natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This meant that the owners of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene needed to either remedy the underfunding in their business, or run the risk of their company becoming insolvent.
To je pomenilo, da so lastniki podjetij AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene morali bodisi odpraviti primanjkljaj v svojem podjetju bodisi tvegati, da bo podjetje postalo insolventno.
In assessing whether the capital injection was carried out on conditions that would be acceptable to a private investor, the Authority points out that a private investor in a similar situation – i.e. with the option to either (a) inject fresh capital into the company, or (b) liquidate the company and invest the same amount elsewhere, would choose strategy (a) only if it was globally more profitable than strategy (b).
Nadzorni organ pri oceni, ali je kapital vložen pod pogoji, ki bi bili sprejemljivi za zasebne vlagatelje, poudarja, da bi zasebni vlagatelj v podobnem položaju – tj. ob možnostih, da (a) v podjetje vloži svež kapital ali (b) likvidira podjetje in isti znesek vloži drugam, izbral strategijo (a) samo, če bo ta na splošno donosnejša od strategije (b).
This means that it is not sufficient to choose the “cheapest” solution in order to meet the market economy investor benchmark, but that it is necessary to demonstrate an acceptable rate of future return for the price of this “cheapest solution”.
To pomeni, da ni dovolj samo izbrati „najcenejše“ rešitve, da bi se doseglo merilo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, temveč da je treba pokazati sprejemljivo stopnjo prihodnjega donosa za ceno te „najcenejše rešitve“.
In the decision to open the formal investigation [82], the Authority expressed doubts as to the applicability of the market economy investor test, due to lack of adequate information, such as profitability forecasts that a private investor would have made.
V odločbi o začetku formalne preiskave [82] je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvom glede uporabnosti preskusa z vidika načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu zaradi pomanjkanja ustreznih informacij, kot so napovedi o donosnosti, ki bi jih zasebni vlagatelj opravil.
Responding to that request, the Norwegian authorities have explained that in 2004, when the capital injection was made, the tour bus operations of AS Sporveisbussene had remained profitable since the start-up in 1994, with the one exception of 1998 when they suffered a very small loss of NOK 29000.
Norveški organi so v odgovor na navedeno zahtevo pojasnili, da so v letu 2004, ko je bil vložen kapital, avtobusne potovalne storitve podjetja AS Sporveisbussene ostale dobičkonosne vse od začetkov v letu 1994, razen manjše izgube v višini 29000 NOK leta 1998.
It is further evident from the 2003 strategy document for tour bus operations for the years 2003 to 2006 that the aim was to keep the tour bus operations running and to generate a 2003 turnover of NOK 14,1 million and a profit of NOK 1,5 million (before overhead costs).
Iz strateškega dokumenta iz leta 2003 o avtobusnih potovalnih storitvah za obdobje 2003–2006, je tudi razvidno, da je bil cilj ohraniti delovanje avtobusnih potovalnih storitev ter v letu 2003 ustvariti promet v višini 14,1 milijona NOK in dobiček v višini 1,5 milijona NOK (pred režijskimi stroški).
Liquidating AS Sporveisbussene, or separating out the tour bus operations and liquidating this part, could not be considered a reasonable alternative for Oslo Municipality given the large costs entailed, which would well exceed the cost of covering the underfunding of pensions allocated to the tour bus division.
Likvidacija podjetja AS Sporveisbussene ali ločitev avtobusnih potovalnih prevozov in likvidacija tega dela, ne bi mogla biti ustrezna druga možnost za občino Oslo zaradi velikih stroškov, ki bi pri tem nastali ter ki bi bistveno presegali znesek, potreben za kritje primanjkljaja v zvezi s pokojninskimi računi oddelka avtobusnih potovanj.
Given the relatively small size of the amount injected, the fact that the tour bus operations of AS Sporveisbussene generally were profitable and also were projected profitable at an apparently reasonable rate in the years to come, and with due account taken of the higher costs involved in such liquidation, a hypothetical private investor would also have chosen the capital injection alternative.
