natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Agreement, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties.’
„Podjetja, pooblaščena za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, oziroma podjetja, ki imajo značaj dohodkovnega monopola, ravnajo po pravilih iz tega sporazuma, zlasti po pravilih o konkurenci, kolikor uporaba takšnih pravil pravno ali dejansko ne ovira izvajanja posebnih nalog, ki so jim dodeljene. Razvoj trgovine ne sme biti prizadet v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z interesi pogodbenic.“
The Authority notes that although they are not applicable to the transport sector [68], the Authority’s Guidelines for state aid in the form of public service compensation (‘the Guidelines on public service compensation’) to a large extent summarise generally applicable principles of public service compensation.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da Smernice Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči v obliki nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice o nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe), čeprav se ne uporabljajo za prometni sektor [68], večinoma povzemajo splošno veljavna načela, ki urejajo nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe.
In the following, the Guidelines on public service compensation are referred to only insofar as they express such generally applicable principles.
V nadaljevanju se smernice o nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe navajajo samo, kolikor izražajo taka splošno veljavna načela.
For state aid to constitute public service compensation compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of Article 59(2), firstly the service in question must constitute a service of general economic interest.
Da bi bila državna pomoč v obliki nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe lahko združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP na podlagi člena 59(2), mora, prvič, zadevna storitev biti storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Secondly, the undertaking in question must be entrusted by the EFTA State with the provision of that service.
Drugič, država Efte mora zadevnemu podjetju zaupati opravljanje te storitve.
Thirdly, the amount of compensation must be granted in a transparent manner [69], and be proportionate [70] in the sense that it shall not exceed what is necessary [71] to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations including a reasonable profit [72].
Tretjič, znesek nadomestila mora biti dodeljen pregledno [69] in mora biti sorazmeren [70] ter ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno [71] za pokritje stroškov, ki nastanejo z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe, vključno z razumnim dobičkom.
In the Decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority did not question whether the two first criteria were fulfilled [73].
V odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave Nadzorni organ ni dvomil o tem, ali sta bili prvi dve merili izpolnjeni.
In the Authority’s view, however, on the basis of the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, it cannot be concluded that the third criterion is complied with.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa pa na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili norveški organi, ni mogoče sklepati, da je izpolnjeno tudi tretje merilo.
At the outset the Authority reiterates that the Hurtigruten Agreement was concluded on the basis of a public tender.
Na začetku je Nadzorni organ znova ponovil, da je bil Sporazum Hurtigruten sklenjen na podlagi javnega razpisa.
On a general level, the Authority notes that a proper tender procedure will usually ensure that no aid is involved in the ensuing contract.
Na splošno Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da pri pravilnem razpisnem postopku iz njega izhajajoča pogodba običajno ne bo vključevala pomoči.
In certain circumstances, public authorities must be able to cancel public service contracts entered into on the basis of a tender procedure and instead conclude a new public service contract involving state aid.
V določenih okoliščinah morajo biti javni organi sposobni prekiniti pogodbo za opravljanje storitev po javnem naročilu, ki so jo sklenili na podlagi razpisnega postopka, in namesto tega skleniti novo pogodbo za opravljanje storitev po javnem naročilu, ki vključuje državno pomoč.
However, this was not the approach favoured by the Norwegian authorities in the case at hand.
Vendar to ni bil pristop, ki so mu norveški organi v zadevnem primeru dali prednost.
As mentioned above, the amount of compensation paid in the form of the three measures was not granted in a transparent manner in the context of the tender but was the result of bilateral renegotiation carried out years after the conclusion of the contract.
Kot že zgoraj navedeno, znesek nadomestila, izplačanega v obliki treh ukrepov, ni bil dodeljen pregledno v okviru razpisa, temveč je bil rezultat dvostranskih ponovnih pogajanj, ki so potekala leta po sklenitvi pogodbe.
When granting aid in the form of public service compensation, the Norwegian authorities must ensure that that aid is compatible with the rules applicable to such aid.
Pri dodeljevanju pomoči v obliki nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe morajo norveški organi zagotoviti, da je taka pomoč združljiva s pravili, ki se zanjo uporabljajo.
