natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ship hoist/lift facilities A provision inserted into Article 26(3) of the 2003 Act by a 2007 amendment act, which is intended to extend the scope of the damage that harbour operators may receive compensation for so as to include damage to ship hoist/lift facilities.
Ladijska dvigala/dvižne naprave določba, vključena v člen 26(3) Zakona iz leta 2003 s spremembo iz leta 2007, katere namen je razširitev obsega škode, za katero lahko upravljavec pristanišča prejme nadomestilo, tako da vključuje škodo na ladijskih dvigalih/dvižnih napravah.
Again, the amount of compensation is not limited.
Tudi v tem primeru znesek nadomestila ni omejen.
In Decision No 658/07/COL, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether support to the pilot vessels could be considered a general measure and valid expenditure incurred by the state in developing a maritime transport system in the interest of the general public.
V Odločbi št. 658/07/COL je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvome o tem, ali se podpora za pilotna plovila lahko šteje za splošni ukrep in veljavne odhodke, ki jih je imela država pri razvijanju sistema pomorskega prometa v interesu javnosti.
It could not exclude that support to pilot vessels could be considered selective as public support to investments in mobile assets and operational services generally favours certain undertakings.
Nadzorni organ ni mogel izključiti, da bi se podpora za pilotna plovila lahko štela za selektivno, saj javna podpora za naložbe v premičnine in operativne storitve na splošno daje prednost posameznim podjetjem.
Similarly, on the basis of the information available, the Authority could not draw any conclusion as to whether support for quay installations could qualify as general measure.
Podobno Nadzorni organ na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij ni mogel odločiti, ali bi se podpora za pristaniške naprave lahko štela za splošni ukrep.
Finally, the Authority preliminarily considered that damage compensation could constitute state aid if available in respect of installations that are not general measures.
Končno je bilo predhodno mnenje Nadzornega organa, da bi nadomestilo škode lahko bilo državna pomoč, če je razpoložljiva, za naprave, ki ne spadajo med splošne ukrepe.
The Authority also expressed doubts that the measures in question could be considered compatible with the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ je izrazil tudi dvome o tem, da bi se zadevni ukrepi lahko šteli za združljive s Sporazumom EGP.
This was on the basis (most notably) that the derogation in Article 61(2)(b) appeared not to be applicable given the extension of the damage compensation beyond making good damage caused by natural disasters, and due to the apparent inapplicability of either the Regional aid or Shipbuilding Chapters of the State Aid Guidelines.
To pa (predvsem) na podlagi tega, ker se je za odstopanje v členu 61(2)(b) izkazalo, da se zaradi razširitve nadomestila škode na več kot le povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče, ne uporablja, in zaradi očitne neuporabe regionalne pomoči ali poglavja o ladjedelništvu Smernic o državni pomoči.
The Authority also noted that support from the Fund was not available to privately owned harbours, and that a valid justification for this differentiation was not apparent.
Nadzorni organ je navedel tudi, da podpora iz Sklada pristaniščem v zasebni lasti ni bila na voljo in da upravičeni razlogi za to razlikovanje niso bili razvidni.
Comments from third parties
Pripombe tretjih oseb
One comment was received from a third party in a letter addressed to the Authority dated 23 April 2008.
Nadzorni organ je prejel pripombo tretje osebe v dopisu z dne 23. aprila 2008.
Stálsmiðjan, a private harbour operator based in Reykjavik, agreed with the initial views expressed by the Authority in its opening decision.
Zasebni upravljavec pristanišča v Reykjaviku Stálsmiðjan se je strinjal z začetnimi stališči, ki jih je Nadzorni organ izrazil v svoji odločbi o sprožitvi postopka.
Comments by the Icelandic authorities
Pripombe islandskih organov
It is also the Icelandic authorities’ view that “docking facilities” (“hafnarmannvirki”) – a term said to incorporate the measures subject to investigation – are regarded as public infrastructure in Iceland, serving a public purpose, with open access and forming an integral part of a harbour.
