natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Norwegian authorities explained that, in essence, the change from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene as the provider of the service was a change of a formal nature.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je bila sprememba podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier v podjetje AS Sporveisbussene kot izvajalca storitve v osnovi sprememba formalnega značaja.
By establishing AS Sporveisbussene, AS Oslo Sporveier created a subsidiary for operating public bus services that it formerly ran itself.
Z ustanovitvijo podjetja AS Sporveisbussene je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier ustanovilo odvisno podjetje, ki bo izvajalo storitve javnega avtobusnega prevoza, ki jih je pred tem izvajalo samo.
AS Oslo Sporveier – in its position as the mother company – remained, however, the primary recipient of the compensation and holder of the concession, and simply underwent an internal re-organisation that led to AS Sporveisbussene being in charge of providing the services in accordance with the concession.
Podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier – v vlogi matičnega podjetja – pa je ostalo glavni prejemnik nadomestila in imetnik koncesije ter je zgolj opravilo notranjo reorganizacijo, na podlagi katere je podjetje AS Sporveisbussene postalo odgovorno za izvajanje storitev v skladu s koncesijo.
For this it received compensation from its mother company.
Za to je od matičnega podjetja prejelo nadomestilo.
In a case concerning the transfer of guaranteed loans between companies, the Commission stated the following:
V zadevi, ki se nanaša na prenos posojil z jamstvom med podjetji, je Komisija navedla naslednje:
“the guarantees provided in connection with loans taken out prior to 1 May 2004 (accession of Hungary to the European Union) were granted before accession and notified to the Commission in compliance with Annex IV.3 of the Accession Treaty. Although they have been transferred to a new undertaking the Commission considers that this was a purely administrative act since existing loans covered by already approved guarantees were transferred to a new undertaking. The transfer was the consequence of a mere reorganization of MÀV Zrt. without any change in the activities involved or the content of the aid measures. Thus the Commission comes to the conclusion that despite the transfer the guarantees are still considered as existing aid”. [110](199) On the basis of the above, the Authority finds that the reorganisation of 1997 cannot be held to have involved a substantive change to the aid scheme.
„jamstva v zvezi s posojili pred 1. majem 2004 (pristop Madžarske k Evropski uniji), so bila dodeljena pred pristopom in priglašena Komisiji v skladu s Prilogo IV.3 k Pristopni pogodbi. Čeprav so bila prenesena na novo podjetje, Komisija meni, da je bilo to čisto upravno dejanje, saj so bila na novo podjetje prenesena obstoječa posojila z že odobrenim jamstvom. Prenos je bil posledica reorganizacije podjetja MÀV Zrt brez kakršne koli spremembe dejavnosti ali vsebine ukrepov pomoči. Komisija zato sklepa, da se jamstva kljub prenosu še vedno obravnavajo kot obstoječa pomoč“ [110].(199) Na podlagi navedenega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da reorganizacija v letu 1997 ni mogla biti vzrok za bistvene spremembe sheme pomoči.
Consequently, the scheme remained in the Authority’s view an existing aid scheme after the reorganisation.
Zato se je shema po mnenju Nadzornega organa ohranila kot obstoječa shema pomoči tudi po reorganizaciji.
Renewal of concession
Podaljšanje koncesije
As mentioned above, it follows from the legal provisions providing for the aid scheme that the provider of scheduled bus services needs both a general concession and a special concession.
Kot je navedeno, iz pravnih določb, ki določajo shemo pomoči, izhaja, da izvajalec storitev rednega avtobusnega prevoza potrebuje splošno in posebno koncesijo.
Article 27 of the CTA moreover stipulates that special concessions may be granted for a period of 10 years at the time.
V členu 27 ZKP je poleg tega določeno, da se posebne koncesije lahko izdajo za deset let naenkrat.
Also as mentioned above, the relevant provisions of the CTA and CTR have not been materially changed compared to the Transport Act and the then applicable regulations.
Prav tako, kot je že navedeno, se ustrezne določbe iz ZKP in UKP niso bistveno spremenile v primerjavi z Zakonom o prevozu in takrat veljavnimi predpisi.
Thus, the statutory provisions governing the scheme have with regard to the concessions not been materially altered after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.
Zakonske določbe, ki urejajo shemo, se v zvezi s koncesijami po začetku veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP torej niso bistveno spremenile.
The individual concessions that have been granted in line with the above mentioned statutory provisions constitute the acts of entrustment under the existing aid scheme.