Importantly, when the aided undertaking carries out activities falling outside the public service remit, the commercial activities must carry an appropriate share of the fixed costs common to both types of activities [74].3.2.
Pomembno je, da podjetje, ki je prejelo pomoč, kadar opravlja dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, poskrbi, da komercialne dejavnosti nosijo ustrezen delež fiksnih stroškov, ki so skupni obema vrstama dejavnosti.
The amount of compensation for the public service
Znesek nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe
According to the explanations provided by the Norwegian authorities, the three measures were intended to compensate Hurtigruten for: (i) new costs related to the introduction of the NOx tax related to the provision of the public service, and (ii) the general increase of the costs of input factors connected to the provision of the public service.
Glede na razlage, ki so jih podali norveški organi, je bil namen treh ukrepov v korist podjetja Hurtigruten zagotoviti nadomestilo: (i) za nove stroške, povezane z uvedbo davka na NOx, v zvezi z opravljanjem javne službe in (ii) za splošno povečanje stroškov vhodnih dejavnikov, povezanih z opravljanjem javne službe.
The Authority is of the view that the approach of the Norwegian authorities to cost allocation does not demonstrate that the three measures do not lead to over-compensation of the public service.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa iz pristopa norveških organov k razporeditvi stroškov ni mogoče sklepati, da navedeni trije ukrepi ne vodijo k prekomernemu nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe.
Inconsistent approach to fixed common costs
Neskladen pristop k skupnim fiksnim stroškom
In cases where public service providers carry out commercial activities next to the public service, the commercial activities must, as a general principle, carry a proportionate share of fixed common costs [75].
Kadar ponudniki javnih storitev poleg javne službe opravljajo tudi komercialne dejavnosti, velja splošno načelo, da morajo te komercialne dejavnosti nositi sorazmerni delež skupnih fiksnih stroškov.
According to the Guidelines on public service compensation:‘The costs to be taken into consideration include all the costs incurred in the operation of the service of general economic interest. Where the activities of the undertaking in question are confined to the service of general economic interest, all its costs may be taken into consideration. Where the undertaking also carries out activities falling outside the scope of the service of general economic interest, only the costs associated with the service of general economic interest may be taken into consideration. The costs allocated to the service of general economic interest may cover all the variable costs incurred in providing the service of general economic interest, an appropriate contribution to fixed costs common to both the service of general economic interest and other activities and an adequate return on the own capital assigned to the service of general economic interest’ [76].
Smernice o nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe določajo naslednje:„Stroški, ki jih je treba upoštevati, vključujejo vse stroške, ki nastanejo pri opravljanju storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena. Če so dejavnosti zadevnega podjetja omejene na storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, se lahko upoštevajo vsi njegovi stroški. Če podjetje opravlja tudi dejavnosti zunaj obsega storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, se lahko upoštevajo le stroški, povezani s storitvami splošnega gospodarskega pomena. Stroški za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena lahko vključujejo vse spremenljive stroške, ki so nastali pri opravljanju storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ustrezen prispevek k fiksnim stroškom, skupnim storitvam splošnega gospodarskega pomena in drugim dejavnostim, ter ustrezen donos lastnega kapitala, pripisan storitvam splošnega gospodarskega pomena.“ [76]
Only exceptional circumstances can justify deviations from this principle; the Authority’s Guidelines on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting states that allocation of common costs between the public service activity and other activities is not mandatory when separation of costs is not ‘possible in a meaningful way’ [77].
Odstopanja od tega načela so upravičena samo v izjemnih okoliščinah; Smernice Nadzornega organa o uporabi pravil državne pomoči za storitve javne radiotelevizije navajajo, da razporeditev skupnih stroškov med dejavnostjo javne službe in drugimi dejavnostmi ni obvezna, kadar ločevanje stroškov ni „smiselno mogoče“.
In those cases however, the net benefits stemming from the activities outside the public service remit that share costs with the public service obligation, must be allocated to the public service side [78].
Vendar je treba v takih primerih neto koristi dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu in si delijo stroške z obveznostjo javne službe, upoštevati pri javni službi.