Islandski organi prav tako zavzemajo stališče, da se „pristaniške naprave“ („hafnarmannvirki“) – izraz naj bi zajemal ukrepe, ki so predmet preiskave – štejejo za javno infrastrukturo v Islandiji, saj služijo javnim interesom, imajo odprt dostop in so sestavni del pristanišča.
More specifically in respect of the measures which are the subject of the formal investigation, the Icelandic authorities argued that pilot vessels are an essential part of the activity and infrastructure of a harbour where conditions require.
Konkretneje, v zvezi z ukrepi, ki so predmet formalne preiskave, so islandski organi menili, da so pilotna plovila bistveni del dejavnosti in infrastrukture pristanišča, kadar razmere to zahtevajo.
It is stated that their use is strictly for safety purposes (including in emergency situations), and is in some circumstances obligatory by law.
Navedeno je, da je njihova uporaba strogo vezana na varnostne namene (in nujne primere) ter v določenih okoliščinah obvezna po zakonu.
The authorities also stress that their use is a burden borne by harbours due to their cost.
Islandski organi tudi poudarjajo, da je njihova uporaba zaradi stroškov za pristanišča finančna obremenitev.
In so far as quay installations are concerned, the Icelandic authorities again argue that they are part of the general infrastructure of a harbour, referring to them as “berthing constructions”.
Kar zadeva pristaniške naprave, islandski organi menijo, da so del splošne infrastrukture pristanišča, imenujejo pa jih „sidriščne konstrukcije“.
The Icelandic authorities also argue that the measures do not distort competition or affect trade between EEA states.
Islandski organi tudi menijo, da ukrepi ne izkrivljajo konkurence ali škodijo trgovini med državami EGP.
The basis for this argument is geographical, with reference made to the travel time (of 47 hours) between Iceland and mainland Europe and to information provided by the Federation of Industries in Iceland that it is “for the most part unknown for foreign vessels [to] come to Iceland for repair work”.
Argument je v osnovi geografske narave, saj se sklicuje na čas potovanja (47 ur) med Islandijo in evropsko celino, Združenje industrije v Islandiji pa je zagotovilo informacije, da „večinoma ni običajno, da bi tuja plovila prišla v Islandijo zaradi popravil“.
Whilst it is acknowledged by the Icelandic authorities that there is international competition in ship repair (and therefore the use of ship lifts and hoists and dry docks), it is argued that no such competition exists in Iceland.
Medtem ko islandski organi priznavajo, da pri popravilih ladij (in s tem pri uporabi ladijskih dvigal in dvižnih naprav ter suhih dokov) obstaja mednarodna konkurenca, so mnenja, da take konkurence v Islandiji ni.
The presence of state aid
Obstoj državne pomoči
“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.“
The aid measure must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Ukrep pomoči mora odobriti država oz. se pomoč dodeli iz državnih sredstev.
It is envisaged that each of the measures provide support to the harbours through the Fund, which is allocated resources from the Icelandic Treasury.
Predvideno je, da vsi ukrepi zagotovijo podporo pristaniščem prek Sklada, v katerega se sredstva dodelijo iz islandske državne blagajne.
The budgetary allocation of the Treasury constitutes state resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Dodelitev proračunskih sredstev iz državne blagajne predstavlja državna sredstva v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The classification as state resources is not altered by the fact that the state’s money is channelled through the Fund.
Dejstvo, da državni denar priteka prek Sklada, ne spremeni te klasifikacije državnih sredstev.
Article 26(l) of the 2003 Act provides that the Fund is owned by the State and that the Harbour Council (hafnaráð) acts as its board of directors on behalf of the Minister of Transport.
Člen 26(l) Zakona iz leta 2003 določa, da je Sklad v lasti države in da Pristaniški svet (hafnaráð) deluje kot njegov odbor direktorjev v imenu ministra za promet.
The Harbour Council is appointed by the Minister of Transport pursuant to Article 4 of Act No 7/1996 on the Maritime Agency (lög um Siglingastofnun Íslands).
Minister za promet imenuje Pristaniški svet v skladu s členom 4 Zakona št. 7/1996 o Pomorski agenciji (lög um Siglingastofnun Íslands).
The Fund is therefore a public law body.
Sklad je zato javnopravni organ.
Part of the financing of the Fund comes directly from the State budget as decided by Parliament.
