any subsequent time” [78].
Poleg tega je v odstavku 2 člena 2 Uredbe izrecno navedeno: „Če skupni znesek pomoči, določen v okviru ukrepa pomoči, to zgornjo mejo (200000 EUR ali 100000 EUR v cestnoprometnem sektorju) preseže, ta uredba ne velja za navedeno pomoč in tudi ne za del pomoči, ki zgornje meje ne presega. V takem primeru ugodnost te uredbe za ta ukrep pomoči ne velja niti v času, ko se pomoč dodeli, niti v kasnejšem obdobju“ [78].
According to settled case-law, it is necessary for the Authority to establish whether the recipient undertaking, AS Sporveisbussene, received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions [79].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso mora Nadzorni organ ugotoviti, ali je podjetje, ki prejema, tj. AS Sporveisbussene, dobilo gospodarsko prednost, ki je sicer v normalnih tržnih pogojih ne bi dobilo [79].
In doing so, the Authority has to apply the market economy investor test [80], which in essence provides that state aid is granted whenever a State makes funds available to an undertaking, which in the normal course of events would not be provided by a private investor applying ordinary commercial criteria and disregarding other considerations of a social, political or philanthropic nature [81].
Pri tem mora opraviti preskus z vidika načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu [80], ki v osnovi določa, da se državna pomoč dodeli vsakič, ko država podjetju zagotovi sredstva, ki jih zasebni vlagatelj ob uporabi običajnih komercialnih meril in ob neupoštevanju drugih vidikov socialnega, političnega ali človekoljubnega značaja v običajnem poteku dogodkov ne bi zagotovil [81].
It should be recalled that the initial amortisation plan was triggered by a decision of Norway’s Financial Supervisory Authority requesting AS Oslo Sporveier to make up for the shortfall in its pension fund.
Treba je opomniti, da je bil prvotni amortizacijski načrt začet zaradi odločitve norveškega Finančnega nadzornega organa, ki je od podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier zahteval, naj odpravi primanjkljaj v svojem pokojninskem skladu.