natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This arrangement was also in force in the winter season 2009 to 2010 and, according to information available to the Authority, for the winter season 2010 to 2011, but calculations have not been provided for this period.According to the Norwegian authorities, the Supplementary Agreement results in a total 26 % increase in the contributions for the year 2008, on top of the price adjustment under Article 6.2 of the Hurtigruten Agreement [14].4.
Ta dogovor je veljal tudi v zimski sezoni 2009 in 2010 ter po informacijah, ki so Nadzornemu organu na voljo, tudi za zimsko sezono 2010 in 2011, vendar za to obdobje izračuni niso bili predloženi.Po izjavah norveških organov je posledica Dopolnilnega sporazuma skupno 26-odstotno povišanje nadomestila za leto 2008 poleg cenovne prilagoditve v skladu s členom 6.2 Sporazuma Hurtigruten [14].4.
The Authority opened the formal investigation procedure on the basis that the additional payments to Hurtigruten could involve state aid.
Nadzorni organ je začel formalni postopek preiskave, ker naj bi dodatna plačila podjetju Hurtigruten domnevno vključevala državno pomoč.
In particular, the Authority had doubts as to whether the increased compensation provided for by the renegotiation and the Supplementary Agreement could be considered as covered by the contract signed following the tender procedure carried out in 2004.
Nadzorni organ zlasti dvomi o tem, ali je povečano nadomestilo na podlagi ponovnih pogajanj in Dopolnilnega sporazuma zajeto v pogodbi, ki je bila podpisana na podlagi razpisnega postopka iz leta 2004.
The Authority harboured further doubts as to whether the measures adopted by the Norwegian authorities complied with the requirements of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement in the sense that they only correspond to the compensation for the provision of the public service.
Nadzorni organ ima tudi pomisleke, ali so ukrepi, ki so jih sprejeli norveški organi, skladni z zahtevami iz člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP, torej da vključujejo samo nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe.
Moreover, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the interventions could be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, especially on the basis of Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement in conjunction with the Authority’s Guidelines on Rescuing and Restructuring Firms in Difficulty (‘the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines’) [15].5.
Nato je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvome, ali se ukrepi lahko štejejo za združljive z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, zlasti na podlagi člena 61(3) Sporazuma EGP v povezavi s Smernicami Nadzornega organa za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje) [15].5.
The additional payments do not constitute state aid or are a necessary compensation for the provision of a public service under Article 59(2) EEA
Dodatna plačila niso državna pomoč oziroma so nujno nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe v skladu s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP
The Norwegian authorities have argued that the three measures do not constitute state aid.
Norveški organi trdijo, da navedeni trije ukrepi niso državna pomoč.
They have submitted that by confining the additional payments to what was strictly necessary to ensure a continuation of the public service, the additional payments did not represent an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and the Altmark case law.
In sicer pojasnjujejo, da s tem, ko so bila dodatna plačila omejena na nujno potrebno za zagotovitev neprekinjenega opravljanja javne službe, ta ne zagotavljajo ekonomske prednosti v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in sodne prakse v zadevi Altmark.
The Norwegian authorities maintain that the measures taken in October 2008 were emergency measures adopted to remedy the acute difficult economic situation of Hurtigruten in 2008, to ensure continuous service in the interim period until a new tendering procedure could be finalised, and in doing so, they acted like a rational market operator.
Norveški organi navajajo, da so bili ukrepi, sprejeti v oktobru 2008, izredni ukrepi za sanacijo posebno težkega ekonomskega položaja podjetja Hurtigruten v letu 2008 in za zagotovitev neprekinjenega opravljanja storitev v vmesnem obdobju, dokler ne bi bilo možno izvesti novega razpisnega postopka, pri tem pa so delovali kot razumen tržni udeleženec.
To support this argument, the Norwegian authorities refer to the Linde judgment [16] of the Court of First Instance.Further, the Norwegian authorities argue that the compensation for NOx tax and NOx tax Fund contributions fail to satisfy the requirement of selectivity as the same reimbursement applies to all maritime passenger transport services carrying out public service obligations.
Ta argument so norveški organi podkrepili s sklicevanjem na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi Linde [16].Norveški organi poleg tega zatrjujejo, da povračilo davka na NOx in prispevkov v sklad za NOx ne izpolnjuje zahteve po selektivnosti, saj se enako povračilo uporablja za vse službe v pomorskem potniškem prometu, ki opravljajo obveznosti javne službe.