The Authority cannot see that Hurtigruten is in such an exceptional position.
Nadzorni organ ne vidi, da bi bilo podjetje Hurtigruten v takem izjemnem položaju.
Even if it may be argued that separating the fixed common costs of Hurtigruten’s activities inside and outside the public service remit may not always be a straightforward task, separation based on i.a. the revenue stemming from the turnover of the two forms of activities is indeed possible [79].On this basis, the Authority concludes that the generally applicable principle of cost sharing applies in the present case.
Čeprav lahko trdimo, da ločevanje skupnih fiksnih stroškov iz dejavnosti podjetja Hurtigruten, ki so v javnem interesu, in drugih dejavnosti ni vedno preprosto, je ločevanje, ki med drugim temelji na prihodkih iz prometa obeh vrst dejavnosti, dejansko mogoče. [79]Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da se v zadevnem primeru uporablja splošno veljavno načelo razporeditve stroškov.
Therefore the Authority cannot accept the approach taken under the third method of the PWC Report, where no distinction is made between the public service and the commercial activities of Hurtigruten.
Zato Nadzorni organ ne more sprejeti pristopa iz tretje metode poročila PWC, pri kateri ni nobenega razlikovanja med javno službo in komercialnimi dejavnostmi podjetja Hurtigruten.
Although Hurtigruten carries out activities outside the public service remit, the three reports do not consistently take into consideration the fact that the commercial activities must carry a proportionate share of fixed costs common to the public service and the commercial activities as required by the case-law mentioned above.
Čeprav podjetje Hurtigruten opravlja dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, navedena tri poročila ne upoštevajo dosledno dejstva, da morajo komercialne dejavnosti nositi sorazmerni delež fiksnih stroškov, ki so skupni javni službi in komercialnim dejavnostim, kakor predpisuje zgoraj navedena sodna praksa.
In the reports, several categories of such costs are fully allocated to the public service side (i.a. harbour charges, maintenance, fuel (less the Geirangerfjorden consumption)) whilst other categories of fixed common costs, while not fully covered by the public service side, do not appear to be allocated according to the proportions of the public service obligation on the one hand and the commercial activities on the other (the public service side carries 90 % of the NOx cost related to the fuel consumption) [80].Due to the insufficient allocation of fixed common costs, the Authority cannot conclude that the two first methods of the PWC Report or the two BDO Reports demonstrate that the three measures do not involve over-compensation for the public service.
V poročilih je več kategorij takih stroškov v celoti pripisanih javni službi (npr. pristaniške pristojbine, vzdrževanje, gorivo (razen porabe v fjordu Geiranger)), medtem ko se zdi, da druge kategorije skupnih fiksnih stroškov, ki jih javna služba ne pokriva v celoti, niso pripisane sorazmerno z obveznostjo javne službe na eni strani in komercialnimi dejavnostmi na drugi strani (javna služba nosi 90 % stroškov za NOx, povezanih s porabo goriva). [80]Zaradi nezadostne dodelitve skupnih fiksnih stroškov Nadzorni organ ne more potrditi, da naj bi prvi dve metodi iz poročila PWC ali obeh poročil BDO potrjevali, da navedeni trije ukrepi ne vključujejo prekomernega nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe.
In sum, based on the inconsistent approach to fixed common costs as described above, the Authority concludes that in none of the three methods of the PWC Report or the methods of the two BDO Reports have the common costs been properly allocated to public service and commercial activities so that only costs associated with the service of general economic interest are taken into consideration.
Na kratko, zaradi nedoslednega pristopa k skupnim fiksnim stroškom, kot je opisan zgoraj, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da pri nobeni od treh metod iz poročila PWC ali metod iz obeh poročil BDO skupni stroški niso bili pravilno pripisani javni službi in komercialnim dejavnostim, tako da bi se upoštevali le stroški, povezani s storitvami splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated that the three measures do not involve over-compensation for the public service.
Torej je nemogoče dokazati, da navedeni trije ukrepi ne vključujejo prekomernega nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe.
No separation of accounts
Brez vodenja ločenih računov
Although Hurtigruten carries out activities outside the public service remit, it has not implemented a separation of accounts between the public services and the other activities [81].
