natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Icelandic authorities also accept (despite arguing that there is no distortion of competition) that the 2003 Act distinguishes between state-owned harbours (who receive state support) and privately-owned harbours (who do not receive support).
Islandski organi se tudi strinjajo (kljub mnenju, da izkrivljanja konkurence ni), da Zakon iz leta 2003 razlikuje med pristanišči v državni lasti (ki prejmejo državno podporo) in pristanišči v zasebni lasti (ki podpore ne prejmejo).
Given that some of the activities of the state supported harbours are economic in nature, it can be established that there is the potential that competition can be distorted in such a case.
Glede na to, da so nekatere dejavnosti pristanišč, ki prejmejo državno podporo, gospodarske narave, v takem primeru lahko pride do izkrivljanja konkurence.
While the Authority accepts that for geographical reasons the distortion of competition is likely to have less of an effect on trade than would be the case in mainland Europe, the Authority does not agree with the Icelandic authorities that there is no effect (or no potential effect) on trade.
Nadzorni organ se strinja, da bi imelo iz geografskih razlogov izkrivljanje konkurence verjetno manjši učinek na trgovino kot v primeru evropske celine, vendar pa se Nadzorni organ z islandskimi organi ne strinja, da učinka (oz. potencialnega učinka) na trgovino ni.
These activities, specifically services provided to shipping and freight undertakings, are not purely local in nature given the mobility of those undertakings.
Te dejavnosti, predvsem storitve, ki jih nudijo podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo z ladijskimi prevozi in prevozi tovora, glede na mobilnost teh podjetij niso zgolj lokalne narave.
There are established shipping routes between Iceland and other EEA States and to an extent therefore the recipients of port services are able to choose where (for example) to undertake routine maintenance, or dock in any periods of inactivity.
Med Islandijo in drugimi državami EGP so vzpostavljene pomorske poti, zato lahko uporabniki pristaniških storitev izbirajo, kje bodo npr. v katerem koli obdobju nedejavnosti opravili rutinsko vzdrževanje ali namestili ladjo v dok.
It is also notable (as referred to by the European Commission in the case of the JadeWeserPort Project [20]) that there is increased private investment in maritime ports, such that an undertaking from another EEA State could own or operate competing ports in Iceland.
Poudariti je treba tudi (kot navaja Evropska komisija v zadevi projekta JadeWeserPort [20]), da je delež zasebnih naložb v pomorska pristanišča večji, tako da bi bilo lahko podjetje iz druge države EGP lastnik konkurenčnih pristanišč v Islandiji ali bi jih upravljalo.
Providing state support to Icelandic harbour operators could therefore also affect trade by impacting upon such private investment.
Zagotovitev državne podpore islandskim upravljavcem pristanišč bi zato lahko škodila tudi trgovini, saj bi to vplivalo na take zasebne naložbe.
The Authority therefore concludes that as the measure will strengthen the recipients’ position in relation to other competitors within the EEA, the measures distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, ker bo ukrep okrepil položaj prejemnikov glede na druge konkurente v EGP, da ukrepi izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco in škodijo trgovini med pogodbenicami.
For the reasons referred to above, the Authority considers the funding of quay installations and damage compensation in respect of quay installations and ship lift facilities constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov Nadzorni organ meni, da financiranje pristaniških naprav in nadomestilo škode za pristaniške naprave ter ladijske dvižne naprave pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority further concludes that the support granted to the harbour operators for pilot vessels does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ sklepa, da podpora, dodeljena upravljavcem pristanišč za pilotna plovila, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, “the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision”.
V skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 je „treba Nadzorni organ Efte o kakršnih koli načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči obvestiti dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži svoje pripombe […]. Zadevna država članica ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev.“
As referred to in the decision opening the formal investigation, the Icelandic authorities did not notify the 2003 Act with regard to the support to quay installations and damage compensations to quay installation to the Authority before the measure was put into effect.
Kot je navedeno v Odločbi o uvedbi formalne preiskave islandski organi Nadzornemu organu niso priglasili Zakona iz leta 2003 v zvezi s podporo za pristaniške naprave in nadomestilom škode za pristaniške naprave, preden se je ukrep začel izvajati.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Icelandic authorities have respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 with regard to these measures.
Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, da so islandski organi v zvezi s temi ukrepi izpolnili svoje obveznosti v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
The support to pilot vessels does not constitute state aid, and there was hence no obligation to notify that measure.
Podpora za pilotna plovila ne pomeni državne pomoči, zato tega ukrepa ni bilo treba priglasiti.
Support measures that fall within Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement unless they qualify for derogation under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
Podporni ukrepi iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP so nezdružljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, razen če izpolnjujejo pogoje za odstopanje iz člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority has therefore assessed the measures under Article 61(2) and (3) of the EEA Agreement in conjunction with the State Aid Guidelines [21].
Nadzorni organ je zato ukrepe ocenil na podlagi člena 61(2) in (3) Sporazuma EGP v povezavi s Smernicami o državni pomoči [21].
Investments in quay installations
Naložbe v pristaniške naprave
Under the Guidelines on National Regional Aid for 2007–2013 and the regional aid map for Iceland, initial investment aid can be granted against eligible costs for harbours situated within the regional aid map up to 15 % Gross Grant Equivalent (“GGE”) (with a bonus of 20 % GGE for aid granted to small enterprises and by 10 % GGE for aid granted to medium sized enterprises).
V skladu s Smernicami o državni regionalni pomoči za 2007–2013 in karto regionalne pomoči za Islandijo se začetna pomoč za naložbe lahko dodeli za upravičene stroške za pristanišča, ki se nahajajo v okviru karte regionalne pomoči, in sicer v višini do 15 % bruto ekvivalenta dotacije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: BED) (z dodatkom v višini 20 % BED za pomoč, dodeljeno malim podjetjem, in 10 % BED za pomoč, dodeljeno srednje velikim podjetjem).
Damage compensation for quay installations and ship lift/hoist facilities
Nadomestilo škode za pristaniške naprave in ladijska dvigala/dvižne naprave
The aid provided by way of damage compensation is not linked to investment but is a means through which costs that an undertaking would usually have to bear as part of its day-to-day activities can be reduced (or eliminated).
Pomoč, predvidena za nadomestilo škode, ni povezana z naložbo, ampak predstavlja sredstvo, s katerim se stroški, ki bi jih navadno moralo kriti podjetje kot del svojih vsakodnevnih dejavnosti, lahko znižajo (ali odpravijo).
The Authority therefore considers this to be operating aid.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je to pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
In the Authority’s view this operating aid does not fall within the scope of Article 61(2)(b) of the EEA Agreement, given that it is not limited to natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.
Stališče Nadzornega organa je, da ta pomoč za tekoče poslovanje ne spada na področje uporabe člena 61(2)(b) Sporazuma EGP, saj ni omejena na naravne nesreče ali izjemne dogodke.
The Authority considers that damage compensation for ship lifts and hoists must be assessed under the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines on shipbuilding.
Nadzorni organ meni, da se mora nadomestilo škode za ladijska dvigala in dvižne naprave oceniti v skladu s Smernicami Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči za ladjedelništvo.
As lex specialis, the Shipbuilding Guidelines preclude the application of the Regional Aid Guidelines [22].
Kot lex specialis Smernice o ladjedelništvu izključujejo uporabo Smernic o regionalni pomoči [22].
The Shipbuilding Guidelines cover aid to “any shipyard, related entity, ship owner and third party, which is granted, whether directly or indirectly, for building, repair or conversion of ships” [23].
Smernice o ladjedelništvu zajemajo pomoč „kateri koli ladjedelnici, povezanemu subjektu, lastniku ladje in tretji osebi, ki se dodeli bodisi neposredno ali posredno za gradnjo, popravilo ali predelavo ladij“ [23].
The Shipbuilding Guidelines allow aid to be granted to ship repair installations as aid to research and development and innovation, closure aid, employment aid, export credits, development aid and regional investment aid.
Smernice o ladjedelništvu določajo, da se pomoč lahko dodeli objektom za popravilo ladij kot pomoč za raziskave, razvoj in inovacije, pomoč za zaprtje, pomoč za zaposlovanje, izvozni krediti, pomoč za razvoj ter regionalna pomoč za naložbe.
The Authority is of the view however that damage compensation for ship lifts and hoists does not fall under any of these categories and cannot therefore be considered compatible under the provisions of the Shipbuilding Guidelines.
Vendar pa je Nadzorni organ mnenja, da nadomestilo škode za ladijska dvigala in dvižne naprave ne spada v nobeno izmed teh kategorij in se zato ne more šteti za združljivo v skladu z določbami Smernic o ladjedelništvu.
Operating aid to compensate for damage to quay installations must be assessed as regional aid.
Pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za nadomestilo škode na pristaniških napravah je treba oceniti kot regionalna pomoč.
According to the provisions of Section 5 of the current guidelines, operating aid must normally be temporary and reduced over time (paragraph 68), or granted for least populated regions (paragraph 69) or granted for offsetting additional transport costs (paragraph 70).
V skladu z določbami oddelka 5 sedanjih smernic je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje navadno začasna in se s časom zniža (odstavek 68), se dodeli za najredkeje poseljene regije (odstavek 69) ali pa se dodeli kot nadomestilo za dodatne transportne stroške (odstavek 70).
From the information available to the Authority, the envisaged support for damage compensation is not limited in that way and cannot therefore be considered compatible with the Guidelines for Regional Aid 2007–2013.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij Nadzorni organ meni, da predvidena podpora za nadomestilo škode ni omejena na ta način in se zato ne more šteti za združljivo s Smernicami o državni regionalni pomoči za 2007–2013.
Entrustment of a service of general economic interest under Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement
Pooblastitev za opravljanje storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena v skladu s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP
To the extent that the measures in question involve the provision of services that are economic in nature, it is possible that they may qualify as services of general economic interest (“SGEI”).
Kolikor zadevni ukrepi vključujejo opravljanje storitev gospodarske narave, je možno, da se štejejo za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena („SSGP“).
Such SGEI may not amount to state aid in accordance with the Altmark [24] principles, or may be aid that could be considered compatible with the EEA Agreement under Article 59(2).
SSGP je lahko takšna, da ne predstavlja državne pomoči v skladu z načeli Altmark [24], ali pa je pomoč, ki se v skladu s členom 59(2) lahko šteje za združljivo s Sporazumom EGP.
The Icelandic authorities do not, however, contend that the funding has been provided in order to ensure the provision of SGEI; and the Authority notes that the harbour operators have not been specifically entrusted with providing such services and funding is not awarded on the basis of compensating operators for costs incurred in providing the services.
Vendar islandski organi ne navajajo, da so bila sredstva dana, da bi zagotovili opravljanje SSGP, po navedbah Nadzornega organa pa upravljavcem pristanišč opravljanje takih storitev ni bilo posebej zaupano in sredstva niso dodeljena na podlagi nadomestila upravljavcem za stroške, nastale z opravljanjem storitev.
The measures are therefore not compatible with the EEA Agreement under Article 59(2).
Ukrepi zato po členu 59(2) niso združljivi s Sporazumom EGP.
Compatibility directly under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement
Združljivost neposredno po členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP
Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that the Authority may consider aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities to be compatible with the EEA Agreement, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.
Člen 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP določa, da Nadzorni organ lahko šteje pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja posameznih gospodarskih dejavnosti za združljivo s Sporazumom EGP, kadar taka pomoč ne škodi trgovinskim pogojem v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Authority notes that maritime ports play an important role within the EEA, necessary to facilitate a balanced and sustainable transport system, and as centres of regional development.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da imajo pomorska pristanišča pomembno vlogo v EGP in so potrebna pri spodbujanju uravnoteženega in trajnostnega prometnega sistema, pomembna pa so tudi kot centri regionalnega razvoja.
The Authority also notes that ports play an important role in facilitating trade and can assist in the process of moving freight transfer away from roads to more environmentally sustainable modes of transport.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja tudi, da imajo pristanišča pomembno vlogo pri spodbujanju trgovine in lahko pomagajo pri procesu prehajanja prevoza tovora s cest na okoljsko bolj trajnostne načine prevoza.
The Authority also acknowledges that better port infrastructure is unlikely to be developed through market means alone and that some form of state intervention is likely to be inevitable.
Prav tako Nadzorni organ priznava, da se boljša pristaniška infrastruktura verjetno ne bo razvila samo s tržnimi sredstvi in so nekatere oblike državne pomoči verjetno neizogibne.
The Harbour Act, however, differentiates between privately owned and municipality owned harbours as only the latter can apply for support under the scheme.
Vendar Zakon o pristaniščih razlikuje med pristanišči v zasebni lasti in pristanišči v lasti občine, saj se za podporo v okviru sheme lahko prijavijo samo slednja.
Although it does not appear that this differentiation entails an infringement of the provisions of free movement under the EEA Agreement, the question of discrimination regarding aid between the public and private sectors under the EC Treaty was examined by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the case of Falck.
Čeprav se zdi, da to razlikovanje ne povzroča kršitve določb o prostem pretoku v skladu s Sporazumom EGP, je Sodišče vprašanje diskriminacije med javnim in zasebnim sektorjem v zvezi s pomočjo v skladu s Pogodbo ES obravnavalo v svoji sodbi v zadevi Falck.
For this reason, even if the aid could be authorised under the EEA Agreement, the Authority considers that the scheme cannot be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement because it favours only undertakings that are state owned without an objective justification.
Nadzorni organ iz tega razloga meni, čeprav bi se pomoč v skladu s Sporazumom EGP lahko odobrila, da shema ne more biti združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, ker daje prednost samo podjetjem v državni lasti brez objektivne utemeljitve.
On the basis of the above assessment therefore, the Authority concludes that the investment in quay installations and the damage compensation for ship lifts and hoists and quay installations is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi zgornje ocene Nadzorni organ zato sklepa, da naložba v pristaniške naprave in nadomestilo škode za ladijska dvigala in dvižne naprave ter pristaniške naprave nista združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
With the exception of the funding of pilot vessels, which does not constitute state aid, the aid measures are not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement for the reasons set out above.
Z izjemo sredstev za pilotna plovila, ki ne pomenijo državne pomoči, ukrepi pomoči niso združljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov.
According to the information available to the Authority, the scheme has not been implemented yet, meaning that no aid has been paid out to any of the potential beneficiaries of the scheme.
Glede na informacije, ki jih ima na voljo Nadzorni organ, se shema še ne izvaja, kar pomeni, da pomoč ni bila izplačana nobenemu potencialnemu upravičencu sheme –
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that Article 24(2)(a) of the Harbour Act under which the “initial costs for pilot vessels where conditions in and near the harbour require such safety equipment” is supported does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ Efte meni, da pomoč v skladu s členom 24(2)(a) Zakona o pristaniščih za „začetne stroške za pilotna plovila, kadar pogoji v pristanišču in njegovi bližini zahtevajo tako varnostno opremo“, ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
Article 24(2)(b) and (c) of the Harbour Act regarding investment support to quay installations and Article 26(3) of the Harbour Act regarding damage compensation for harbour constructions which qualify under Article 24(2)(b) and for ship lifts and hoists constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Člen 24(2)(b) in (c) Zakona o pristaniščih v zvezi s podporo za naložbe v pristaniške naprave in člen 26(3) Zakona o pristaniščih v zvezi z nadomestilom škode za pristaniške gradnje v skladu s pogoji iz člena 24(2)(b) za ladijska dvigala in dvižne naprave pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
These aid measures are not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Ti ukrepi pomoči niso združljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
The measures referred to in Article 2 above may not be implemented.
Ukrepi, navedeni v členu 2 zgoraj, se ne smejo uvesti.
Only the English language version is authentic.
Besedilo v angleškem jeziku je edino verodostojno.
Referred to throughout as the “Authority”.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Nadzorni organ.
Referred to throughout as the “EEA Agreement”.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP.
Referred to throughout as the “Surveillance and Court Agreement”.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
Referred to throughout as “Protocol 3”.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Protokol 3.
Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (referred to as “OJ”) L 231, 3.9.1994 p. 1, and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1 (referred to as the “State Aid Guidelines”).
Smernice o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP ter člena 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki jih je Nadzorni organ sprejel in izdal 19. januarja 1994 ter so objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: UL) L 231, 3.9.1994, str. 1. in v Dopolnilu EGP št. 32, 3.9.1994, str. 1 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice o državni pomoči).
OJ C 96, 17.4.2008, p. 3, and EEA Supplement No 20, 17.4.2008, p. 2.
UL C 96, 17.4.2008, str. 3. in Dopolnilo EGP št. 20, 17.4.2008, str. 2.
For more detailed information on the various correspondence between the Authority and the Icelandic authorities, reference is made to the Decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Podrobnejše informacije o dopisih med Nadzornim organom in islandskimi organi so navedene v Odločbi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
See footnotes 7 and 8 above.
Glej opombi 7 in 8 zgoraj.
Funding under the new provisions has not yet been implemented.
Financiranje na podlagi novih določb še ni uvedeno.
State aid No N 520/2003, p. 7.
Državna pomoč št. N 520/2003, str. 7–8.
See, inter alia, joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre [1993] ECR I-637, paragraph 17.
Glej tudi združeni zadevi C-159/91 in C-160/91 Poucet in Pistre (1993), Recueil str. I-637, točka 17.
See, inter alia, Case C-364/92 SAT Fluggesellschaft [1994] ECR I-43, paragraph 19.
Glej tudi zadevo C-364/92 SAT Fluggesellschaft (1994), Recueil str. I-43, točka 19.
See, inter alia, Case C-35/96 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851, paragraph 36 and Case C-475/99 Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089, paragraph 19.
Glej tudi zadevi C-35/96 Komisija proti Italiji (1998), Recueil str. I-3851, točka 36, in C-475/99 Glöckner (2001), Recueil str. I-8089, točka 19.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Reinforcing Quality Service in Sea Ports; A Key for European Transport, COM (2001) 35 final, section 3.3.
Sporočilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu, Izboljšanje kakovosti storitev v morskih pristaniščih: osrednji vidik evropskega prometa, COM(2001) 35 konč., oddelek 3.3.
Cf. Commission White Paper COM (1998) 466 final of 22.7.1998, Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU, Chapter 5, para 42–43.
Primerjaj Belo knjigo Komisije COM(1998) 466 konč., 22.7.1998, Pravično plačilo za uporabo infrastrukture: Postopni pristop k oblikovanju skupnega okvira na področju pristojbin za prometne infrastrukture v EU, poglavje 5, odst. 42–43.
Paragraphs 46 to 50, case N 520/2003.
Točke 46–50, zadeva N 520/2003.
Port Communication, cited in fn. 15, section 2.
Sporočilo o pristaniščih, navedeno v opombi l5, oddelek 2.
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, LeaderSHIP 2015, Defining the Future of the European Shipbuilding and Repair Industry, Competitiveness through Excellence, COM(2003) 717 final, section 2.l.
Sporočilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu, Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru in Odboru regij, LeaderSHIP 2015, Prihodnost evropskega ladjedelništva, COM(2003) 717 konč., oddelek 2.l.
State aid Case Number N 110/2008.
Državna pomoč št. N110/2008.
See the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on national regional aid 2007–2013, point 2(8), footnote 8.
Glej Smernice Nadzornega organa o državni regionalni pomoči, 2007–2013, točka 2(8), opomba. 8.
State aid case N 554/06 – Germany, Rolandwerft which concerned the adaptation of a ship lift to lift heavier ships and state aid case C 612/06 – Germany, Volkswerft Stralsund OJ L 151, 13.6.2007, p. 33, also for the extension of a ship lift.
Državna pomoč št. N 554/06 – Nemčija, Rolandwerft v zvezi s prilagoditvijo ladijskega dvigala za dviganje težjih ladij in primer državne pomoči C 612/06 – Nemčija, Volkswerft Stralsund, UL 13.6.2007, L l5l, str. 33, tudi za razširitev ladijskega dvigala.
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH [2003] ECR I-7747.
Zadeva C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH, 2003, Recueil str. I-7747.
Case 304/85 Falck v Commission [1987] ECR 871, paragraph 27.
Zadeva 304/85 Falck proti Komisiji (1987), Recueil str. 871, točka 27.