natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They rely, in this respect, on Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement, a clause whereby both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement may demand a re-negotiation in the event of substantial changes in the premises upon which the Hurtigruten Agreement was based.
V zvezi s tem se sklicujejo na oddelek 10 Sporazuma Hurtigruten, na klavzulo, po kateri lahko obe stranki Sporazuma Hurtigruten zahtevata postopek ponovnih pogajanj v primeru bistveno spremenjenih predpostavk, na katerih temelji Sporazum Hurtigruten.
The Norwegian authorities state that they regard the changes in the differentiated social security system to fulfil this criterion.
Norveški organi navajajo, da po njihovem mnenju spremembe v sistemu diferenciranih prispevkov za socialno varnost izpolnjujejo to merilo.
They could not have been foreseen by the Hurtigruten companies.
Podjetji Hurtigruten teh sprememb nista mogli predvideti.
As a result of the negotiations with the companies, the compensation for these costs was set at NOK 7,352 million for 2004, i.e. the actual increase in costs as a result of the changes to the social security system.
Po pogajanjih s podjetjema je bil znesek nadomestila za te stroške za leto 2004 določen v višini 7,352 milijona NOK, tj. dejanskega povišanja stroškov zaradi sprememb sistema socialne varnosti.
The purpose of compensating for the amendments to the social security scheme was, according to the Norwegian authorities, to ensure the status quo with regard to the agreed level of transport along the Norwegian coastline, by enabling the Hurtigruten companies to continue to carry out the public service obligation entrusted to them in the Agreement.
Namen plačila nadomestila za spremembe sistema socialne varnosti je bil po navedbah norveških organov zagotoviti poslovanje brez sprememb dogovorjenega obsega prevoza ob norveški obali, tako da se podjetjema Hurtigruten omogoči nadaljnje izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne storitve, ki jima je bila zaupana v Sporazumu.
The Norwegian authorities take the position that Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement constitutes a legal basis for the re-negotiation of the Agreement and that the clause was recognised by the Authority in its 2001 Decision.
Norveški organi menijo, da je oddelek 10 Sporazuma Hurtigruten pravna podlaga za ponovna pogajanja o Sporazumu in da je Nadzorni organ v Odločbi iz leta 2001 klavzulo priznal.
On this basis, the compensation for increased social security contributions would, according to the Norwegian authorities, not constitute new aid provided that the compensation was compatible with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Na tej podlagi nadomestilo za povišane prispevke za socialno varnost po mnenju norveških organov ne bi pomenilo nove pomoči, če je bilo nadomestilo združljivo z določbami o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
Concerning the compatibility of the aid, the Norwegian authorities claim that the compensation for the changes in the social security scheme was granted to the Hurtigruten companies in order to maintain the transport standard fixed by the Norwegian Parliament.
V zvezi z združljivostjo pomoči norveški organi trdijo, da je bilo nadomestilo za spremembe sistema socialne varnosti podjetjema Hurtigruten odobreno zato, da se ohrani raven prevoza, ki jo je določil norveški parlament.
Without the compensation, the standard of the public service obligations entrusted to the companies would have declined; either by the application of higher fares or by reduced frequency of the services.
Brez nadomestila bi se raven obveznosti javnih storitev, zaupane podjetjema, znižala, in sicer zaradi uporabe višjih voznin ali zmanjšane pogostosti storitev.
Against this background, the Norwegian authorities consider the compensation to be necessary.
Na podlagi tega norveški organi menijo, da je nadomestilo potrebno.
The Norwegian authorities refer to Section 1 of the Hurtigruten Agreement whereby a substantial part of the profits generated by the Hurtigruten companies in the summer season should be used to finance the unprofitable activity in the winter season.
Norveški organi se sklicujejo na oddelek 1 Sporazuma Hurtigruten, po katerem je treba precejšen del dobička, ki ga ustvarita podjetji Hurtigruten v poletni sezoni, uporabiti za financiranje nedonosne dejavnosti v zimski sezoni.
The public service compensation should then be calculated on the basis of the profitability throughout the year.
Nadomestilo za javne storitve je treba torej izračunati na podlagi donosnosti čez vse leto.