Individualne koncesije, dodeljene v skladu z navedenimi zakonskimi določbami, pomenijo akte pooblastitve v okviru obstoječe sheme pomoči.
The entrustments in essence determine the route(s) for which the concessionaire has a right and obligation to provide a scheduled service against public service compensation.
Pooblastitve v osnovi določajo proge, na katerih ima koncesionar pravico in obveznost, da izvaja redne storitve na podlagi nadomestila za javne storitve.
The entrustments are therefore not part of the provisions providing for the aid scheme.
Pooblastitve torej niso del določb, ki določajo shemo pomoči.
Thus, the existing public service compensation scheme would not be considered altered by the award of a new concession.
Obstoječa shema nadomestil za javne storitve se z dodelitvijo nove koncesije tako ne bi mogla obravnavati kot spremenjena.
Rather, such concessions simply implement the provisions of a legal act, namely the CTA and the CTR, on the basis of which they are awarded.
Takšne koncesije namreč samo izvajajo določbe pravnega akta, tj. ZKP in UKP, na podlagi katerega so bile dodeljene.
In a case concerning compensation payments to the public service broadcaster RTP in Portugal the Commission stated:
V zadevi, ki se nanaša na plačila nadomestil za javnega izdajatelja radiotelevizijskega programa RTP na Portugalskem, je Komisija navedla:
“Furthermore, the conclusion of new concession agreements does not alter the qualification of the annual financing regime as existing aid, given that they only implement the provisions concerning the financing of RTP as previously established, including modifications of a technical nature”.
„S sklenitvijo novih sporazumov o koncesiji se poleg tega ne spremeni uvrstitev letnega režima financiranja med obstoječo pomoč, pod pogojem da navedeni sporazumi le izvajajo določbe v zvezi s financiranjem RTP, kot je bilo že določeno, vključno s spremembami tehničnega značaja“ [111].
Thus, the renewal of the concession did not alter the existing aid scheme.
S podaljšanjem koncesije se torej obstoječa shema pomoči ni spremenila.
The introduction of the bonus additionally provided incentives to possibly maximise the annual return within the remit of reasonable profit.
Uvedba bonusov je dodatno zagotovila spodbude za možno povečanje letnega donosa v okviru razumnega dobička.
It is thus concluded that such a bonus system did not affect the substance of the compensation granted and constituted an integral part of the existing aid scheme.
Ugotavlja se torej, da takšen sistem bonusov ni vplival na temelj dodeljenega nadomestila in je tvoril sestavni del obstoječe sheme pomoči.
Aid granted on the basis of the provisions providing for the scheme
Pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi določb, ki določajo shemo
Judgment in Case E-14/10
Sodba v zadevi E-14/10
In the judgment in Case E-14/10, the EFTA Court stated the following on the question of the existing or new nature of the aid:
V sodbi v zadevi E-14/10 je Sodišče Efte v zvezi z vprašanjem značaja obstoječe ali nove pomoči navedlo:
“(…) what is relevant is whether the aid was granted in accordance with the provisions providing for it.
„(…) pomembno je, ali je bila pomoč dodeljena v skladu z določbami, ki jo določajo.
(…) in so far as the compensation payments were indeed used to finance the operation of non-profitable scheduled bus services, the defendant (the Authority) may correctly have classified those payments as existing aid.
(…) tožena stranka (Nadzorni organ) je, kolikor so bila nadomestila dejansko uporabljena za financiranje izvajanja nedonosnih rednih avtobusnih storitev, pravilno opredelila navedena plačila kot obstoječo pomoč.
However, (…) any aid granted to Oslo Sporveier in excess of the losses actually incurred in connection with the services in question cannot be regarded to constitute, on the basis of that aid scheme, existing aid (…)” [112]
Vendar (…) se pomoč, dodeljena podjetju Oslo Sporveier, ki presega dejansko nastale izgube, povezane z zadevnimi storitvami, na podlagi navedene sheme pomoči ne more šteti za obstoječo pomoč (…)“ [112].
It follows from the judgment of the EFTA Court that only payments made on the basis of the existing aid scheme can be considered as existing aid disbursed under that scheme.
Iz sodbe Sodišča Efte izhaja, da se lahko samo plačila, izvedena na podlagi sheme obstoječe pomoči, štejejo kot obstoječa pomoč, izplačana po tej shemi.
