natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority commenced a reassessment of the complaint, and by e-mail dated 25 October 2011 to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 613053) requested additional information.
Nadzorni organ je začel ponovno ocenjevanje pritožbe in v elektronskem dopisu z dne 25. oktobra 2011, ki ga je poslal norveškim organom (ev. št. 613053), zaprosil za dodatne informacije.
By letter dated 27 January 2012 (Event No 622888), the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities [6].
Nadzorni organ je v dopisu z dne 27. januarja 2012 (ev. št. 622888) zaprosil norveške organe za dodatne informacije [6].
The Norwegian authorities responded by letter dated 22 February 2012 (Events No 625908, 625916, 625949, 626065 and 626066) and e-mails of 5 March 2012 (Events No 627096 and 627097).
Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 22. februarja 2012 (ev. št. 625908, 625916, 625949, 626065 in 626066) ter z elektronskima dopisoma z dne 5. marca 2012 (ev. št. 627096 in 627097).
Formal investigation
Formalna preiskava
By Decision No 123/12/COL of 28 March 2012 (“the opening decision”) the Authority initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 in respect of the potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.
Nadzorni organ je z Odločbo št. 123/12/COL z dne 28. marca 2012 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba o začetku postopka) začel formalni postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 glede potencialne pomoči podjetjema AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene.
By letter of the same date (Event No 627869), the Authority informed the Norwegian authorities of its decision and invited them to submit comments.
V dopisu z istega dne (ev. št. 627869) je Nadzorni organ obvestil norveške organe o svoji odločbi in jih pozval k predložitvi pripomb.
By letter dated 4 June 2012 (Event No 636738), the Norwegian authorities submitted comments to the opening decision.
Norveški organi so pripombe k odločbi o začetku postopka predložili v dopisu z dne 4. junija 2012 (ev. št. 636738).
By e-mail of 28 June 2012 (Event No 639422), the Authority requested further information.
Nadzorni organ je v elektronskem dopisu z dne 28. junija 2012 (ev. št. 639422) zaprosil za dodatne informacije.
By e-mail of 7 September 2012 (Event No 645982), the Norwegian authorities responded.
Norveški organi so odgovorili z elektronskim dopisom z dne 7. septembra 2012 (ev. št. 645982).
By e-mails exchanged between 9 and 23 November 2012 (Events No 653229, 653257, 653526, 654300, 654332, 654345 and 654470), the Authority requested and received, from the Norwegian authorities, further information.
V elektronskih dopisih med Nadzornim organom in norveškimi organi v obdobju od 9. do 23. novembra 2012 (ev. št. 653229, 653257, 653526, 654300, 654332, 654345 in 654470) je Nadzorni organ zaprosil ter od norveških organov tudi prejel dodatne informacije.
The opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement to it [7].
Odločba o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije [7].
The Authority called on interested parties to submit their comments on the opening decision.
Nadzorni organ je pozval zainteresirane strani, naj posredujejo svoje pripombe na odločbo o začetku postopka.
The Authority received comments from two interested parties.
Pripombe je prejel od dveh zainteresiranih strani.
By letter dated 2 August 2012 (Event No 643450), the Authority received comments from the complainant, Konkurrenten.no AS.
Pritožnik Konkurrenten.no AS je poslal Nadzornemu organu pripombe v dopisu z dne 2. avgusta 2012 (ev. št. 643450).
By letter dated 6 August 2012 (Event No 643459), the Authority received comments from Risdal Touring AS, a sister company of the complainant.
Sestrska družba pritožnika, tj. Risdal Touring AS, pa je poslala pripombe v dopisu z dne 6. avgusta 2012 (ev. št. 643459).
By letter dated 4 September 2012 (Event No 645575), the Authority forwarded those comments to the Norwegian authorities.
Nadzorni organ je v dopisu z dne 4. septembra 2012 (ev. št. 645575) posredoval navedene pripombe norveškim organom.
By letter dated 3 October 2012 (Event No 648581), the Norwegian authorities informed the Authority that they had no comments to the observations from the two interested parties.
Norveški organi so v dopisu z dne 3. oktobra 2012 (ev. št. 648581) obvestili Nadzorni organ, da nimajo nikakršnih pripomb na ugotovitve dveh zainteresiranih strani.
THE DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
ODLOČITEV O ZAČETKU FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
The Norwegian authorities confirmed that AS Oslo Sporveier had not granted any guarantees [8].
Norveški organi so potrdili, da podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier ni podelilo nikakršnih poroštev [8].
Therefore, the Authority concluded that the allegation of the complainant concerning the guarantees were without object [9].