Čeprav podjetje Hurtigruten opravlja tudi dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, ni vodilo ločenih računov za javne storitve in druge dejavnosti.
It can thus be established that an essential prerequisite for a transparent system of public service compensation is missing [82].3.2.3.
Posledično lahko ugotovimo, da bistveni predpogoj za pregleden sistem nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe ni bil izpolnjen.
Based on unrepresentative hypothetical costs and revenues where the real costs and revenues are known
Opiranje na nereprezentativne hipotetične stroške in prihodke, čeprav so dejanski stroški in prihodki znani
Hurtigruten’s actual costs and revenues should be used as the basis for the calculation of compensation.
Za izračun nadomestila je treba uporabiti dejanske stroške in prihodke podjetja Hurtigruten.
The Authority notes, firstly, that the PWC Report and the second BDO Report calculate the cost of the public service on the basis of the costs and revenues related to the operation of a hypothetical minimum fleet [83].
Prvič, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so v poročilu PWC in drugem poročilu BDO stroški javne službe izračunani na podlagi stroškov in prihodkov, povezanih z obratovanjem hipotetične minimalne flote.
The Norwegian authorities appear to justify the lack of allocation of common cost to the activities outside the public service remit by emphasising that the calculations are not based on the actual costs and revenues of operating the entire Hurtigruten fleet, but rather on the costs and profits of MS Narvik or MS Vesterålen.
Zdi se, da norveški organi upravičujejo nezadostno dodelitev skupnih stroškov dejavnostim, ki niso v javnem interesu, s poudarjanjem, da izračuni ne temeljijo na dejanskih stroških in prihodkih iz obratovanja celotne flote podjetja Hurtigruten, temveč na stroških in dobičkih ladij MS Narvik ali MS Vesterålen.
The argument appears to be that when the costs of the public service are calculated strictly on the basis of the costs related to operating a hypothetical ‘minimum fleet’, the cost of which is likely to be lower than the cost of operating the actual Hurtigruten fleet, the compensation will not exceed the actual costs incurred in the operation of the public service.
Pri tem naj bi se opirali na to, da nadomestilo ne bo preseglo dejanskih stroškov, nastalih pri opravljanju javne službe, če se stroški javne službe izračunajo strogo na podlagi stroškov, povezanih z obratovanjem hipotetične „minimalne flote“, katere stroški verjetno ne bodo presegli stroškov obratovanja dejanske flote Hurtigruten.
However, this method does not take into consideration the fact that the activities outside the public service remit must carry a proportionate share of the common costs.
Vendar ta metoda ne upošteva dejstva, da morajo dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, nositi sorazmerni delež skupnih stroškov.
The Authority assumes that the actual fleet and the hypothetical minimum fleet will not have an identical ratio of public service activity on the one hand, and activities outside the public service remit on the other.
Nadzorni organ domneva, da dejanska flota in hipotetična minimalna flota ne bosta izkazovali enakega razmerja med dejavnostjo javne službe na eni strani in dejavnostmi, ki niso v javnem interesu, na drugi strani.
The ‘minimum fleet’ method, as the name implies, is based on a minimum capacity fleet.
Metoda „minimalne flote“, kakor že samo ime nakazuje, temelji na floti z najmanjšo zmogljivostjo.
It is most likely that the actual (higher capacity) fleet carries out a larger part of its activities outside the public service remit than the hypothetical minimum fleet.
Zelo verjetno je, da dejanska flota (z večjo zmogljivostjo) opravlja večji del dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, v primerjavi s hipotetično minimalno floto.
If that is the case, the activities outside the public service remit should carry a larger share of the fixed common costs.
V tem primeru bi morale dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, nositi večji delež skupnih fiksnih stroškov.
On this basis, the Authority rejects the argument that calculations related to the hypothetical minimum fleet demonstrate that Hurtigruten has not been over-compensated.
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ zavrača trditev, da naj bi izračuni, povezani s hipotetično minimalno floto, dokazovali, da podjetje Hurtigruten ni prejelo prekomernega nadomestila.
Secondly, in the context of an ex-post calculation of the compensation for the provision of a public service, the actual fuel costs must be used as a basis for the calculation of the cost of providing the public service.