Payments not made on the basis of the provisions providing for the scheme cannot be protected by the existing aid nature of that scheme [113].
Plačila, ki niso izvedena na podlagi določb, ki določajo shemo, ne morejo biti zaščitena z vrsto obstoječe pomoči navedene sheme [113].
Therefore, to determine whether the aid granted is existing or new, the Authority must assess whether it was granted in accordance with the scheme providing for it.
Da bi se torej določilo, ali je dodeljena pomoč obstoječa ali nova, mora Nadzorni organ oceniti, ali je bila dodeljena v skladu s shemo, ki jo določa.
The scheme was based on the CTA and the CTR; and there was established administrative practice in Oslo in line with the rules laid down in the CTA and the CTR.
Shema je temeljila na ZKP in UKP, upravna praksa v Oslu pa je bila vzpostavljena v skladu s predpisi, določenimi v ZKP in UKP.
The scheme only provided for cost coverage (the difference between cost and revenue) of the unprofitable scheduled bus services that the concessionaires provided.
Shema je določala samo kritje stroškov (razliko med stroški in prihodki) nedonosnih rednih avtobusnih storitev, ki so jih izvajali koncesionarji.
In the following, the Authority assesses whether (i) the annual compensation and (ii) the public service capital injection were granted on the basis of the provisions providing for the system of compensation.
Nadzorni organ v nadaljevanju ocenjuje, ali sta bila (i) letno nadomestilo in (ii) kapitalski vložek v javne storitve dodeljena na podlagi določb, ki določajo sistem nadomestil.
Annual compensation
Letno nadomestilo
As set out above, Article 22 CTA allows for compensation to cover the cost of the public service minus the ticket revenue.
V skladu s členom 22 ZKP lahko nadomestilo krije stroške javne storitve, od česar se odšteje dohodek od prodaje vozovnic.
In order to ensure that compensation is restricted to cover the cost of the public service, such a scheme would appear to presuppose the separation of accounts, an appropriate allocation of common costs and arms-length intra-group transactions for undertakings, which in addition to providing public services also engage in commercial activities.
Da bi bilo nadomestilo omejeno na kritje stroškov javne storitve, bi bilo treba v takšni shemi predvideti ločevanje računovodskih izkazov, ustrezno dodelitev skupnih stroškov in transakcije znotraj skupine na strogo poslovni podlagi za podjetja, ki se poleg izvajanja javnih storitev ukvarjajo tudi s komercialnimi dejavnostmi.
Thus, complying with these principles seems necessary to avoid that aid is granted outside the scheme.
Pri upoštevanju teh načel se torej zdi nujno izogniti dodeljevanju pomoči izven sheme.
The Authority has assessed all the information provided by the Norwegian authorities and verified that separate accounts were kept for the public service activities for the entire period (1994-2008).
Nadzorni organ je ocenil vse informacije, ki so jih posredovali norveški organi, in potrdil, da so se v celotnem obdobju (1994–2008) za dejavnosti javnih storitev vodili ločeni računi.
In addition, the Authority has found that the profit earned through the operation of the public service was relatively low and did not entail payment of overcompensation.
Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da je bil dobiček, ustvarjen z izvajanjem javne storitve, sorazmerno nizek, in da ni vključeval prekomernega nadomestila.
Before 2004 common costs were shared through intra-group transactions, the costs of which were based on market prices.
Pred letom 2004 so se skupni stroški delili prek transakcij znotraj skupine, katerih stroški so temeljili na tržnih cenah.
The Authority considers that this ensured that aid was not granted outside the scheme.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je to zagotovilo, da pomoč ni bila dodeljena zunaj sheme.
Thus, on the basis of the information provided by the Norwegian authorities it can be concluded that the annual payments were restricted to cover only costs that could be covered in accordance with the legal framework of the scheme.
Na podlagi informacij norveških organov se torej lahko ugotovi, da so bila letna plačila namenjena samo kritju stroškov, ki jih je bilo mogoče kriti v skladu s pravnim okvirom sheme.
Public service capital injection
Kapitalski vložek v javne storitve
Already since the mid-nineties, it was clear that the pension fund of AS Oslo Sporveier was underfunded.
Že od sredine devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je bilo jasno, da je v pokojninskem skladu podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier prišlo do primanjkljaja.
In 2004, the remaining shortfall was covered by the public service capital injection.
Leta 2004 se je preostali primanjkljaj pokril s kapitalskim vložkom v javne storitve.
Although it was not granted as part of the annual lump sum to AS Sporveisbussene but was paid directly to the pension fund from AS Oslo Sporveier, the payment was made on the basis of the existing aid scheme, in that it went to cover a cost incurred whilst providing the public service.
Čeprav ta ni bil dodeljen v okviru letnega pavšalnega zneska podjetju AS Sporveisbussene, temveč ga je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier vplačalo neposredno v pokojninski sklad, je bilo plačilo izvedeno na podlagi obstoječe sheme pomoči, saj je bilo namenjeno kritju stroškov, nastalih pri izvajanju javnih storitev.
As noted above, the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the concessionaire is to be compensated for the public service.
ZKP in UKP, kot je navedeno, ne vsebujeta nobenih posebnih določb o tem, kako se koncesionarju izplačajo nadomestila za javne storitve.
In practice, the compensation has simply been awarded annually in the form of lump sums in accordance with the established administrative practice.
Nadomestila se v praksi dodeljujejo letno v obliki pavšalnih zneskov v skladu z ustaljeno upravno prakso.
The EFTA Court has held [114] that when an existing aid scheme does not have any particular provisions on how the aid is to be provided, a divergence from the usual procedure cannot in and of itself lead to the finding that the aid was not granted on the basis of that scheme.
Sodišče Efte je presodilo [114], da se pri odmiku in zaradi odmika od običajnega postopka, kadar obstoječa shema pomoči ne vsebuje nobenih posebnih določb o načinu zagotavljanja pomoči, ne more ugotoviti, da pomoč ni bila dodeljena na podlagi navedene sheme.
The fact that the public service capital injection was not made in accordance with the normal annual block grant procedure thus does not mean that it was not made on the basis of the scheme.
Dejstvo, da kapitalski vložek v javne storitve ni bil izveden v skladu z običajnim postopkom letnih enkratnih nepovratnih sredstev, torej ne pomeni, da ni bil izveden na podlagi sheme.
The pension costs covered with the public service capital injection were linked to the provision of the public service, which Oslo Municipality was obliged to cover in accordance with their obligation to cover the cost of the public service.
Pokojninski stroški, ki jih krije kapitalski vložek v javne storitve, so bili povezani z izvajanjem javnih storitev, ki jih je občina Oslo morala kriti v skladu z obveznostjo kritja stroškov javnih storitev.
Instead of continuing with the annual payments until 2020, it was decided that the public service capital injection should cover the remaining share of the underfunding, thus eliminating the need for further annual payments to cover the historic underfunding.
Namesto nadaljnjega zagotavljanja letnih plačil do leta 2020 je bila sprejeta odločitev, naj kapitalski vložek v javne storitve pokrije preostali delež primanjkljaja, s čimer se je odpravila potreba po nadaljnjih letnih plačilih za kritje starega primanjkljaja.
On this basis, the Authority is of the opinion that the public service capital injection was carried out in accordance with the provisions providing for the aid.
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ meni, da je bil kapitalski vložek v javne storitve izveden v skladu z določbami, ki določajo pomoč.
On the basis of the assessment above, the Authority concludes that the annual compensation and the public service capital injection were made on the basis of the existing aid scheme.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedene ocene Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da sta bila letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve izvedena v skladu z obstoječo shemo pomoči.
Thus, with regard to the annual compensation and the public service capital injection, no payments were made outside the remit of the existing aid scheme.
Zato pri letnem nadomestilu in kapitalskem vložku v javne storitve niso bila izvedena nobena plačila zunaj okvira obstoječe sheme pomoči.
Period subsequent to 30 March 2008
Obdobje po 30. marcu 2008
In the early 2000s, Oslo Municipality decided to tender out all public service contracts for scheduled bus transport in the Oslo region.
V letih po letu 2000 se je občina Oslo odločila, da vsa naročila za javne storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza v regiji Oslo odda v postopku oddaje javnih naročil.
By 30 March 2008, the system described above was brought to an end and AS Oslo Sporveier’s concession was thus without object, as all services were provided on the basis of tendered contracts.
Zgoraj opisani sistem se je prenehal uporabljati 30. marca 2008, zaradi česar je koncesija podjetja AS Oslo Sporveier postala brezpredmetna, saj so se vse storitve izvajale na podlagi oddanih naročil.
Therefore, from 30 March 2008 onwards, the new concessionaires have been remunerated on the basis of the tendered contracts.