Del financiranja Sklada poteka neposredno iz državnega proračuna, kot je odločil Parlament.
According to Article 26(3) of the 2003 Act, the Harbour Council allocates the income of the Fund following recommendations from the Maritime Agency and subject to the approval of the Minister of Transport, as further laid down in sub-paragraphs 1 to 3.
V skladu s členom 26(3) Zakona iz leta 2003 Pristaniški svet ob upoštevanju priporočil Pomorske agencije določi prihodek Sklada, ki ga mora odobriti minister za promet, kot je nadalje določeno v pododstavkih od 1 do 3.
The Maritime Agency is responsible for the administration of the Fund according to paragraph 4 of that Article.
Pomorska agencija je v skladu z odstavkom 4 navedenega člena odgovorna za upravljanje Sklada.
The Fund also carries out public tasks as laid down in the 2003 Act.
Sklad opravlja tudi javne naloge, kot je določeno v Zakonu iz leta 2003.
The Authority concludes therefore that support granted by the Fund is imputable to the State and constitutes state resources within the meaning of Article 61(l) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, da je podporo, dodeljeno iz Sklada, mogoče pripisati državi in da podpora predstavlja državna sredstva v smislu člena 61(l) Sporazuma EGP.
The aid measure must be selective in that it favours “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”.
Ukrep pomoči mora biti selektiven, tako da daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
The issue in this context is whether the Icelandic municipalities, as recipients of state support, are undertakings engaged in economic activities or whether they act as a public authority.
Vprašanje pri tem je, ali so islandske občine kot prejemniki državne podpore podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, ali delujejo kot javni organ.
As referred to in the European Commission’s decision on “Financial Support for infrastructure works in Flemish ports” [11], maritime ports are concerned not only with public policy responsibilities of maintaining a functioning maritime transport system but are also increasingly engaged in commercial activities, such as the provision of port facilities and services.
Kot je navedeno v Odločbi Evropske komisije o „finančni podpori za infrastrukturna dela v flamskih pristaniščih“ [11], se pomorska pristanišča ne ukvarjajo samo z javnopolitičnimi odgovornostmi za ohranitev delovanja sistema pomorskega prometa, pač pa tudi vedno pogosteje opravljajo komercialne dejavnosti, kot je zagotavljanje pristaniških naprav in storitev.
The fact that, for the exercise of part of its activities, an entity is vested with statutory powers does not, in itself, prevent it from being characterised as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Dejstvo, da ima subjekt za izvajanje dela svojih dejavnosti zakonite pristojnosti, samo po sebi ne preprečuje, da se ta označi za podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
In the field of competition law, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed [12].
V konkurenčnem pravu koncept podjetja zajema vse subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, ne glede na njihov pravni položaj in način, na katerega se financirajo [12].
In order to determine whether the activities in question are those of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1), it is necessary to establish the nature of those activities [13].
Da se lahko določi, ali so zadevne dejavnosti dejavnosti podjetja v smislu člena 61(1), je treba ugotoviti naravo navedenih dejavnosti [13].
It is settled case-law that any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity [14].
Ustaljena sodna praksa je, da je vsaka dejavnost, ki ponuja blago in storitve na določenem trgu, gospodarska dejavnost [14].
To the extent, therefore, that the harbour operators are engaged in economic activities, the Authority takes the view that the measures are selective given that they favour only a certain number of operators within a specific sector.
Zato, kolikor upravljavci pristanišč opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, Nadzorni organ meni, da so ukrepi selektivni, saj dajejo prednost samo določenemu številu upravljavcev v posameznem sektorju.
In the European Commission’s Communication on Reinforcing Quality Services in Sea Ports [15], the Commission distinguishes between “Public (general)” infrastructure, “user-specific” infrastructure, and “superstructures”.
V sporočilu Evropske komisije o izboljšanju kakovosti storitev v morskih pristaniščih [15], Komisija razlikuje med „javno (splošno)“ infrastrukturo, infrastrukturo za „posameznega uporabnika“ in „superstrukturami“.
These distinctions provide a useful guide when assessing whether port authorities, owners or operators are engaged in economic activities.