Alternatively, in case the Authority were to find that the three measures do constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the Norwegian authorities put forward that the measures constitute necessary compensation for a public service obligation in accordance with Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.
Če bi Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da so navedeni trije ukrepi resnično državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, norveški organi poudarjajo, da so ukrepi nujno nadomestilo za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe v skladu s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
In order to substantiate that Hurtigruten has not been excessively compensated for the provision of a public service under Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, the Norwegian authorities have provided the Authority with one report commissioned from PWC and two from BDO Noraudit.
Kot dokaz, da podjetje Hurtigruten ni prejelo prekomernega nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe v skladu s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP, so norveški organi Nadzornemu organu predložili eno poročilo PWC in dve poročili BDO Noraudit.
The reports note that Hurtigruten has not implemented a proper separation of accounts for the public service activities and other activities outside the public service remit [17].
Iz poročil izhaja, da podjetje Hurtigruten ni pravilno vodilo ločenih računov za dejavnosti javne službe in druge dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu.
PWC Report of 14 October 2008
Poročilo PWC z dne 14. oktobra 2008
The PWC Report of 14 October 2008 with its underlying material (‘the PWC Report’) [18] provides three alternative methods for demonstrating the extent to which Hurtigruten has been undercompensated for the provision of the public service.The first two methods used are production cost models where an attempt is made at separating the costs and revenues connected with both the public service activities and the commercial activities.
Poročilo PWC z dne 14. oktobra 2008, vključno z osnovnim gradivom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: poročilo PWC) [18], opredeljuje tri različne metode za dokazovanje, da je podjetje Hurtigruten prejelo nezadostno nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe.Prvi dve uporabljeni metodi sta modela proizvodnih stroškov, s katerima se poskušajo ločiti stroški in prihodki, povezani z dejavnostmi javne službe, od tistih, ki se nanašajo na komercialne dejavnosti.
The first method involves using the costs and revenues of one ship ‘MS Narvik’ for the year 2006 to demonstrate how Hurtigruten has been undercompensated for the provision of the public service.
Po prvi metodi se stroški in prihodki ene ladje „MS Narvik“ za leto 2006 uporabijo, da se ponazori nezadosten obseg nadomestila podjetju Hurtigruten za opravljanje javne službe.
The second method is similar to the first, but instead of restricting the assessment to MS Narvik, the costs and revenues of the whole Hurtigruten fleet for 2006 is used as a basis for the calculations.
Druga metoda je podobna prvi s to razliko, da se ocena ne omeji na MS Narvik, temveč se kot podlaga za izračune uporabijo stroški in prihodki celotne flote Hurtigruten za leto 2006.
The third method involves not distinguishing between the public service and the commercial activities.
Tretja metoda ne razlikuje med javno službo in komercialnimi dejavnostmi.
Its calculations are based on the 2006 accounts for the whole Hurtigruten fleet.
Njeni izračuni temeljijo na računovodskih evidencah 2006 za celotno floto Hurtigruten.
The idea is that the Norwegian authorities, with the aid, can ensure that the combined operation of the public service and the commercial activities is profitable for Hurtigruten, in the sense that all costs are covered and that Hurtigruten gets a return on capital within the range of 3-5 % on income before tax or 10 % on EBITDA [19].
Namen je ponazoriti, da lahko norveški organi z dodeljeno pomočjo zagotovijo donosnost skupnega poslovanja podjetja Hurtigruten iz naslova javne službe in komercialnih dejavnosti tako, da se upoštevajo vsi stroški in da podjetje Hurtigruten prejme donos na vloženi kapital v obsegu 3–5 % od dobička pred obdavčitvijo ali 10 % od dobička pred obrestmi, davki in amortizacijo (EBITDA).
With the third method of the PWC Report, the Norwegian authorities appear to argue that no distinction between the public service and the commercial activities needs to be made, and that aid can be granted in order to ensure the profitability of the contract (taking account of the costs and revenues of both the public service activities and the commercial activities).
S tretjo metodo iz poročila PWC naj bi norveški organi poskušali utemeljevati, da ni treba razlikovati med javno službo in komercialnimi dejavnostmi ter da se pomoč lahko dodeli za zagotovitev donosnosti pogodbe (ob upoštevanju stroškov in prihodkov obeh, dejavnosti javne službe in komercialnih dejavnosti).
BDO Noraudit Report of 23 March 2009
Poročilo BDO Noraudit z dne 23. marca 2009
BDO Noraudit Report of 27 September 2010
Poročilo BDO Noraudit z dne 27. septembra 2010
The second BDO Noraudit Report of 27 September 2010 (‘the second BDO Report’) provides an alternative explanation as to how the three measures [21] did not involve any over-compensation.
Drugo poročilo BDO Noraudit z dne 27. septembra 2010 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: drugo poročilo BDO) drugače pojasnjuje, zakaj navedeni trije ukrepi [21] niso vključevali prekomernega nadomestila.
Two substantial differences from the first report being that (i) instead of examining the verifiable cost of operating the entire Hurtigruten fleet, the actual costs related to the operation of the ship which, of those subject to the NOx tax, is closest to the minimum requirements of the public service obligation [22] (MS Vesterålen) is used to calculate the cost of providing the public service, and (ii) the compensation is linked to the total 2007 and 2008 deficits of what is classified as Hurtigruten’s public service operations instead of the increased fuel prices in 2008.
Dve pomembni razliki glede na prvo poročilo sta, da se (i) namesto preučitve preverljivih stroškov obratovanja celotne flote Hurtigruten za izračun stroškov opravljanja javnih storitev uporabijo dejanski stroški, povezani z obratovanjem tiste ladje, ki je od vseh ladij, za katere se uporablja davek na NOx, najbliže minimalnim zahtevam obveznosti javne službe [22] (MS Vesterålen), in (ii) da se nadomestilo povezuje s skupnimi primanjkljaji iz let 2007 in 2008 iz dejavnosti Hurtigruten, ki spadajo v okvir javne službe, namesto povišanih cen za gorivo v letu 2008.
Regarding the method of cost allocation followed in the reports, the first two methods of the PWC Report and the two BDO Reports tend to classify only the extra incremental cost connected to the commercial activities (i.a. the extra fuel and NOx cost incurred by the cruise in the Geirangerfjord), as commercial costs.
Kar zadeva metodo razporeditve stroškov, uporabljeno v poročilih, se prvi dve metodi iz poročila PWC in obe poročili BDO nagibata k temu, da se samo dodatni povečani stroški, povezani s komercialnimi dejavnostmi (med drugim tudi dodatni stroški za gorivo in NOx, ki nastanejo pri križarjenju v fjordu Geiranger), pripišejo komercialnim stroškom.
The rest of the costs tend to be allocated to the public service side.
Preostali stroški se večinoma pripišejo javni službi.
In other words, fixed costs common to the public service and the commercial activities tend to be allocated to the public service side.
Z drugimi besedami, fiksni stroški, ki so skupni javni službi in komercialnim dejavnostim, se večinoma pripišejo javni službi.
On the other hand, the income generated by the public service activities is allocated to the public service side, whilst the revenue stemming from the activities outside the public service remit is allocated to the commercial side.
Po drugi strani se prihodek iz dejavnosti javne službe pripiše javni službi, medtem ko se prihodek iz dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, pripiše komercialni strani.
This method of allocation can be illustrated by the example provided in the PWC Report which provides an overview of the allocation cost (Figure 1) and income (Figure 2) of the ship MS Narvik (the ship closest to meeting the minimum requirements of the public service obligation, but not subject to the NOx tax) [23]:Figure 1
Ta metoda razporeditve se lahko ponazori s primerom, ki je opisan v poročilu PWC in daje pregled nad razporeditvijo stroškov (prikaz 1) in prihodkov (prikaz 2) za ladjo MS Narvik (ladja, ki je najbliže minimalnim zahtevam za obveznosti javne službe, vendar se zanjo ne uporablja davek na NOx) [23]:Prikaz 1
The above figures show that whilst all the common fixed costs for i.a. fuel (less the consumption stemming from the cruise in the Geirangerfjord), harbour charges and maintenance (at a total of NOK 27,6 million) is allocated to the public service (tjenestekjøp), only the revenue from the transport of certain passengers, all goods and cars as well as a portion of the revenue stemming from food, catering and other activities (at a total of NOK 28,2 million) is allocated to the public service.