Zato se od 30. marca 2008 naprej na podlagi oddanih naročil opravljajo tudi vsa plačila novim koncesionarjem.
Conclusions on the existing or new aid nature of the aid
Ugotovitve o tem, ali gre za obstoječo ali novo pomoč
On the basis of the above, the Authority has come to the conclusion that the annual compensation and the public service capital injection in full were disbursed on the basis of an unaltered existing aid scheme.
V skladu z navedenim Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da sta bila letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve v celoti izplačana na podlagi nespremenjene obstoječe sheme pomoči.
These measures therefore, in full, constitute existing aid.
Zato se ta ukrepa v celoti štejeta za obstoječo pomoč.
As set out above, the Authority concludes that (i) the application of the group taxation rules and (ii) the commercial activities capital injection do not entail state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Kot je določeno zgoraj, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da (i) uporaba predpisov o skupinski obdavčitvi in (ii) kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti ne pomenita državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Furthermore, the Authority concludes that the remaining measures, (i) the annual compensation and (ii) the public service capital injection, constitute aid that has, in full, been granted on the basis of an existing aid scheme.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da preostala ukrepa, (i) letno nadomestilo in (ii) kapitalski vložek v javne storitve, pomenita pomoč, ki je bila v celoti dodeljena na podlagi obstoječe sheme pomoči.
With regard to those two measures, no compensation in excess of the losses actually incurred for the discharge of the public service obligations has been granted [115].
V zvezi z navedenima ukrepoma ni bilo dodeljeno nobeno nadomestilo, ki bi presegalo izgube, dejansko nastale pri izvajanju obveznosti javne službe [115].
As of 30 March 2008, the two latter state aid measures have ceased.
Od 30. marca 2008 zadnja ukrepa državne pomoči ne obstajata več.
Thus, there is no need for the Authority to examine their compatibility with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Nobene potrebe torej ni, da bi Nadzorni organ proučil njuno združljivost z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
In light of the above, the Authority has come to the conclusion that the group taxation rules do not confer an advantage on AS Sporveisbussene and that the application of those rules does not entail that AS Sporveisbussene received state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
V zvezi z navedenim Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da predpisi o skupinski obdavčitvi podjetju AS Sporveisbussene ne dajejo prednosti in da uporaba navedenih predpisov ne pomeni, da je podjetje AS Sporveisbussene prejelo državno pomoč v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority has also come to the conclusion that the commercial activities capital injection do not confer an advantage on AS Sporveisbussene and that it therefore does not represent state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ tudi ugotavlja, da kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti prav tako ne daje prednosti podjetju AS Sporveisbussene in da zato ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority has come to the conclusion that the annual compensation and the public service capital injection represent state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
However, the Authority concludes that this aid has been granted, in full, on the basis of an existing aid scheme that has now been terminated and, therefore, the Authority sees no need, and has no basis, for further action.
Vendar je bila ta pomoč dodeljena v celoti na podlagi obstoječe sheme pomoči, ki je zdaj prenehala veljati, zato se Nadzornemu organu ne zdi potrebno nadaljnje ukrepanje, za katerega tudi ni nobene podlage –
The application of the group taxation rules to the Oslo Sporveier Group does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Uporaba predpisov o skupinski obdavčitvi v primeru skupine Oslo Sporveier ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The formal investigation into that measure is therefore closed.
Formalna preiskava tega ukrepa se zato zaključi.
The commercial activities capital injection does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The formal investigation procedure with regard to the annual compensation is without object since the measure represents existing aid that has now been terminated.
Formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi z letnim nadomestilom je brezpredmeten, saj ukrep pomeni obstoječo pomoč, ki se je zdaj zaključila.
The formal investigation procedure with regard to the public service capital injection is without object since the measure represents existing aid that has now been terminated.
Formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s kapitalskim vložkom v javne storitve je brezpredmeten, saj ukrep pomeni obstoječo pomoč, ki se je zdaj zaključila.
OJ C 204 12.7.2012 p. 15 and EEA Supplement No 37 5.7.2012 p. 26.
UL C 204 12.7.2012, str. 15 in Dopolnilo EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije št. 37, 5.7.2012, str. 26.
Judgment, paragraphs 55–63.
Sodba, točke 55–63.
Ibid, paragraphs 76–80.
Prav tam, točke 76–80.
Ibid, paragraphs 84–91.
Prav tam, točke 84-91.