Drugič, pri naknadnem izračunu nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe je treba kot podlago za izračun stroškov pri opravljanju javne službe uporabiti dejanske stroške goriva.
The Norwegian authorities cannot simply disregard Hurtigruten’s hedging activities, as that could lead to over-compensation whenever the hedging activities prove successful (as a lower price is attained by hedging).
Norveški organi ne morejo preprosto zanemariti zavarovanja, ki ga je uredilo podjetje Hurtigruten, saj bi to lahko vodilo k prekomernemu nadomestilu, če bi se dejavnosti zavarovanja izkazale za uspešne (z zavarovanjem se namreč doseže nižja cena).
Thirdly, the Authority has no reason to believe that the Norwegian authorities do not have access to the actual costs and revenues of Hurtigruten; indeed the second method in the PWC Report and the first BDO Report appears to be based on the costs of the actual fleet.
Tretjič, Nadzorni organ nima nobenega razloga za domnevo, da norveški organi nimajo dostopa do dejanskih stroškov in prihodkov podjetja Hurtigruten. Pravzaprav naj bi druga metoda iz poročila PWC in prvo poročilo BDO temeljila na stroških dejanske flote.
As indicated above, it is the actual and representative costs that are relevant in calculating the public service cost.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so za izračun stroškov javne službe odločilni dejanski in reprezentativni stroški.
An assessment of unrepresentative hypothetical costs is not a substitute.
Ocena nereprezentativnih hipotetičnih stroškov tega ne more nadomestiti.
The absence of separate accounts for public service activities and other commercial activities, the inconsistent approach to cost allocation and the reliance on unrepresentative hypothetical (and not actually incurred) costs, entails that the Authority cannot conclude that the three measures do not involve any over-compensation.
Zaradi neobstoja ločenih računov za dejavnosti javne službe in druge komercialne dejavnosti, neskladnega pristopa k razporeditvi stroškov in opiranja na nereprezentativne hipotetične (in ne dejansko nastale) stroške Nadzorni organ ne more potrditi, da navedeni trije ukrepi ne vključujejo prekomernega nadomestila.
On this basis, the Authority concludes that the three measures cannot constitute public service compensation compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 59(2).
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da se navedeni trije ukrepi ne morejo obravnavati kot nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe, združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP na podlagi člena 59(2) Sporazuma.
Compatibility of the measures as an ‘emergency measure’ or restructuring aid
Združljivost ukrepov kot „izredni ukrep“ ali pomoč za prestrukturiranje
The Authority recalls that direct aid aimed at covering operating losses is, in general, not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ želi spomniti, da neposredna pomoč, namenjena kritju izgub iz poslovanja, na splošno ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Since the additional compensation under investigation in this decision cover costs related to the day-to-day operation of Hurtigruten, the measures are to be regarded as operating aid [84].Such operating aid may, exceptionally, be approved if the conditions set out in derogation provisions of the EEA Agreement are fulfilled.
Ker dodatno nadomestilo, ki se preiskuje v tej odločbi, zajema stroške, povezane s tekočim poslovanjem podjetja Hurtigruten, se ukrepi lahko obravnavajo kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje [84].Taka pomoč za tekoče poslovanje se lahko izjemoma odobri, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz določb o odstopanju iz Sporazuma EGP.
Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement provides for such exemptions.
Take izjeme so določene v členu 61(3) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities have, in their reply to the opening decision, invoked the exemption under Article 61(3)(c) and the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.
Norveški organi so v svojem odgovoru na odločbo o začetku postopka preiskave uveljavljali izjemo iz člena 61(3)(c) ter smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
This will be assessed below, but first the Authority will address the submission the Norwegian authorities have made referring to ‘emergency measures’.
To bo preučeno v nadaljevanju, potem ko bo Nadzorni organ obravnaval navedbo norveških organov, ki se sklicujejo na „izredne ukrepe“.
Emergency measures – 61(3)(b), or rescue measure under Article 61(3)(c)EEA
Izredni ukrepi – člen 61(3)(b) ali reševalni ukrep v skladu s členom 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP