natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It was therefore considered in the best interest of all to open the operation and maintenance market gradually: A gradual opening would ensure a rational allocation of the contracts because operators would be relieved from having to prepare bids in respect of the full contract portfolio on one and the same day.
Zato je veljalo, da je v najboljšem interesu vseh, da se trg upravljavskih in vzdrževalnih storitev odpre postopoma. Postopno odpiranje bi zagotovilo racionalno dodeljevanje pogodb, saj ponudnikom storitev ne bi bilo treba hkrati pripraviti ponudb za celoten pogodbeni portfelj.
A gradual opening would also be in line with the need for operators to gradually increase skills as service providers during the transitional period and hence a maturation of the market [138].
Postopno odpiranje bi bilo tudi v skladu s potrebo ponudnikov, da postopoma povečajo znanje in spretnosti kot ponudniki storitev v prehodnem obdobju, in tako tudi z dozorevanjem trga [138].
Finally, a gradual opening would be administratively easier and allow the Public Road Administration to develop the skills as a purchaser of the relevant services [139].
Končno, postopno odpiranje bi bilo lažje z upravnega vidika in bi Upravi za javne ceste omogočilo, da razvije znanja in spretnosti v vlogi naročnika ustreznih storitev [139].
According to the Norwegian authorities preparatory legislative work confirm this approach by highlighting that such elements were the reason that the market was not yet mature for competition on 1 January 2003 [140].
Po mnenju norveških organov pripravljalni zakonodajni akti potrjujejo ta pristop, saj poudarjajo, da so bili ravno taki elementi razlog, da trg 1. januarja 2003 še ni bil zrel za konkurenco [140].
In the event that the Authority should consider that market operators were in a position to provide the relevant services the Norwegian authorities argue that there were no reliable sources referring to prices lower than those fixed in the transitional contracts.
Če bi Nadzorni organ menil, da so bili ponudniki na trgu zmožni zagotoviti ustrezne storitve, norveški organi trdijo, da ni bilo nobenih zanesljivih virov, ki bi se sklicevali na cene, nižje od tistih iz prehodnih pogodb.
The five pilot contracts could not have been used as reference prices as they formed part of a process for ‘professionalising’ the Public Road Administration.
Petih pilotnih pogodb ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za referenčne cene, saj so bile del procesa „profesionalizacije“ Uprave za javne ceste.
This process included the preparation of a model contract on operation and maintenance which should be tested out by means of internal operation and maintenance contracts [141] and the five pilot contracts [142], thereby allowing the Public Road Administration to gain experience as a ‘contracting authority’.
Ta proces je vključeval vzorčno pogodbo o upravljanju in vzdrževanju, ki naj bi jo preizkusili z notranjimi pogodbami o upravljanju in vzdrževanju [141], in pet pilotnih pogodb [142], s katerimi naj bi Upravi za javne ceste omogočili, da pridobi izkušnje kot „naročnik“.
The purpose of the pilot contracts was therefore not to test the market for a market price.
Pilotne pogodbe torej niso bile namenjene preizkusu trga glede tržne cene.
Moreover, the bids submitted for the pilot contracts varied considerably (for example, for the Våler/Åsnes contract the highest bid was NOK 63 million while the lowest was NOK 30,4 million).
Poleg tega so se ponudbe, predložene za pilotne pogodbe, precej razlikovale (na primer: za pogodbo Våler/Åsnes je bila najvišja ponudba 63 milijonov NOK, najnižja pa 30,4 milijona NOK).
Such variety demonstrate that the market was immature and the prices could therefore not have constituted a reliable indication of the price level [143].
Tak razpon kaže, da je bil trg nezrel, zato cene niso mogle pomeniti zanesljivega kazalnika ravni cen [143].
Moreover, as the pilot contracts represent less than 2 % of the total road network (1000 out of a total of 54000 kilometres) they cover a small geographic area.
Poleg tega pilotne pogodbe pokrivajo manj kot 2 % celotnega cestnega omrežja (1000 od skupaj 54000 kilometrov) in tako le majhno geografsko območje.
Furthermore, the duties under the pilot contracts covered additional works [144].
Obveznosti iz pilotnih pogodb so zajemale še dodatna dela [144].
An illustrative example is the Bærum contract won by Selmer ASA at an original contract price of NOK 74940323.
Nazoren primer je pogodba Bærum, ki je bila dodeljena družbi Selmer ASA po prvotni pogodbeni ceni 74940323 NOK.
However, additional works meant that NOK 18726793 had to be added, thereby increasing the contract price with 25 %.
Vendar so dodatna dela pomenila, da je bilo treba prišteti 18726793 NOK, s čimer se je pogodbena cena zvišala za 25 %.
The volume of additional works in the pilot phase shows that the Public Road Administration miscalculated the work load involved in operation and maintenance contracts.
Obseg dodatnih del v pilotni fazi kaže, da se je Uprava za javne ceste uštela glede delovne obremenitve iz pogodb o upravljanju in vzdrževanju.
However, such additional works were included in the transitional contracts transferred to Mesta AS.
Taka dodatna dela pa so bila vključena v prehodne pogodbe, prenesene na družbo Mesta AS.
In this regard the authorities draw the attention to the fact that Report 118 warns against comparing experiences obtained in the context of the Bærum contract with other contracts [145].
V zvezi s tem organi poudarjajo dejstvo, da Poročilo 118 opozarja pred primerjavo izkušenj, pridobljenih v okviru pogodbe Bærum, z izkušnjami, pridobljenimi z drugimi pogodbami [145].
In the view of the Norwegian authorities the pilot contract prices could therefore not be used as reliable market price indicators.Aside from this the Norwegian authorities object to the suggestion in the Opening Decision (and as reiterated by Veidekke ASA) that the price level of the first group of operation and maintenance contracts subject to public tendering in 2003 could be representative for establishing a price level for the remaining transitional operation and maintenance contracts.
Po mnenju norveških organov cen pilotnih pogodb tako ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti kot zanesljive kazalnike tržne cene.Poleg tega norveški organi ugovarjajo domnevi iz odločbe o sprožitvi postopka (kot jo je ponovila tudi družba Veidekke ASA), da bi bila lahko raven cen prve skupine pogodb o upravljanju in vzdrževanju iz javnih razpisov v letu 2003 reprezentativna za določitev cenovne ravni za preostale prehodne pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju.
The Norwegian authorities argue that this price level is not reliable as the market of operation and maintenance services is not mature even today in the sense that it is impossible to foresee the results of a public procurement procedure.
Norveški organi trdijo, da ta raven cen ni zanesljiva, saj trg upravljavskih in vzdrževalnih storitev še danes ni zrel, saj je nemogoče predvideti rezultate postopka javnega naročanja.
The significant difference between the highest and the lowest bids in the contracts illustrate this.
To ponazarja precejšnja razlika med najvišjimi in najnižjimi ponudbami v pogodbah.
The lowest difference was 2 % while the highest difference was 113 %.
Najmanjša razlika je bila 2 %, največja pa 113 %.
This is not a sufficient basis for identifying a market price.
To ni zadostna podlaga za določanje tržne cene.
The Norwegian authorities questions whether a market price can be established by reference to the lowest bid in an immature market.
Norveški organi se sprašujejo, ali je mogoče tržno ceno določiti s sklicevanjem na najnižjo ponudbo na nezrelem trgu.
However, should the Authority come to the conclusion that there is nonetheless State aid involved in the prices of the contracts transferred to Mesta AS, the Norwegian authorities argue that such aid is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement by reference to Articles 61(3)(c) or 59(2).
Kakor koli že, če bo Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da gre pri cenah pogodb, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS, vendarle za državno pomoč, norveški organi trdijo, da je taka pomoč združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, pri čemer se sklicujejo na člen 61(3)(c) ali člen 59(2).
As to Article 61(3)(c), the Norwegian authorities have argued that Mesta AS was established to open up a monopolised market to full competition and create a sustainable market over a transitional period of four years [146].
Glede člena 61(3)(c) norveški organi trdijo, da je bila družba Mesta AS ustanovljena, da bi monopolizirani trg popolnoma odprli za konkurenco in v prehodnem obdobju štirih let [146] oblikovali trajnostni trg.
A gradual opening was necessary in order to ensure that national roads are safely operated and maintained.
Postopno odpiranje je bilo potrebno zaradi zagotovitve varnega upravljanja in vzdrževanja državnih cest.
As already stated preparatory legislative works confirm that the skills of the Public Road Administration (with limited experience as a purchaser of services and a controller of relevant contractual obligations) needed to be improved [147].
Kot je že bilo navedeno, pripravljalni zakonodajni akti potrjujejo, da je bilo treba izboljšati znanja in spretnosti Uprave za javne ceste (ki je imela omejene izkušnje v vlogi naročnika storitev in nadzornika ustreznih pogodbenih obveznosti) [147].
Also market operators needed time to adjust in order to be able to carry out the relevant tasks.
Tudi ponudniki na trgu so potrebovali čas za prilagoditev, da bi lahko izvajali ustrezne naloge.
A gradual increase in public tenders was considered to allow companies to gain competence and make investments for handling road operation and maintenance in a satisfactory manner.
Postopno povečanje števila javnih razpisov naj bi družbam omogočilo, da pridobijo pristojnosti in izvedejo naložbe v zadovoljivo izvajanje upravljanja in vzdrževanja cest.
As stated above, the gradual opening of the market ensures a rational allocation of the contracts as opposed to if the contracts would all be tendered out at the same time [148].
Kot je navedeno, v nasprotju s sočasno dodelitvijo vseh pogodb postopno odpiranje trga zagotavlja racionalno dodeljevanje pogodb [148].
Maintenance of road safety was to be achieved via tendering out the easiest contracts first and the most challenging contracts (involving roads in hard climate areas and changing weather conditions) last.
Ohranjanje varnosti v cestnem prometu naj bi dosegli tako, da bi na razpisih najprej dodelili najpreprostejše pogodbe, na koncu pa pogodbe, ki pomenijo največji izziv (vključno s pogodbami za ceste v težkih podnebnih razmerah in spreminjajočih se vremenskih razmerah).
Finally, the Norwegian authorities argue that it was legitimate to provide financing to Mesta AS for the costs of the transitional contracts.
Končno, norveški organi trdijo, da je bilo zakonito zagotoviti financiranje družbi Mesta AS za pokritje stroškov prehodnih pogodb.
It would be unreasonable to impose the obligation on Mesta AS to provide services under the transitional contracts without covering the costs as Mesta AS has higher costs than its competitors [149].Any aid granted via the transitional contracts was proportional because the duration was limited to maximum four years and the price was a fixed price which gives an incentive to improve efficiency.
Nerazumno bi bilo družbi Mesta AS naložiti obveznost, da izvaja storitve iz prehodnih pogodb brez pokritja stroškov, saj ima družba Mesta AS višje stroške od tekmecev [149].Vsaka pomoč, dodeljena s prehodnimi pogodbami, je bila sorazmerna, saj je bilo trajanje omejeno na največ štiri leta, cena pa je bila fiksna, kar spodbuja izboljšanje učinkovitosti.
Moreover, in view of the much better than anticipated earning ability during the first three years of operation, the Norwegian authorities made it clear in 2007 that no further funding would be awarded to Mesta AS for the restructuring measures.
Poleg tega so glede na precej boljšo zmožnost ustvarjanja zaslužka v prvih treh letih delovanja od predvidene norveški organi v letu 2007 jasno določili, da družbi Mesta AS za ukrepe za prestrukturiranje ne bodo dodelili nobenih nadaljnjih sredstev.
This shows that Mesta AS’ performance was monitored in order to control against overcompensation.
To dokazuje, da so spremljali uspešnost družbe Mesta AS zaradi nadzorovanja čezmernih nadomestil.
On this basis the authorities submit that the transitional operation and maintenance contracts were necessary ‘to achieve a sound market opening and fair competition’.
Organi na podlagi tega trdijo, da so bile prehodne pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju potrebne, „da bi dosegli zdravo odpiranje trga in pošteno konkurenco“.
Reference is made to the Commission’s decision in Destia in which the Commission found that the opening of the Finnish road service market to competition was a positive development and an important Community policy objective [150].
Sklicujejo se na odločbo Komisije v zadevi Destia, v kateri je Komisija ugotovila, da je bilo odpiranje finskega trga cestnih storitev za konkurenco pozitiven element in pomemben cilj politike Skupnosti [150].
Considering that the purpose of the reorganisation of Mesta AS is the same, the Norwegian authorities submits that the considerations in the Destia case are valid also in the present case.
Ob upoštevanju, da je namen reorganizacije družbe Mesta AS enak, norveški organi navajajo, da pomisleki v zadevi Destia veljajo tudi za obravnavani primer.
The transitional contracts have not had the effect of strengthening Mesta AS’ position in an unreasonable manner.
Prehodne pogodbe niso vplivale na nerazumno krepitev položaja družbe Mesta AS.
The approach taken was necessary and not disproportionate in order to achieve the opening up of the market.As regards Article 59(2) the Norwegian authorities submit that the transitional operation and maintenance contracts imposed a public service obligation on Mesta AS specified in the contracts (by specifying the nature, geographic coverage, frequency and duration of services to be provided).
Uporabljeni pristop je bil potreben, da bi dosegli odpiranje trga, in ni bil nesorazmeren.Glede člena 59(2) norveški organi navajajo, da so prehodne pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju družbi Mesta AS naložile obveznost javne storitve, opredeljene v pogodbah (z opredelitvijo narave, geografskega pokritja, pogostosti in trajanja storitev, ki naj bi se izvajale).
In line with the State aid Guidelines on public service compensation, state ownership of enterprises and aid to public enterprise (the ‘State aid Guidelines on public service compensation’) the amount of compensation does not exceed what was necessary to cover the costs, taking into account a reasonable profit [151].
V skladu s smernicami o državni pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, državnega lastništva podjetij in pomoči za javna podjetja („Smernice o državni pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve“) znesek nadomestila ne presega tistega, kar je potrebno za pokritje stroškov, ob upoštevanju razumnega dobička [151].
Paragraph 8 of the State aid Guidelines on public service compensation provides that the national authorities has a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services classified as services of general economic interest.
Odstavek 8 Smernic o državni pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve določa, da imajo nacionalni organi široko diskrecijo glede narave storitev, opredeljenih kot storitve splošnega gospodarskega interesa.
On this basis the Norwegian authorities submit that the transitional operation and maintenance contracts included tasks which could not at the time be sufficiently supplied by the market to ensure sufficient road safety and were therefore imposed on Mesta AS.
Na podlagi tega norveški organi navajajo, da so prehodne pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju vključevale naloge, ki jih trg takrat ni mogel zadovoljivo ponuditi, da bi zagotovili zadostno varnost v cestnem prometu, zato so bile te naloge naložene družbi Mesta AS.
Legislative preparatory works provide that road safety had to be ensured both during and after the opening of the market.
Pripravljalni zakonodajni akti določajo, da mora biti varnost v cestnem prometu zagotovljena tako med odpiranjem trga kot po njegovem odprtju.
Mesta AS was the best means to ensure the responsibility of the national authorities to maintain road safety.
Družba Mesta AS je bila najboljše sredstvo za zagotovitev odgovornosti nacionalnih organov, da bodo ohranjali varnost v cestnem prometu.
Mesta AS could not reject the authorities’ imposition of this duty but was under a legal obligation to perform the services defined in the transitional contracts.
Družba Mesta AS ni mogla zavrniti te naloge, ki so ji jo naložili organi, hkrati pa je bila pravno zavezana, da izvede storitve, opredeljene v prehodnih pogodbah.
EXEMPTION FROM DOCUMENT DUTY
OPROSTITEV PLAČILA TAKSE ZA DOKUMENTE
The Norwegian authorities argue that since the evaluation of the contribution in kind (in the opening balance) was based on the premise that Mesta AS would not pay this, the exemption from document duty and registration fee do not constitute an economic advantage for Mesta AS.
Norveški organi trdijo, da oprostitev plačila takse za dokumente in vpis v zemljiško knjigo ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za družbo Mesta AS, saj je ocena prispevka v naravi (v začetni bilanci) temeljila na predpostavki, da družba tega ne bo plačala.
The exemption did therefore not have any effect on the solidity or capital structure nor did it have an impact on the total values in Mesta AS.
Oprostitev tako ni vplivala niti na finančno trdnost ali kapitalsko strukturo niti na skupne vrednosti v družbi Mesta AS.
If no exemption could have been granted, payment of the duty would have been compensated by a corresponding contribution in cash forming part of Mesta AS’ equity.
Če ne bi bila zagotovljena oprostitev, bi plačilo takse nadomestili z ustreznim prispevkom v denarju, ki bi bil del trajnega kapitala družbe Mesta AS.
This would have lead to the same result as if an exemption would have been granted.
To bi pripeljalo do enakega rezultata, kot če bi bila odobrena oprostitev.
The authorities have further stated that it seems as if Decision 318/05/COL was based on the absence of a link between the exemption and the extent of equity in Entra (cf. page 26 of the Decision) [152].
Organi so še navedli, da je videti, kot da je Odločba št. 318/05/COL temeljila na manjkajoči povezavi med oprostitvijo in obsegom trajnega kapitala v družbi Entra (glej stran 26 Odločbe) [152].
The Norwegian authorities argue that this is not the case in the present case since there was no doubt that, in the absence of an exemption, the duty would have been offset by a contribution in cash for a corresponding amount.
Norveški organi trdijo, da to v obravnavanem primeru ne velja, saj tu ni nobenega dvoma, da bi takso, če ne bi bila oproščena, izravnali s prispevkom v denarju za ustrezen znesek.
It follows from the preparatory works that the size of the equity was set with regard to Mesta AS’ short-term liquidity situation.
Iz pripravljalnih aktov izhaja, da je bil obseg trajnega kapitala določen glede na kratkoročni likvidnostni položaj družbe Mesta AS.
Aside from this the Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption from document duty is not selective by reference to the continuity principle which intends to facilitate implementation of measures which are socio-economically desirable.
Poleg tega norveški organi trdijo, da oprostitev plačila takse za dokumente ni selektivna, in se pri tem sklicujejo na načelo kontinuitete, katerega namen je olajšati izvajanje ukrepov, ki so družbeno in gospodarsko zaželeni.
STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 61(1) OF THE EEA AGREEMENT
DRŽAVNA POMOČ V SMISLU ČLENA 61(1) SPORAZUMA EGP
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: ‘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.’
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP se glasi: „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.“
To be termed State aid, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement a measure must meet the following four cumulative criteria: The measure must (i) confer on recipients an economic advantage which is not received in the normal course of business; (ii) the advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources and must (iii) be selective by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; and (iv) distort competition and affect trade between Contracting Parties.
Da bi ukrep označili za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora ta izpolnjevati naslednja štiri merila: (i) ukrep mora prejemnikom prinesti gospodarsko prednost, ki je ne bi bili deležni pri običajnem poteku poslovanja, (ii) ugodnost mora dodeliti država ali mora biti dodeljena iz državnih sredstev, (iii) ukrep mora dajati prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga in (iv) ukrep mora izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
In the following it is examined whether these four cumulative criteria are met in the present case.
Sledi pregled, ali so v obravnavanem primeru izpolnjena ta štiri merila.
Restructuring and reorganisation measures
Ukrepi za prestrukturiranje in reorganizacijo
Mesta AS has received funding from the State for purposes of the costs related to three types of pension packages offered to employees transferred from their previous state employment to Mesta AS.
Družba Mesta AS je od države prejela sredstva za pokritje stroškov, povezanih s tremi pokojninskimi paketi, ponujenimi zaposlenim, ki so bili premeščeni s prejšnjega delovnega mesta v državni upravi v družbo Mesta AS.
The funds cover (i) costs of paying pension contributions corresponding to that of a civil servant between 1 January 2003 and the end of 2007; (ii) costs involved in maintaining employees’ entitlement to a special (early) retirement age; and (iii) costs relating to early pension packages offered between 1 January 2003 and the end of 2005.
Sredstva zajemajo: (i) stroške plačila pokojninskih prispevkov, ki ustrezajo prispevkom za državne uradnike med 1. januarjem 2003 in koncem leta 2007, (ii) stroške zaradi ohranjanja upravičenosti zaposlenih do posebne (predčasne) upokojitvene starosti in (iii) stroške, povezane s paketi predčasnega upokojevanja, ponujenimi med 1. januarjem 2003 in koncem leta 2005.
As a preliminary point, the Authority will comment on certain specific arguments put forward by the Norwegian authorities.
Nadzorni organ bo najprej komentiral nekatere posebne argumente, ki so jih predložili norveški organi.
First, the Norwegian authorities have argued that since a potential buyer of the Production Department would have demanded a reduction in the purchase price proportionate to the disadvantages of the restructuring measures, the compensation by the authorities of such disadvantages does not qualify as State aid.
Prvič, norveški organi trdijo, da bi potencialni kupec Oddelka za gradnjo zahteval znižanje nakupne cene, ki bi bilo sorazmerno s pomanjkljivostmi ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, zato nadomestila organov za take pomanjkljivosti ni mogoče opredeliti kot državno pomoč.