Glede na sorazmerno majhno velikost vloženega zneska bi se domnevni zasebni vlagatelj odločil za kapitalski vložek zaradi dejstva, da so bile avtobusne potovalne storitve podjetja AS Sporveisbussene na splošno donosne in da je bila v naslednjih letih predvidena tudi očitno zmerna stopnja donosnosti, pri čemer pa bi ustrezno upošteval višje stroške takšne likvidacije.
The Authority therefore takes the view that the capital injection of approximately NOK 430300 must be regarded as complying with the MEIP.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je treba kapitalski vložek v višini približno 430300 NOK šteti za skladnega z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Authority concludes that it did not confer an advantage on AS Sporveisbussene that it would not have received under normal market conditions.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da podjetju AS Sporveisbussene ta vložek ni dal nikakršne prednosti, ki je ne bi imelo tudi v običajnih tržnih pogojih.
Thus, it does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Zato to ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The annual compensation and the public service capital injection
Letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve
Concerning the complaint that cross-subsidisation has occurred between the public service activities and the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS, the Authority understands the allegation to be that the annual compensation for the provision of the local scheduled transport service and the public service capital injection have subsidised the commercial activities carried out by the Oslo Sporveier Group.
Nadzorni organ v zvezi s pritožbo, da je med dejavnostmi javnih storitev in komercialnimi dejavnostmi podjetij AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS in Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS prišlo do navzkrižnega subvencioniranja, trditve razume tako, da naj bi se z letnim nadomestilom za izvajanje storitev lokalnega rednega prevoza ter kapitalskim vložkom v javne storitve subvencionirale komercialne dejavnosti skupine Oslo Sporveier.
It is evident that cross-subsidisation (for the purposes of state aid control) can only occur if the cross-subsidising undertaking receives state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Očitno je, da do navzkrižnega subvencioniranja (za namene nadzora državne pomoči) lahko pride samo, če podjetje, ki izvaja navzkrižno subvencioniranje, prejme državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Thus, in respect of this part of the complaint, the Authority must first assess if the financing measures, i.e. (i) the annual compensation and (ii) the public service capital injection, entail state aid.
V zvezi s tem delom pritožbe mora zato Nadzorni organ najprej oceniti, ali ukrepa financiranja, tj. (i) letno nadomestilo in (ii) kapitalski vložek v javne storitve, pomenita državno pomoč.
In order to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Da se pomoč obravnava kot državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, jo mora dodeliti država ali mora biti dodeljena iz državnih sredstev.
As a preliminary point, both local and regional authorities are considered to be equivalent to the State [83].
Najprej se tako lokalni in regionalni organi obravnavajo kot enakovredne državi [83].
Hence, Oslo Municipality is equivalent to the State for the purposes of the EEA state aid rules.
Zato je občina Oslo enakovredna državi za namene pravil EGP o državni pomoči.
In the present case it is clear that the State, in the capacity of Oslo Municipality, with the annual compensation, provided funding to AS Oslo Sporveier for carrying out scheduled bus transport until 1997.
V tem primeru je jasno, da je država v imenu občine Oslo z letnim nadomestilom zagotovila podjetju AS Oslo Sporveier sredstva za izvajanje rednega avtobusnega prevoza do leta 1997.
For the period 1997–2008 it is undisputed that AS Oslo Sporveier passed on the annual compensation to AS Sporveisbussene, according to the terms of the Transport Agreement, which appears in essence to have formalised the previous unwritten administrative practice of calculating the annual compensation [84].
Nesporno je, da je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier v obdobju 1997–2008 prenašalo letno nadomestilo na podjetje AS Sporveisbussene v skladu s pogoji prevoznega sporazuma, v katerem naj bi se v formalni obliki ubesedila predhodno nepisana upravna praksa pri izračunavanju letnega nadomestila [84].