Nadzorni organ je tako ugotovil, da so domneve pritožnika v zvezi z jamstvi neutemeljene [9].
The Authority did however have doubts concerning the remaining measures covered by the complaint.
Vendar pa je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvom glede ostalih ukrepov, na katere se nanaša pritožba.
Therefore, it decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure with regard to the following three measures:
Zato se je odločil, da začne formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi z naslednjimi tremi ukrepi, in sicer:
the compensation for scheduled bus services in Oslo paid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene during the period 1 January 1994 – 30 March 2008 (“the annual compensation”);
nadomestilo za redne avtobusne storitve v Oslu, ki se je podjetjema AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene izplačevalo v obdobju od 1. januarja 1994 do 30. marca 2008 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: letno nadomestilo);
the capital injection paid by Oslo Municipality in 2004 (“the 2004 capital injection”), which covered an accrued pension fund shortfall related to:
kapitalski vložek, ki ga je leta 2004 plačala občina Oslo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kapitalski vložek iz leta 2004) in ki je pokrival nastali primanjkljaj v pokojninskih skladih, povezan z
a. the provision of public services (“the public service capital injection”), as well as to
a. izvajanjem javnih storitev (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kapitalski vložek v javne storitve) in
b. commercial activities (“the commercial activities capital injection”); and
b. komercialnimi dejavnostmi (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti) ter
the application of the group taxation rules (“the group taxation measure”).
uporabo predpisov o skupinski obdavčitvi (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ukrep skupinske obdavčitve).
BACKGROUND – THE CURRENT LEGISLATION ON LOCAL SCHEDULED BUS TRANSPORT
OZADJE – SEDANJA ZAKONODAJA O LOKALNIH REDNIH AVTOBUSNIH PREVOZIH
Commercial Transport Act 2002 and Commercial Transport Regulation 2003
Zakon o komercialnem prevozu iz leta 2002 in Uredba o komercialnem prevozu iz leta 2003
At present, the local bus transport sector is regulated by the Commercial Transport Act of 2002 (the “CTA”) [10] and the Commercial Transport Regulation of 2003 (the “CTR”) [11].
Sektor lokalnega avtobusnega prevoza je zdaj urejen z Zakonom o komercialnem prevozu iz leta 2002 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ZKP) [10] in Uredbo o komercialnem prevozu iz leta 2003 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: UKP) [11].
The CTA repealed and replaced the Transport Act of 1976 [12].
ZKP je razveljavil in nadomestil Zakon o prevozu iz leta 1976 [12].
The CTR repealed and replaced two regulations [13].
UKP je razveljavil in nadomestil dve uredbi [13].
The Norwegian authorities have confirmed that the relevant provisions have not been significantly altered since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994.
Norveški organi so potrdili, da se ustrezne določbe po začetku veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP leta 1994 niso bistveno spremenile.
Administrative responsibility of the counties
Upravna odgovornost okrožij
In Norway, the responsibility for providing local public transport services is conferred on the counties.
Odgovornost za izvajanje storitev lokalnega javnega prevoza je na Norveškem prenesena na okrožja.
However, the counties are not under any obligation to offer such services.
Vendar pa okrožjem ni treba nuditi takih storitev.
The counties can either administer local bus transport services through their own organisation or through an administrative company [14] set up by the county.
Okrožja lahko storitve lokalnega avtobusnega prevoza upravljajo prek lastne organizacije ali upravnega podjetja [14], ki ga ustanovi okrožje.
The CTA provides that when the county sets up an administrative company, the funds intended for the financing of the local bus transport services will be allocated to that company [15].
ZKP določa, da se bodo sredstva za financiranje storitev lokalnega avtobusnega prevoza dodelila upravnemu podjetju, ko okrožje takšno podjetje ustanovi [15].
The administrative companies can either obtain the bus transport services from a third party, or provide the services themselves.
Upravna podjetja lahko pridobijo storitve avtobusnega prevoza od tretje strani ali jih izvajajo sama.
Co-financing of local transport services by the State and counties
Sofinanciranje storitev lokalnega prevoza s strani države in okrožij
The counties partly finance the local transport services with tax revenue.
Okrožja delno financirajo storitve lokalnega prevoza z davčnim prihodkom.
In addition, under the CTA the counties receive state funding by way of annual block grants [16].
Poleg tega na podlagi ZKP prejemajo državna sredstva v obliki letnih enkratnih nepovratnih sredstev [16].
The amount of the grants is determined on the basis of the extent to which the counties need contributions from the State.
Znesek teh sredstev se določi na podlagi tega, v kolikšnem obsegu okrožja potrebujejo prispevke od države.