The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the Authority, by accepting the principle laid down in Section 1 of the Hurtigruten Agreement, has accepted the fact that no clear separation of the commercial and non-commercial services of the Hurtigruten companies is made.
Norveški organi menijo, da je Nadzorni organ s sprejetjem načela iz oddelka 1 Sporazuma Hurtigruten sprejel dejstvo, da ni jasnega ločevanja med gospodarskimi in negospodarskimi storitvami podjetij Hurtigruten.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the system of transferring profits from the profitable to the non-profitable season gave the Hurtigruten Companies a disadvantage compared to other undertakings providing maritime services, as it increased the risk of ‘cream-skimming’ by other companies in the profitable season.
Po navedbah norveških organov je sistem prenosa dobičkov iz donosne v nedonosno sezono postavil podjetji Hurtigruten v slabši položaj v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki opravljajo pomorske storitve, saj je povečal tveganje, da druge družbe selektivno izkoristijo dobičkonosno sezono.
This risk was increased further as a result of the changes to the social security scheme, and the Norwegian authorities consider it legitimate to counteract this by increasing the compensation.
To tveganje so dodatno povečale spremembe sistema socialne varnosti, in norveški organi menijo, da je preprečitev tega s povišanjem nadomestila zakonita.
The Norwegian authorities furthermore take the view that separation between profitable and non-profitable services is not decisive when the cross-subsidisation is so clearly in support of the non-profitable services, as in this case.
Norveški organi nadalje menijo, da ločevanje med donosnimi in nedonosnimi storitvami ni odločilnega pomena, saj navzkrižno subvencioniranje nedvomno podpira nedonosne storitve, kot v tem primeru.
In this regard, the Norwegian authorities refer to the annual report of the Hurtigruten companies for 2004 and the monthly results, where the winter months, after the public service compensation had been included, had a deficit of approximately NOK 211 million.
V zvezi s tem se norveški organi sklicujejo na letno poročilo podjetij Hurtigruten za leto 2004 in mesečne rezultate, po katerih je v zimskih mesecih, potem ko je bilo nadomestilo za javne storitve vključeno, primanjkljaj znašal približno 211 milijonov NOK.
The total deficit was of approximately NOK 45 million.
Skupni primanjkljaj je znašal približno 45 milijonov NOK.
Moreover, the Norwegian authorities stress that the compensation granted for 2004 does not alter the fact that the commercial services covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement support the activities linked to the public service obligation of the Hurtigruten companies.
Poleg tega norveški organi poudarjajo, da nadomestilo, odobreno za leto 2004, ne spreminja dejstva, da gospodarske storitve, zajete v Sporazumu Hurtigruten, podpirajo dejavnosti, povezane z obveznostjo opravljanja javnih storitev, ki jo imata podjetji Hurtigruten.
As an additional argument, the Norwegian authorities claim that NOK 4,29 million of the compensation granted relates to increased social security contributions for the winter season whereas the remaining NOK 3,06 million constitutes additional public service compensation for the same season as the public service obligation turned out to entail higher costs for the Hurtigruten companies than expected by both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement.
Kot dodatno utemeljitev norveški organi navajajo, da je odobreno nadomestilo v višini 4,29 milijona NOK povezano s povišanimi prispevki za socialno varnost za zimsko sezono, preostalih 3,06 milijona NOK pa pomeni dodatno nadomestilo za javne storitve za isto obdobje, saj se je izkazalo, da obveznosti opravljanja javnih storitev povzročajo podjetjema Hurtigruten višje stroške, kot sta jih pričakovali stranki Sporazuma Hurtigruten.
The Ministry of Transport and Communications maintains this view, despite the fact that the State Budget for 2004 referred to the compensation as ‘possible compensation as a consequence of amendments to the system concerning differentiated social security contributions’ [14].
Ministrstvo za promet in zveze to stališče podpira kljub dejstvu, da je bilo nadomestilo v državnem proračunu za leto 2004 označeno kot „mogoče nadomestilo zaradi sprememb sistema diferenciranih prispevkov za socialno varnost“ [14].
According to the Norwegian authorities, the name given to the contributions in the State Budget should not be decisive when assessing the legality of the compensation.
Po navedbah norveških organov poimenovanje prispevkov v državnem proračunu ne sme biti odločilno pri ocenjevanju zakonitosti nadomestila.
The presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP
The compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies for the increase in social security contributions is financed directly through a budgetary allocation and is thus granted by the State.
Nadomestilo, odobreno podjetjema Hurtigruten zaradi povišanja prispevkov za socialno varnost, se financira neposredno s proračunsko dodelitvijo sredstev in ga odobri država.
Furthermore, the compensation relieves the companies of social security charges which they would normally have to bear in the ordinary course of business, and thus strengthens the position of these undertakings compared with other undertakings engaged in intra-EEA trade.
Poleg tega nadomestilo razbremenjuje podjetji stroškov socialnega zavarovanja, ki bi jih navadno morali nositi pri običajnem poslovanju, in tako krepi položaj podjetij v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki trgujejo znotraj EGP.
Moreover, the Hurtigruten companies are active on the markets for passenger and cargo transport and on the tourism market, in particular by offering cruises/round trips along the Norwegian coast.
Nadalje, podjetji Hurtigruten delujeta na trgih za potniški in tovorni promet ter na turističnem trgu, zlasti s ponudbo križarjenj/krožnih potovanj ob norveški obali.
The Hurtigruten service, to a large extent, attracts foreign tourists, and the Hurtigruten companies thus compete with other undertakings offering similar services in attracting these customers.
Storitve Hurtigruten privabljajo predvsem tuje turiste, in podjetji Hurtigruten tako konkurirata drugim podjetjem, ki za privabljanje teh strank ponujajo podobne storitve.
The compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies may therefore have an effect on competition on these markets and is liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Nadomestilo, odobreno podjetjema Hurtigruten, lahko zato vpliva na konkurenco na teh trgih in prizadene trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority thus considers the payment of NOK 7,352 million (approximately EUR 900000) to the Hurtigruten companies to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da plačilo podjetjema Hurtigruten v višini 7,352 milijona NOK (približno 900000 EUR) pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
New or existing aid
Nova ali veljavna pomoč
According to Article 1(c) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘new aid’ shall mean ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
Po členu 1(c) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču „nova pomoč“ pomeni „vsako pomoč, to je sheme pomoči ali individualno pomoč, ki ni veljavna pomoč, vključno s spremembami veljavne pomoči“.
In its 2001 Decision, the Authority considered that the compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies under the Hurtigruten Agreement could be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as the services covered by it were considered to be services of general economic interest and the conditions laid down in Article 59(2) EEA had been respected.
Nadzorni organ je v Odločbi iz leta 2001 menil, da se lahko nadomestilo, odobreno podjetjema Hurtigruten na podlagi Sporazuma Hurtigruten, šteje kot združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, ker so storitve, ki jih je Sporazum zajemal, veljale za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena in ker so bili upoštevani pogoji iz člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
Aid which has been approved by the Authority is existing aid.
Pomoč, ki jo je odobril Nadzorni organ, je veljavna pomoč.
However, in 2004, the Norwegian authorities granted an additional NOK 7,352 million to the Hurtigruten companies.
Norveški organi pa so leta 2004 podjetjema Hurtigruten odobrili dodatnih 7,352 milijona NOK.
The aid was granted in order to compensate the companies for increased social security contributions in 2004, and was not part of the aid to the Hurtigruten companies authorised by the Authority’s 2001 Decision.
Pomoč je bila odobrena kot nadomestilo podjetjema zaradi povišanih prispevkov za socialno varnost leta 2004 in ni bila del pomoči za podjetji Hurtigruten, ki jo je Nadzorni organ odobril z Odločbo iz leta 2001.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the compensation was in line with the Authority’s 2001 Decision, since Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement contained a clause whereby both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement may initiate a re-negotiation procedure in the event of substantial changes in the premises upon which the Hurtigruten Agreement was based.
Norveški organi trdijo, da je bilo nadomestilo skladno z Odločbo Nadzornega organa iz leta 2001, saj je oddelek 10 Sporazuma Hurtigruten vseboval klavzulo, po kateri lahko obe stranki Sporazuma Hurtigruten začneta postopek ponovnih pogajanj v primeru bistveno spremenjenih predpostavk, na katerih temelji Sporazum Hurtigruten.