To razlikovanje je uporabno, ko se ocenjuje, ali pristaniški organi, lastniki ali upravljavci opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti.
The position is however evolving and the Authority has taken into consideration not only the Commission’s Communication, but also subsequent decisions of the Commission (including in particular the case regarding support for Flemish ports referred to above), as well as the information provided by the Icelandic authorities.
Vendar se situacija razvija in Nadzorni organ je poleg sporočila Komisije upošteval tudi poznejše odločbe Komisije (zlasti zadevo v zvezi s podporo za flamska pristanišča, ki je navedena zgoraj) in informacije, ki so jih zagotovili islandski organi.
Public financing of transport infrastructure may raise State aid issues at two different levels; at the level of the end-users of the infrastructure and at the level of the manager or operator of the infrastructure in question.
Javno financiranje prometne infrastrukture lahko sproži vprašanja v zvezi z državno pomočjo na dveh različnih ravneh: na ravni končnih uporabnikov infrastrukture in na ravni upravitelja ali upravljavca zadevne infrastrukture.
The Authority takes the view that, in general, no State aid elements within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are present at the users’ level where transport infrastructure is directly financed and managed by the State and is open to all potential users on equal and non-discriminatory terms, as no particular undertaking or production may be shown to be favoured over others in a way that distorts competition and affects trade between Member States [16].
Nadzorni organ meni, da na splošno elementi državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP na ravni uporabnikov niso prisotni, kadar prometno infrastrukturo neposredno financira in upravlja država ter je odprta za vse potencialne uporabnike pod enakimi in nediskriminatornimi pogoji, ker se za nobeno posamezno podjetje ali proizvodnjo ne more dokazati, da ima prednost pred drugimi, tako da izkrivlja konkurenco in škodi trgovini med državami članicami [16].
The Authority is content that this is the case in respect of the Icelandic harbours.
Nadzorni organ se strinja, da je tako tudi v primeru islandskih pristanišč.
At the level of the manager or operator of the transport infrastructure – in this case the Icelandic municipality-owned port authorities – the Authority must assess whether the body managing the infrastructure carries out economic activities.
Nadzorni organ mora na ravni upravitelja ali upravljavca prometne infrastrukture, v tem primeru islandskih pristaniških organov v lasti občin, oceniti, ali organ, ki upravlja infrastrukturo, opravlja gospodarske dejavnosti.
As noted above, a port manager carries out many different activities, of which several may be deemed economic in character.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, upravitelj pristanišča opravlja mnogo različnih dejavnosti, od katerih jih je več, glede na njihove značilnosti, možno šteti za gospodarske dejavnosti.
It is necessary to distinguish therefore, where possible, between those activities that are economic in nature and those that are not, and assess the financing of each distinct activity on its own merits.
Zato je treba razlikovati, kadar je to mogoče, med dejavnostmi, ki so gospodarske narave, in tistimi, ki to niso, ter oceniti financiranje vsake posamezne dejavnosti posebej. a)
It accepts that expenditure on pilot vessels is an essential function of the state acting in the public interest.
Strinja se s tem, da je financiranje pilotnih plovil bistvena naloga države, ki deluje v javnem interesu.
The Authority concludes therefore that support granted to the harbour operators for pilot vessels is not granted to them in their capacity of undertakings performing an economic activity.
Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, da podpora, dodeljena upravljavcem pristanišč za pilotna plovila, ni dodeljena njim kot podjetjem, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
The measure does therefore not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ukrep zato ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP. b)
In light of the Commission’s approach to “mooring infrastructure” (including quays) in the Flemish ports [17] case, the Authority took the initial view that quay installations form part of the facilities of the port that are capable of generating commercial revenue for the port authorities.
Glede na pristop Komisije k „infrastrukturi za privez“ (vključno z operativno obalo) v primeru flamskih pristanišč [17] je Nadzorni organ zavzel začetno stališče, da so pristaniške naprave del naprav v pristanišču, ki lahko ustvarijo komercialne prihodke za pristaniške organe.
The Icelandic authorities have not provided information to suggest that the use of quay installations is an essential function of the state acting in the public interest, and is not economic in nature.
Islandski organi niso zagotovili informacij, ki bi kazale na to, da je uporaba pristaniških naprav bistvena naloga države, ki deluje v javnem interesu, in ni gospodarske narave.
The Authority is therefore of the opinion that the quay installations facilitate economic activity which favours the operator of a port acting as an undertaking.
Nadzorni organ je zato mnenja, da pristaniške naprave spodbujajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ki daje prednost upravljavcu pristanišča, ki deluje kot podjetje. c)
To the extent therefore that the damage compensation provisions fund harbour authorities to pay for damage to facilities which are used for economic activity, they constitute a selective measure in favour of an undertaking (the harbour authority itself).
Zato določbe za nadomestilo škode, kolikor pristaniškim organom omogočajo plačilo škode na napravah, ki se uporabljajo za gospodarsko dejavnost, predstavljajo selektiven ukrep v korist podjetja (pristaniškega organa).
The Authority concludes, therefore, that expanding the damage compensation provisions to include damage to ship lifts and hoists and quay installations favours specific undertakings.
Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, da razširitev določb za nadomestilo škode, da vključujejo škodo na ladijskih dvigalih in dvižnih napravah ter pristaniških napravah, daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem.
Advantage
Ugodnosti
The measure must confer on a recipient advantages that relieve it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.
Ukrep pomoči mora prejemniku nuditi ugodnosti oprostitve dajatev, ki navadno bremenijo njegov proračun.
Harbour owners will have to bear some of the costs following the support under the Harbour Act since state support can be granted for up to between 40 and 60 % of the investment necessary for quay installations.
Lastniki pristanišč bodo morali v skladu s podporo iz Zakona o pristaniščih nekaj stroškov kriti sami, saj se državna podpora lahko dodeli samo v višini med 40 % in 60 % vrednosti naložbe, potrebne za pristaniške naprave.
However, these undertakings will be subject to lower investment costs than other undertakings that do not benefit from the scheme.
Vendar pa bodo imela ta podjetja nižje investicijske stroške od drugih podjetij, ki do te sheme niso upravičena.
The harbour owners therefore receive an advantage through the measure.
Lastniki pristanišč zato s tem ukrepom uživajo ugodnost.
Such an advantage also exists regarding damage compensation.
Taka ugodnost obstaja tudi v zvezi z nadomestilom škode.
The harbour authorities can receive state support for repair of damage to ship hoist/lift facilities and for quay installations.
Pristaniški organi lahko prejmejo državno podporo za popravilo škode na ladijskih dvigalih/dvižnih napravah in pristaniških napravah.
This compensates the recipients of funding for a cost they would normally have to bear.
To financiranje je nadomestilo prejemnikom za stroške, ki bi jih navadno morali kriti sami.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties
Izkrivljanje konkurence in negativen vpliv na trgovino med pogodbenicami
For a measure to qualify as aid it must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Da se ukrep lahko šteje za pomoč, mora izkrivljati konkurenco in škoditi trgovini med pogodbenicami.
The Authority remains of the view that operators of ship lifts and hoists and dry docks as ship repair facilities are in international competition.
Nadzorni organ ostaja pri stališču, da upravljavci ladijskih dvigal in dvižnih naprav ter suhih dokov kot naprav za popravilo ladij spadajo v mednarodno konkurenco.
In addition, as mentioned in the decision opening the formal investigation, the market for port services has been gradually opened to competition [18].
Poleg tega se je, kot je navedeno v Odločbi o uvedbi formalne preiskave, trg za pristaniške storitve postopno odprl za konkurenco [18].
The European Commission noted in its LeaderSHIP 2015 programme [19] that commercial shipbuilding and ship repair operate in a truly global market with exposure to world-wide competition.
Evropska komisija je v svojem programu LeaderSHIP 2015 [19] navedla, da sta komercialno ladjedelništvo in popravilo ladij del zares globalnega trga in sta izpostavljena svetovni konkurenci.
It is the Authority’s view that the state support distorts or has the potential to distort competition, and this is evidenced by the response received from the third party.
Nadzorni organ meni, da državna podpora izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, kar je razvidno iz odgovora tretje osebe.