Therefore the counties have to provide the Ministry of Transport with budgets, accounts and other relevant information necessary to assess the need for contributions [17].
Zato morajo okrožja Ministrstvu za promet poslati informacije o proračunih in računih ter druge ustrezne informacije, ki so potrebne, da bi se ocenila potreba po prispevkih [17].
The Norwegian authorities have stated that in the event that a county reduced the amount of the block grant used for the financing of local scheduled transport costs, this would have consequences for future grants.
Po navedbah norveških organov bi v primeru, če bi okrožje znižalo znesek enkratnih nepovratnih sredstev, ki se uporabljajo za financiranje stroškov lokalnega rednega prevoza, to vplivalo na prihodnja sredstva.
Under the CTA, concessions are required to carry out passenger transport services by bus for remuneration (i.e. for payment by the users (the passengers) of the transport services) [18].
V skladu z ZKP so koncesije potrebne za izvajanje storitev avtobusnega potniškega prevoza proti plačilu (tj. proti plačilu uporabnikov (potnikov) prevoznih storitev) [18].
Both a general and a special concession are needed for operators of scheduled passenger transport services by bus for remuneration.
Izvajalci storitev rednega avtobusnega potniškega prevoza, ki svoje storitve ponujajo proti plačilu, morajo pridobiti splošno in posebno koncesijo.
General concession for passenger transport
Splošna koncesija za prevoz potnikov
Undertakings providing passenger transport services for remuneration must have a general concession [19].
Podjetja, ki izvajajo storitve potniškega prometa proti plačilu, morajo imeti splošno koncesijo [19].
In order to obtain a general concession, the applicant must (i) provide a certificate of good conduct, (ii) have satisfactory financial means and abilities, and (iii) have satisfactory professional qualifications [20].
Da bi jo prosilec pridobil, mora (i) predložiti potrdilo o dobrem ravnanju, (ii) imeti zadostna finančna sredstva in zmogljivosti ter (iii) biti ustrezno strokovno usposobljen [20].
General concessions are not time limited [21].
Splošne koncesije so časovno neomejene [21].
Special concessions for scheduled passenger transport
Posebne koncesije za redni prevoz potnikov
In addition to the general concession, any undertaking wishing to carry out scheduled passenger transport for remuneration must have a special concession [22].
Vsako podjetje, ki želi izvajati storitve rednega prevoza potnikov proti plačilu mora imeti poleg splošne tudi posebno koncesijo [22].
There are two types of special concessions: (i) area concessions, and (ii) route specific concessions.
Obstajata dve vrsti posebnih koncesij: (i) območne koncesije in (ii) koncesije za uporabo proge.
The area concession is of a residual nature, in that it permits its holder to operate scheduled bus transport services in the entire area covered, in so far as other route specific concessions have not been granted in the area.
V primeru območne koncesije se opredeli njen geografski obseg, saj imetniku omogoča, da storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza izvaja na celotnem zajetem območju, v kolikor na tem območju niso bile dodeljene druge koncesije za uporabo proge.
The holder of a route specific concession is the sole entity entitled to operate scheduled bus transport on that route.
Imetnik koncesije za uporabo proge je edini subjekt, ki je upravičen do izvajanja rednega avtobusnega prevoza na navedeni progi.
The special concession confers upon the concessionaire both a right and a duty to carry out the transport service as set out in the concession [23].
Koncesionar pridobi s posebno koncesijo pravico in dolžnost za izvajanje prevoznih storitev, kot je določeno v koncesiji [23].
When applying for a special concession, a proposal for a transportation schedule and tariffs must be submitted [24].
Pri vložitvi prošnje za posebno koncesijo je treba predložiti predlog voznega rega za prevoze in tarif [24].
Schedules and tariffs are subject to the control of the counties [25].
Vozne rede in tarife nadzorujejo okrožja [25].
The counties can order changes in the schedules and tariffs [26].
Slednja lahko zahtevajo spremembe voznih redov in tarif [26].
The special concessions can either be awarded (i) through tender procedures (granted for the period determined in the tender procedure [27], which in any event will not be for a longer period than 10 years [28]), or (ii) directly without the use of a tender (granted for a 10 year period) [29].
Posebne koncesije se lahko dodelijo (i) v okviru razpisnih postopkov (za obdobje, ki je določeno v razpisnem postopku [27], ki v nobenem primeru ne bo daljše od desetih let [28]) ali (ii) neposredno brez razpisa (za deset let) [29].
Ticketing systems
Sistemi za izdajo vozovnic
The concessionaires must deploy ticketing systems approved by the counties [30].
Koncesionarji morajo razviti sisteme za izdajo vozovnic, ki jih odobrijo okrožja [30].
To complement the concessions, the counties may enter into contracts with the concessionaires about the provision of the public service.
Okrožja lahko, da bi dopolnila koncesije, sklenejo s koncesionarji pogodbe o izvajanju javne storitve.
The counties are free to determine the form of these contracts [31].
Okrožja lahko prosto določijo obliko teh pogodb [31].
Compensation to the concessionaires
Nadomestila za koncesionarje
The counties are responsible for compensating the concessionaires [32].
Okrožja so odgovorna za dajanje nadomestil koncesionarjem [32].
Compensation is only granted to undertakings that operate unprofitable routes (i.e. where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service).
Nadomestilo se dodeli samo podjetjem, ki izvajajo prevoze na nedonosnih progah (tj. kjer dohodek od prodaje vozovnic ne pokriva stroškov izvajanja storitve).
According to the Norwegian authorities, under Article 22 CTA the county is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes it wishes to establish or maintain within its region [33].
Po navedbah norveških organov morajo okrožja v skladu s členom 22 ZKP izvajalcem izplačati nadomestilo za izvajanje prevoznih storitev na nedonosnih progah, ki jih želijo vzpostaviti ali ohraniti na svojem področju [33].
The counties are free to determine the manner in which the concessionaires are to be compensated; the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the compensation is to be provided.
Okrožja lahko prosto izberejo način zagotavljanja nadomestila za koncesionarje; ZKP in UKP namreč ne vsebujeta posebnih določb o tem, kako je treba zagotoviti nadomestilo.
The Authority understands that Article 22 CTA is read as allowing for compensation to cover the cost of the public service (including a reasonable profit) minus the ticket revenues, and that compensation beyond that could not be based on the CTA.
Nadzorni organ meni, da se člen 22 ZKP razume, kot da omogoča nadomestilo za kritje stroškov javnih storitev (vključno z razumnim dobičkom), od česar se odšteje dohodek od prodaje vozovnic, in da vsako višje nadomestilo ne more temeljiti na ZKP.
FURTHER BACKGROUND –PRE-EEA LEGISLATION ON SCHEDULED PUBLIC TRANSPORT –TRANSPORT ACT OF 1976
DODATNA POJASNILA – ZAKONODAJA O REDNEM JAVNEM PREVOZU PRED EGP – ZAKON O PREVOZU IZ LETA 1976
In response to the opening decision, the Norwegian authorities have provided more information on the history of the system of compensation for local scheduled transport services.
Norveški organi so v odgovoru na odločbo o začetku postopka posredovali več informacij o preteklem sistemu nadomestil za storitve lokalnega rednega prevoza.
Centralised State responsibility for local scheduled transport
Centralizirana odgovornost države za lokalni redni prevoz
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the State (the Ministry of Transport) at the time of the entry into force of the Transport Act of 1976 [34] was responsible for local scheduled transport services.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je bila za storitve lokalnega rednega prevoza ob začetku veljavnosti Zakona o prevozu iz leta 1976 [34] pristojna država (Ministrstvo za promet).
State transport agencies managed the local scheduled transport in each county.
Državne agencije za promet so upravljale lokalni redni prevoz v vsakem okrožju.
De-centralisation process
Postopek decentralizacije
Shortly after the entry into force of the Transport Act of 1976, a de-centralisation process was initiated.
Kmalu po začetku veljavnosti Zakona o prevozu iz leta 1976 se je začel postopek decentralizacije.
From 1 January 1979, the powers of the Ministry of Transport could be delegated to the county.
Od 1. januarja 1979 so se lahko pristojnosti Ministrstva za promet prenesle na okrožje.
At the same time, the State transport agencies were turned into county administrative bodies.
Obenem so se državne prometne agencije preoblikovale v upravne organe okrožij.
In 1981, with the introduction of Article 24a to the Transport Act of 1976, by providing funding to the counties, the State could confer the responsibility for financing local scheduled transport to the counties [35].
Država je lahko z zagotavljanjem finančnih sredstev okrožjem leta 1981, ko je bil v Zakon o prevozu iz leta 1976 vključen člen 24a, prenesla pristojnosti za financiranje lokalnega rednega prevoza na okrožja [35].
In Oslo, Article 24a became applicable in 1983, when Oslo Municipality (which is also a county) [36] first received such funding.
Člen 24a je v Oslu začel veljati leta 1983, ko je občina Oslo (ki je tudi okrožje) [36] prvič prejela takšna sredstva.
The 1980 Regulation
Uredba iz leta 1980
Another important element of the de-centralisation process was the Regulation of 19 December 1980 on compensation for providing local scheduled transport (“the 1980 Regulation”).
Drug pomemben element postopka decentralizacije je bila Uredba z dne 19. decembra 1980 o nadomestilih za izvajanje storitev lokalnega rednega prevoza (v nadaljnjem besedilu: uredba iz leta 1980).
Article 1 of the 1980 Regulation states that the county has the responsibility to finance local scheduled transport.
Člen 1 uredbe iz leta 1980 določa, da je okrožje odgovorno za financiranje lokalnega rednega prevoza.
Pursuant to Article 3, the amount of the compensation shall be decided on an annual basis, based on the difference between estimated income according to the decided tariffs and discounts, and reasonable costs.
V skladu s členom 3 se znesek nadomestila določi na letni ravni glede na razliko med prihodkom, ki je predviden na podlagi določenih tarif in popustov, ter razumnimi stroški.
The 1980 Regulation also contains rules on control and access to information and clarifies the roles of, on the one hand, the Ministry of Transport and, on the other, the counties.
Uredba iz leta 1980 vsebuje tudi predpise o nadzoru in dostopu do informacij ter pojasnjuje na eni strani vlogo Ministrstva za promet, na drugi pa vlogo okrožij.
Article 7 provides the legal basis for the Ministry to issue further rules and guidelines for the compensation of local scheduled transport.
Člen 7 določa zakonsko podlago, na kateri lahko ministrstvo objavlja dodatne predpise in smernice v zvezi s kompenziranjem lokalnega rednega prevoza.
The 1982 Regulation and the KS and NABC Standard Main Agreement
Uredba iz leta 1982 ter glavni standardni sporazum med KS in NABC
On 1 January 1983, the 1980 Regulation was replaced by the entry into force of a new regulation – Regulation of 2 December 1982 on compensation for providing local scheduled transport (“the 1982 Regulation”).
Z začetkom veljavnosti nove uredbe, tj. Uredbe z dne 2. decembra 1982 o kompenziranju izvajanja storitev lokalnega rednega prevoza (v nadaljnjem besedilu: uredba iz leta 1982) je bila s 1. januarjem 1983 nadomeščena uredba iz leta 1980.
Article 4 of the 1982 Regulation imposes the obligation on the counties to enter into agreements with the concessionaires on the compensation for the provision of the scheduled public transport.
Po členu 4 uredbe iz leta 1982 imajo okrožja odgovornost, da s koncesionarji sklenejo sporazume o nadomestilih za izvajanje storitev rednega javnega prevoza.
On this basis, the organisation KS (the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities) and the Norwegian Association of Bus Companies (“the NABC”) [37], concluded a standard main agreement (“the KS and NABC Standard Main Agreement”) and a standard yearly compensation agreement to be used by each county when concluding agreements for the provision of scheduled bus transport services.
Na tej podlagi sta organizacija KS (norveško združenje lokalnih in regionalnih organov) in Norveško združenje avtobusnih podjetij (v nadaljnjem besedilu: NABC) [37] sklenila glavni standardni sporazum (v nadaljnjem besedilu: glavni standardni sporazum med KS in NABC) ter standardni sporazum o letnem nadomestilu, ki naj bi ju uporabljalo vsako okrožje pri sklepanju sporazumov o izvajanju storitev rednega avtobusnega prevoza.
The 1985 Regulation
Uredba iz leta 1985
With the adoption of a new income system for the counties, a new Regulation on Compensation for Local Transport was adopted in 1985 (“the 1985 Regulation”).
S sprejetjem novega sistema prihodkov za okrožja je bila leta 1985 sprejeta nova Uredba o nadomestilih za lokalni prevoz (v nadaljnjem besedilu: uredba iz leta 1985).
The new income system for the counties (and municipalities) entailed that the central contribution for local transport was given as a lump sum.
Z novim sistemom prihodkov za okrožja (in občine) se je centralni prispevek za lokalni prevoz začel dodeljevati v obliki pavšalnega zneska.
The main focus of the 1985 Regulation was the relationship between the Ministry of Transport and the counties.
Uredba iz leta 1985 je predvsem obravnavala odnos med Ministrstvom za promet in okrožji.
The 1985 Regulation was repealed on 1 January 1987.
Razveljavljena je bila 1. januarja 1987.
ORGANISATION OF THE LOCAL SCHEDULED BUS TRANSPORT IN OSLO
ORGANIZACIJA LOKALNEGA REDNEGA AVTOBUSNEGA PREVOZA V OSLU
As noted above, the responsibility for providing local scheduled public transport services is conferred on the counties.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je odgovornost za izvajanje storitev lokalnega rednega javnega prevoza prenesena na okrožja.