The Norwegian authorities have stated that they regard the changes in the differentiated social security system to constitute a substantial change.
Norveški organi so navedli, da so po njihovem mnenju spremembe sistema diferenciranih prispevkov za socialno varnost bistvena sprememba.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the compensation should thus be regarded as existing aid.
Po mnenju norveških organov je treba zato nadomestilo šteti za veljavno pomoč.
The Authority would like to point out that annual compensation of NOK 170 million, expressed in 1999-prices, under the Hurtigruten Agreement had been approved by the Authority.
Nadzorni organ želi poudariti, da je odobril letno nadomestilo v višini 170 milijonov NOK, izraženo v cenah iz leta 1999, po Sporazumu Hurtigruten.
In contrast, the Authority’s decision did not deal with Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement as such, and nothing in the Authority’s decision suggested that any future amendments of the Hurtigruten Agreement based on this clause would, as argued by the Norwegian authorities, automatically be considered to be in compliance with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Nasprotno pa Odločba Nadzornega organa ni obravnavala oddelka 10 Sporazuma Hurtigruten kot takega, in nič v Odločbi ni kazalo na to, da bi kakršne koli prihodnje spremembe Sporazuma Hurtigruten na podlagi te klavzule, kot trdijo norveški organi, samodejno veljale za združljive z določbami o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
Section 10 of the Agreement merely allows for the possibility of amending the contract due to unforeseen substantial changes of circumstances.
Oddelek 10 Sporazuma zgolj dopušča možnost spremembe pogodbe zaradi nepredvidenih bistvenih sprememb okoliščin.
It does not prescribe an automatic increase in the compensation to the Hurtigruten companies in the event of raised costs, but merely opens up the possibility for both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement to request a re-negotiation procedure without prescribing the result of such re-negotiations.
Ne določa samodejnega povišanja nadomestila za podjetji Hurtigruten v primeru povišanih stroškov, ampak strankama Sporazuma Hurtigruten samo daje možnost, da zahtevata ponovna pogajanja, ne določa pa rezultata ponovnih pogajanj.
Furthermore, the provision does not explicitly mention augmentation of costs as a result of a tax increase as a reason for renegotiation, let alone as a fact that would require an automatic adjustment of the agreement by the exact amount flowing from the tax increase.
Poleg tega določba izrecno ne navaja, da je povišanje stroškov zaradi povišanja prispevkov razlog za ponovna pogajanja, še manj pa dejstvo, ki bi zahtevalo samodejno prilagoditev sporazuma z natančnim zneskom, ki izhaja iz povišanja prispevkov.
A change in the tax situation of one contracting party is normally not a factor that the other party is obliged to bear.
Sprememba davčnega položaja ene pogodbenice navadno ni dejavnik, ki ga mora druga pogodbenica upoštevati.
Hence, even if the original Hurtigruten Agreement in its entirety was notified to the Authority in 2000 and approved in 2001, the Authority could not reasonably have been expected to foresee all possible effects of the provision, and the Authority’s silence about the provision in its 2001 Decision cannot be held to imply that all uses of the provision were hereinafter automatically acceptable from a State aid point of view.
Čeprav je bil prvotni Sporazum Hurtigruten v celoti priglašen Nadzornemu organu leta 2000 in ga je slednji leta 2001 odobril, ni bilo mogoče razumno pričakovati, da bo Nadzorni organ predvidel vse mogoče učinke določbe, molka Nadzornega organa o določbi v njegovi Odločbi iz leta 2001 pa ni mogoče razumeti, kot da so vse uporabe določbe potem samodejno sprejemljive z vidika državne pomoči.
It is the view of the Authority that the existence of the contractual provision needs to be distinguished from the separate question of whether the chosen re-adaptation complies with the EEA Agreement, and in particular with the State aid provisions.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je treba vprašanje obstoja pogodbene določbe razlikovati od posebnega vprašanja, ali je izbrana ponovna prilagoditev v skladu s Sporazumom EGP in zlasti z določbami o državni pomoči.
Each question needs to be assessed on its own merits for each case of re-adaptation and only the first question relates to whether the aid is new or existing.
Vsako vprašanje je treba oceniti na podlagi značilnosti vsakega primera ponovne prilagoditve posebej, in samo prvo vprašanje se nanaša na to, ali je pomoč nova ali veljavna.