Glede na zgornje podatke se vsi skupni fiksni stroški, med drugim tudi za gorivo (razen porabe za križarjenje v fjordu Geiranger), pristaniške pristojbine in vzdrževanje (v skupnem znesku 27,6 milijona NOK) pripišejo javni službi (tjenestekjøp), čeprav se po drugi strani javni službi pripiše samo prihodek iz prevoza nekaterih potnikov, vsega blaga in avtomobilov ter del prihodkov od hrane, postrežbe in drugih dejavnosti (v skupnem znesku 28,2 milijona NOK).
The revenue generated by its cruise activities (see i.a. Rundtursinntekter at NOK 18,8 million) however, is allocated to the activities outside the public service remit.
Prihodki, ustvarjeni iz dejavnosti križarjenja (glej med drugim Rundtursinntekter v višini 18,8 milijona NOK), pa se pripišejo dejavnostim, ki niso v javnem interesu.
The additional payments must be considered compatible on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) EEA
Dodatna plačila morajo biti združljiva s členom 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP
As a second alternative, if the Authority is to find that the three measures do constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and that the exception set out in Article 59(2) is not applicable, the Norwegian authorities argue that at the time of the renegotiation of the Hurtigruten Agreement in October 2008, Hurtigruten was a firm in difficulty, therefore the compensation should be regarded as compatible restructuring aid under Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement and the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.
Pri drugi možnosti, če bi Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da so navedeni trije ukrepi resnično državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in da se izjema iz člena 59(2) ne uporablja, norveški organi zatrjujejo, da je bilo ob ponovnih pogajanjih o Sporazumu Hurtigruten v oktobru 2008 podjetje Hurtigruten v težavah, zaradi česar se nadomestilo obravnava kot združljiva pomoč za prestrukturiranje v skladu s členom 61(3) Sporazuma EGP ter smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
To substantiate this argument, the Norwegian authorities have submitted information on a four-point improvement programme introduced at Hurtigruten’s annual general assembly on 15 May 2008 [24].This plan contained the following points:
Norveški organi ta argument utemeljujejo s predložitvijo informacij o programu izboljšav v štirih točkah, ki je bil predstavljen na letni skupščini podjetja Hurtigruten 15. maja 2008. [24]Ta načrt je vseboval naslednje točke:
Increase in revenue – the improvement programme ‘Black Belt’;
povečanje prihodkov – program izboljšav „Black Belt“;
Reduction of debt – sale of business outside core activities;
zmanjšanje zadolženosti – prodaja poslov, ki ne spadajo v osnovno dejavnost;
Cost reduction programme – cost reduced annually by NOK 150 million with full effect from 2010; and
program zmanjševanja stroškov – zmanjšanje stroškov na letni ravni za 150 milijonov NOK s polnim učinkom od leta 2010;
Hurtigruten Agreement – new and higher payments for the public service.
Sporazum Hurtigruten – nova in višja plačila za javno službo.
Subsequently, in February 2009, this improvement programme was expanded by adding:
Februarja 2009 je bil ta program izboljšav naknadno razširjen z naslednjo točko:
Financial restructuring.
finančno prestrukturiranje.
Its main elements were:
Njegovi glavni elementi so bili:
a. new equity from the largest shareholders NOK 314 million with the possibility of an additional NOK 170 million from other shareholders/employers;
a. nov kapital od največjih delničarjev v višini 314 milijonov NOK z možnostjo dodatnih 170 milijonov NOK od drugih delničarjev/delodajalcev;
b. a short term loan of NOK 300 million due end 2009;
b. kratkoročno posojilo v višini 300 milijonov NOK, ki zapade konec leta 2009;
c. refinancing by three years instalment deferral of NOK 3,3 billion, albeit with a possible down payment through a ‘cash sweep’ solution;
c. refinanciranje s triletnim odlogom obročnega odplačevanja v višini 3,3 milijarde NOK, vendar z mogočim poplačilom na podlagi prenosa razpoložljivih sredstev „cash sweep“;
d. three years instalment deferral in the bareboat-rent to Kystruten KS/KirBerg Shipping KS, albeit both may participate in the mentioned ‘cash sweep’ solution; and
d. triletni odlog obročnega odplačevanja najemnine za zakup prazne ladje v korist podjetja Kystruten KS/KirBerg Shipping KS, vendar lahko obe podjetji sodelujeta pri navedeni rešitvi „cash sweep“;
e. three years deferral on a convertible bond loan of NOK 150 million due June 2009, and one year exemption from the payment of interest.
e. triletni odlog posojila za zamenljive obveznice v višini 150 milijonov NOK, ki zapade v juniju 2009, in enoletna oprostitev od plačila obresti.
The Norwegian authorities submit that the above restructuring plan is in line with the material conditions of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.
Po navedbah norveških organov zgornji načrt prestrukturiranja izpolnjuje bistvene pogoje iz smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
The Norwegian authorities put forward that the Authority should consider the Norwegian authorities’ letter dated 4 March 2010 as a formal notification of the aid as restructuring aid.
Norveški organi tudi poudarjajo, da naj Nadzorni organ šteje dopis norveških organov z dne 4. marca 2010 za formalno priglasitev pomoči kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
In the following, the Authority assesses whether the three measures (being (i) the NOx tax/NOx Fund reimbursements, (ii) the ‘general compensation’, and (iii) the reduction of the requirement relating to the number of ships operated during the winter season under the public service contract) constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
V nadaljevanju bo Nadzorni organ preučil, ali so navedeni trije ukrepi (namreč (i) povračilo davka na NOx / prispevkov v sklad za NOx, (ii) „splošno nadomestilo“ in (iii) zmanjšanje zahteve glede števila ladij, ki obratujejo med zimsko sezono, na podlagi pogodbe za opravljanje storitev po javnem naročilu) državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority considers that the three measures must be assessed collectively as a scheme [25] as they entail an additional remuneration mechanism in favour of Hurtigruten that extends its application from 2007 until the expiry of the contract, originally foreseen for 31 December 2012.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je treba te tri ukrepe oceniti skupno kot shemo [25], saj vsebujejo dodaten mehanizem plačil v korist podjetja Hurtigruten, ki razširja njeno uporabo od leta 2007 do izteka pogodbe, prvotno predviden za 31. decembra 2012.
The payments under the first two measures involve state resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement as they are financed through budgetary allocations from the national budget [26].
Plačila na podlagi prvih dveh ukrepov vključujejo državna sredstva v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, saj se financirajo z dodelitvijo proračunskih sredstev iz nacionalnega proračuna.
As concerns the third measure, the reduction from 11 to 10 vessels during the winter season without a corresponding decrease in compensation implies that the service is reduced but not the payment.
Tretji ukrep, torej zmanjšanje plovil z 11 na 10 med zimsko sezono, brez ustreznega znižanja nadomestila pa kaže na to, da je bil zmanjšan samo obseg storitev, ne pa tudi plačilo.
Consequently, state resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are involved.
To pomeni, da so vključena državna sredstva v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The concept of undertaking
Koncept podjetja
In order to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must confer a selective economic advantage on an undertaking.
Ukrep, ki je državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora nekemu podjetju dajati selektivno ekonomsko prednost.
An undertaking is any entity engaged in economic activity [27].
Podjetje je subjekt, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost.
Economic activities consist of offering goods and services on a given market [28].
Gospodarske dejavnosti so sestavljene iz ponujanja blaga in storitev na danem trgu.
Hurtigruten offers transport and cruise services (NACE Codes 50.1 and 50.2).
Podjetje Hurtigruten ponuja prevozne storitve in križarjenja (kodi NACE 50.1 in 50.2).
Consequently, Hurtigruten is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.1.3.
To pomeni, da je Hurtigruten podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.1.3 Obstoj prednosti
The State as a private market operator – the relevance of the Linde case
Država kot zasebni tržni udeleženec – relevantnost zadeve Linde
The Norwegian authorities have argued that they acted in a manner similar to a rational market operator during the renegotiation process, holding that they simply enabled Hurtigruten to overcome serious financial difficulties so that it could continue to provide the important public services that no other undertaking could provide in the short or medium term.
Norveški organi pojasnjujejo, da so med postopkom ponovnih pogajanj delovali podobno, kot bi deloval razumen tržni udeleženec, in trdijo, da so podjetju Hurtigruten preprosto pomagali premostiti hude finančne težave, da bi lahko še naprej neprekinjeno opravljalo pomembne javne storitve, ki jih kratkoročno ali srednjeročno nobeno drugo podjetje ne bi moglo zagotoviti. Na podlagi tega sklepajo, da navedeni trije ukrepi podjetju Hurtigruten niso zagotavljali prednosti.
In light of this, they have alleged that the three measures did not confer an advantage on Hurtigruten.
Ta argument norveški organi utemeljujejo s sklicevanjem na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi Linde.