As regards the public service capital injection into AS Sporveisbussene to cover the underfunding of the pension fund, it is undisputed that the State, in the capacity of Oslo Municipality, contributed NOK 111760000 as capital for AS Sporveisbussene.
V zvezi s kapitalskim vložkom v javne storitve podjetja AS Sporveisbussene za kritje primanjkljaja v pokojninskem skladu, je nesporno, da je država v imenu občine Oslo prispevala 111760000 NOK v obliki kapitala za podjetje AS Sporveisbussene.
The Authority therefore comes to the conclusion that the annual compensation and the public service capital injection were granted by the State and financed by state resources.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da je letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve dodelila država ter da sta bila financirana iz državnih sredstev.
Only advantages favouring “undertakings” qualify as state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Samo prednosti, ki koristijo „podjetjem“, se štejejo za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
An undertaking is any entity engaged in economic activity regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed [85].
Podjetje je vsak subjekt, ki izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na pravni položaj in način financiranja [85].
Also, any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity [86].
Prav tako je gospodarska dejavnost vsaka dejavnost, ki vsebuje ponudbo blaga in storitev na določenem trgu [86].
In the relevant period (1994–2008) AS Oslo Sporveier and later AS Sporveisbussene provided scheduled bus transport services as well as tour bus services in the Norwegian market.
V zadevnem obdobju (1994–2008) sta podjetji AS Oslo Sporveier in kasneje AS Sporveisbussene izvajali storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza ter avtobusne potovalne storitve na norveškem trgu.
On this basis the Authority concludes that both AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, in the relevant period, were undertakings.
Na tej podlagi Nadzorni organ sklepa, da sta tako AS Oslo Sporveier kot AS Sporveisbussene v zadevnem obdobju bili podjetji.
In order to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an economic advantage on an undertaking, for example by relieving it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.
Da bi ukrep pomenil državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP mora podjetju dati gospodarsko prednost, na primer tako, da je oproščeno dajatev, ki običajno bremenijo njegov proračun.
As mentioned above, the annual compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene for carrying out bus transport services in Oslo constitutes, prima facie, compensation for costs incurred in providing a public service.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, letno nadomestilo podjetjema AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene za izvajanje storitev avtobusnega prevoza v Oslu na prvi pogled pomeni nadomestilo za stroške, nastale pri izvajanju javnih storitev.
Public service compensation does not entail an economic advantage if the criteria established in the Altmark case-law of the Court of Justice are met [87].
Nadomestilo za javne storitve ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti, če so izpolnjena merila iz sodne prakse Sodišča v sodbi v zadevi Altmark [87].
It is also worth noting that whilst certain changes to the capital position of AS Sporveisbussene were recorded in the accounts, the full amount was paid directly from AS Oslo Sporveier to the pension fund and was not transferred as cash to AS Sporveisbussene.
Opozoriti je tudi treba, da je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier, medtem ko so bile v računih evidentirane nekatere spremembe v kapitalskem položaju podjetja AS Sporveisbussene, vplačalo celotni znesek v pokojninski sklad in da ta ni bil prenesen v obliki gotovine v podjetje AS Sporveisbussene.
The public service capital injection does not relate to new costs but to costs accrued in the past which had technically not been reflected in the general accounts of the company.
Kapitalski vložek v javne storitve se ne nanaša na nove stroške, temveč na stroške, ki so nastali v preteklosti in ki tehnično niso bili razvidni iz splošnega računovodstva podjetja.
However, these liabilities were already present at the time of the capital injection, which was paid to make up for the shortfall in the pension funds.
Vendar so bile te odgovornosti prisotne že v času kapitalskega vložka za kritje pomanjkljivosti v pokojninskih skladih.
Therefore, the public service capital injection can be considered to form part of the cost that Oslo Municipality had to bear in exchange for AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) providing the public service.
Zato je mogoče reči, da je kapitalski vložek v javne storitve del stroškov, ki jih je občina Oslo morala plačati v zameno za javne storitve, ki sta jih zagotavljali podjetji AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene (prek podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier).
Instead of injecting this capital, Oslo Municipality could have paid out a higher annual public service compensation.
Občina Oslo bi namesto vlaganja tega kapitala lahko plačala višje letno nadomestilo za javne storitve.
Thus the public service capital injection constituted an integral part of the public service compensation granted to AS Sporveisbussene, as it had been since the mid-1990s until the capital injection was made (and as it would have been if carried out in accordance with the amortisation plan until 2020).
Tako je kapitalski vložek v javne storitve pomenil sestavni del nadomestila za javne storitve, ki ga je prejelo podjetje AS Sporveisbussene, kakršno je že bilo od sredine 90. let prejšnjega stoletja do plačila kapitalskega vložka (in kakršno bi bilo, če bi bilo plačano v skladu z amortizacijskim načrtom do leta 2020).
In the Altmark judgment the Court of Justice held that compensation for a public service does not constitute state aid when four cumulative criteria are met.
V sodbi v zadevi Altmark je Evropsko sodišče presodilo, da nadomestilo za javne storitve ne pomeni državne pomoči, če so izpolnjena štiri kumulativna merila.
First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and such obligations must be clearly defined.
Prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe, te obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene.
Fourth, and finally, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, would have incurred [88].(155) The Authority will first examine the fourth criterion, namely whether the compensation was based on a tender or on the basis of the costs of an efficient and well-run company.
Četrtič, če podjetje, ki se mu naloži izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, ki omogoča, da se izbere tisti ponudnik, ki lahko te storitve opravlja z najnižjimi stroški, se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno [88]. (155) Organ bo najprej proučil četrto merilo, torej ali je nadomestilo temeljilo na javnem naročilu ali na stroških učinkovitega in dobro vodenega podjetja.
Since before 1994, Oslo Municipality paid an annual compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier for scheduled bus transport services, which from 1997 was passed on to AS Sporveisbussene.
V letih pred letom 1994 je občina Oslo plačevala letno nadomestilo podjetju AS Oslo Sporveier za storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza, kar je bilo leta 1997 preneseno na podjetje AS Sporveisbussene.
However, with regard to the routes operated under the area concession, neither AS Oslo Sporveier nor AS Sporveisbussene were selected in a public procurement procedure.
Toda v zvezi s progami, ki so delovale pod območno koncesijo, v postopku oddaje javnega naročila ni bilo izbrano ne podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier ne podjetje AS Sporveisbussene.
Hence, neither the compensation from Oslo Municipality to AS Oslo Sporveier nor the compensation subsequently passed on from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene were based on prices resulting from public tenders.
Torej na cenah, ki so izhajale iz postopkov oddaje javnih naročil, ni temeljilo niti nadomestilo občine Oslo za podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier niti nadomestilo, ki ga je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier naknadno preneslo na podjetje AS Sporveisbussene.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have not provided the Authority with sufficiently detailed information enabling a verification of whether the costs incurred by AS Oslo Sporveier or AS Sporveisbussene corresponded to the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, nor have they, as stated above, argued that this criterion is met.
Norveški organi poleg tega Nadzornemu organu niso zagotovili dovolj podrobnih informacij, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče preveriti, ali se stroški podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier ali podjetja AS Sporveisbussene ujemajo s stroški povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja, ki je ustrezno opremljeno, niti niso, kot je navedeno zgoraj, zatrdili, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
The Asplan Viak Report, provided by the Norwegian authorities, merely covers the compensation granted for two years of operations (1999 and 2002) of the relevant 15 years in which compensation was granted to the companies (1994–2008).
V poročilo podjetja Asplan Viak, ki so ga predložili norveški organi, je zajeto zgolj nadomestilo, dodeljeno za dve leti delovanja (1999 in 2002) v zadevnih 15 letih, v katerih se je nadomestilo dodeljevalo podjetjem (1994–2008).
The Authority considers that the second alternative of the fourth Altmark criterion requires that it shall be substantiated that the compensation in question was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, would have incurred in the entire period.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je treba v skladu z drugo možnostjo pri četrtem merilu iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark utemeljiti, da je bilo zadevno nadomestilo določeno na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi lahko v celotnem obdobju nastali v povprečnem, dobro vodenem podjetju, ki je ustrezno opremljeno.
Even if the Asplan Viak Report could be taken to demonstrate that AS Sporveisbussene for the two years satisfied this requirement, it still leaves thirteen years unaccounted for.
Tudi če bi bilo s poročilom podjetja Asplan Viak mogoče dokazati, da je podjetje AS Sporveisbussene v dveh letih izpolnjevalo to zahtevo, ostaja trinajst let še vedno neevidentiranih.
Therefore, the opinion of the Authority is that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da četrto merilo iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark ni izpolnjeno.
On the basis of the above, the Authority considers that the scheduled bus transport services carried out under the area concession in Oslo have, both in the case of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, not been discharged in accordance with the fourth criterion of the Altmark judgment.
Na podlagi navedenega Nadzorni organ meni, da se storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza, ki se izvajajo na podlagi območne koncesije v Oslu, v primeru podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier ter podjetja AS Sporveisbussene niso izvajale v skladu s četrtim merilom iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
Consequently, as the Altmark criteria must be satisfied cumulatively for public service compensation not to constitute state aid [89], the Authority’s conclusion is that the annual compensation, including the public service capital injection, confers an economic advantage on AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.
Ker je torej treba merila iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark izpolnjevati kumulativno, da nadomestilo za javne storitve ne bi pomenilo državne pomoči [89], Nadzorni organ sklepa, da letno nadomestilo, vključno s kapitalskim vložkom v javne storitve, podjetjema AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene daje gospodarsko prednost.
In order to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must be selective by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Da bi ukrep pomoči pomenil državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora biti selektiven in mora dajati prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga.
The Court of Justice has held that in order to determine whether a measure is selective, the question is whether the undertaking(s) in question are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable to other undertakings in the light of the objective pursued by the measure [90].
Sodišče je presodilo, da se je treba, da bi ugotovili, ali je ukrep selektiven, vprašati, ali je zadevno podjetje v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju z drugimi podjetji glede na cilj ukrepa [90].
In the present case, the annual compensation and the public service capital injection favoured AS Oslo Sporveier and/or AS Sporveisbussene to the exclusion of other bus transport operators.
V tem primeru sta zaradi letnega nadomestila in kapitalskega vložka v javne storitve imela prednost podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier in/ali podjetje AS Sporveisbussene, drugi izvajalci avtobusnih prevozov pa so bili izključeni.
Such other bus operators operate scheduled bus transport services in Norway or elsewhere in the EEA and were therefore in a similar legal and factual situation compared to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.
Takšni drugi izvajalci avtobusnih prevozov izvajajo storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza na Norveškem ali drugod v EGP ter so bili torej v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju s podjetjema AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene.
For these reasons, the Authority concludes that these two measures are selective.
Zato Nadzorni organ sklepa, da sta oba ukrepa selektivna.
In order to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Contracting Parties.
Da bi ukrep pomoči pomenil državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora izkrivljati ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco ter škoditi trgovini med pogodbenicama.
According to EFTA Court case-law, this requires the Authority to examine whether such aid is liable to affect trade and to distort competition [91].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Efte mora Nadzorni organ zato proučiti, ali takšna pomoč lahko škodi trgovini in izkrivlja konkurenco [91].
Since before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway several undertakings have provided scheduled bus services in Oslo.
Že pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP na Norveškem je redne avtobusne storitve v Oslu izvajalo več podjetij.
The Authority thus concludes that the annual compensation and the public service capital injection were liable to distort competition since then [92].
Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, da sta letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve vse od takrat lahko prispevala k izkrivljanju konkurence [92].