The Authority thus considers the aid to be new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je pomoč nova pomoč v smislu člena 1(c) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
Direct aid aimed at covering operating losses is, in general, not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Neposredna pomoč, namenjena kritju izgub iz poslovanja, na splošno ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Since the increased compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies covers costs concerning the day-to-day operation of the Hurtigruten service, this payment is to be regarded as operating aid.
Ker povišano nadomestilo, odobreno podjetjema Hurtigruten, pokriva stroške, povezane z dnevnim opravljanjem storitev Hurtigruten, je treba to plačilo šteti kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
Such operating aid may be approved, exceptionally, if the conditions set out in derogation provisions of the EEA Agreement are fulfilled.
Taka pomoč za tekoče poslovanje se lahko odobri izjemoma, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz določb o odstopanju iz Sporazuma EGP.
In the 2001 Decision, the Authority took the view that the aid to the Hurtigruten companies did not qualify for an exemption from the general prohibition of State aid in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement on the basis of Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
V Odločbi iz leta 2001 je Nadzorni organ menil, da pomoč za podjetji Hurtigruten ni izpolnjevala pogojev za izvzetje iz splošne prepovedi državne pomoči iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP na podlagi člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
However, the Authority concluded that the aid was compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis that the conditions laid down in Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement had been respected.
Vseeno pa je Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da je bila pomoč združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP na podlagi tega, da so bili upoštevani pogoji iz člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
In the decision to open the formal investigation procedure in the present case, the Authority expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the increased aid granted to the Hurtigruten companies with Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.
V odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave v obravnavanem primeru je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvome o združljivosti povišane pomoči, odobrene podjetjema Hurtigruten, s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
During the course of the investigation, the Authority has reached the conclusion that the compatibility of the aid granted to the Hurtigruten companies as compensation for the additional costs resulting from the changes to the social security system must first be assessed on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.
Med preiskavo je Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da je treba združljivost pomoči, odobrene podjetjema Hurtigruten kot nadomestilo za dodatne stroške zaradi sprememb sistema socialne varnosti, najprej oceniti na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that aid may be considered as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement if its purpose is to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions between the Contracting Parties to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP je določeno, da se lahko pomoč šteje za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, če je njen namen olajšati razvoj nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti, ko taka pomoč nima negativnega vpliva na trgovinske pogoje med pogodbenicami v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The Authority has issued guidelines for the application of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement with regard to State aid to maritime transport (hereinafter ‘the Maritime Transport Guidelines’).
Nadzorni organ je izdal smernice za uporabo člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP glede državne pomoči za pomorski promet (v nadaljevanju „Smernice za pomorski promet“).
Section 3.2 of the Maritime Transport Guidelines deals with State aid for labour related costs.
Oddelek 3.2 Smernic za pomorski promet obravnava državno pomoč za stroške dela.
According to paragraph 1 of Section 3.2, support measures for the maritime sector should aim primarily at reducing fiscal and other costs and burdens borne by EEA shipowners and EEA seafarers towards levels in line with world norms.
Po odstavku 1 oddelka 3.2 morajo biti podporni ukrepi za pomorski sektor namenjeni predvsem znižanju davčnih in drugih stroškov ter bremen, ki jih nosijo lastniki ladij EGP in pomorščaki EGP, na ravni, skladne s svetovnimi normativi.
According to paragraph 2 of that Section, the following action on employment costs should be allowed for EEA shipping:
Po odstavku 2 navedenega oddelka je treba ladijskemu prometu EGP omogočiti naslednje ukrepe v zvezi s stroški zaposlovanja:
reduced rates of contributions for the social protection of EEA seafarers employed on board ships registered in an EEA State,
znižane stopnje prispevkov za socialno zaščito pomorščakov EGP, ki so zaposleni na krovu ladij, registriranih v državi EGP,
reduced rates of income tax for EEA seafarers on board ships registered in an EEA State.
znižane stopnje davka od dohodka pomorščakov EGP, ki so zaposleni na krovu ladij, registriranih v državi EGP.
For the purposes of the above, ‘EEA seafarers’ is defined as:
Za namene zgoraj navedenega so „pomorščaki EGP“ opredeljeni kot: