natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In light of the above, the Authority holds that these results of the concrete application of Article 8 demonstrates its lack of transparency and objectivity and finds it highly unlikely that any market player could have been expected to anticipate that Article 8 would have been applied in this manner.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Nadzorni organ meni, da ta izid konkretne uporabe člena 8 kaže na pomanjkanje preglednosti in objektivnosti, ter ugotavlja, da je malo verjetno, da bi se od nekega akterja na trgu lahko pričakovalo, da predvidi tako uporabo člena 8.
The fourth Altmark criterion provides that in the absence of a tender procedure, the level of required compensation is to be determined on the basis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
V skladu s četrtim merilom Altmark se mora takrat, ko ni razpisnega postopka, raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
The Norwegian authorities have not provided any information to substantiate that the ‘efficiency’ criterion [47] of the fourth Altmark criterion is fulfilled.
Norveški organi niso predložili nobenih podatkov, ki bi dokazovali, da je izpolnjeno načelo „učinkovitosti“ [47] iz četrtega merila Altmark.
On the contrary, the reports submitted to the Authority indicate that Hurtigruten has been over-compensated for the provision of the public service [48].
Nasprotno, iz poročil, ki so bila predložena Nadzornemu organu, izhaja, da je podjetje Hurtigruten prejelo prekomerno nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe.
Hence, the Authority cannot accept that the three measures satisfy the fourth Altmark criterion.
Zato se Nadzorni organ ne more strinjati s tem, da navedeni trije ukrepi izpolnjujejo četrto merilo Altmark.
Consequently, in light of the above, the Authority concludes that the second Altmark criterion is not met.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Nadzorni organ torej ugotavlja, da drugo merilo Altmark ni izpolnjeno.
Furthermore, the Authority concludes that in light of the application of Article 8 and the result of the 2008 renegotiation (i.e. the three measures), the resulting Supplementary Agreement cannot be held to be covered by the tender within the meaning of the fourth Altmark criterion.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da se glede na uporabo člena 8 in izid ponovnih pogajanj iz leta 2008 (tj. navedeni trije ukrepi) ne more šteti, da je iz tega izhajajoč Dopolnilni sporazum zajet v postopek oddaje javnega naročila v smislu četrtega merila Altmark.
In addition, the Norwegian authorities have not shown that the ‘efficiency’ criterion of the fourth Altmark criterion has been satisfied.
Norveški organi tudi niso prikazali, da je bilo izpolnjeno načelo „učinkovitosti“ iz četrtega merila Altmark.
The authority therefore concludes that the fourth Altmark criterion is also not met in the present case.
Posledično Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da tudi četrto merilo Altmark v obravnavanem primeru ni izpolnjeno.
The third Altmark criterion
Tretje merilo Altmark
The third criterion requires that compensation does not exceed the cost incurred in the discharge of the public service minus the revenues earned with providing the service (the compensation may, however, include a reasonable profit) [49].Hurtigruten carries out commercial activities outside the public service remit by i.a. transporting cruise passengers on the Hurtigruten ships.
Tretje merilo določa, da nadomestilo ne sme presegati stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti (ne glede na to nadomestilo lahko vključuje razumni dobiček). [49]Podjetje Hurtigruten opravlja komercialne dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, kar med drugim vključuje prevoz potnikov na križarjenju na ladjah Hurtigruten.
The third Altmark criterion must be read in conjunction with the general principles of cost allocation as i.a. laid down in the Chronopost judgment [50].
Tretje merilo Altmark je treba brati v povezavi s splošnimi načeli razporeditve stroškov, kot so med drugim opredeljeni v sodbi Chronopost. [50] To pomeni, da morajo ponudniki javnih storitev, kadar poleg javne službe opravljajo tudi komercialne dejavnosti, tem komercialnim dejavnostim pripisati sorazmerni del skupnih fiksnih stroškov.
This entails that in cases where public service providers carry out commercial activities next to the public service, the commercial activities must carry a proportionate share of fixed common costs [51].The reports provided by the Norwegian authorities indicate that the three measures did not only cover the increased costs of the public service, but also served to compensate the costs of the activities outside the public service remit [52].
Iz poročil, ki so jih predložili norveški organi, izhaja, da navedeni trije ukrepi niso pokrili samo povečanih stroškov javne službe, temveč so bili namenjeni tudi pokritju stroškov dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu.
Additionally, the second BDO Report indicates that the three measures also covered increased costs that did not represent radical changes that could not have been reasonably foreseen (i.e. the costs actually covered were not all costs that could legitimately be covered in accordance with Article 8) [53].
Še več, drugo poročilo BDO kaže, da so v navedenih treh ukrepih zajeti tudi povečani stroški, ki niso izhajali iz korenitih sprememb, ki jih ne bi bilo mogoče razumno predvideti (tj. dejansko pokriti stroški niso zajemali samo upravičenih stroškov v skladu s členom 8). [53]
Moreover, Hurtigruten has not implemented separate accounts for the public service and the activities falling outside the public service remit [54], and the calculation of the three measures appears either (i) to be based on the tenet that the public service operation should carry all or most of the fixed costs common to the public service operation and the services falling outside the public service remit or, (ii) on the premise that no distinction between the public service and the services falling outside the public service remit needs to be made and that aid can be granted in order to render profitable all activities of Hurtigruten (i.e. both the public service activities and the services falling outside the public service remit) [55].
Poleg tega podjetje Hurtigruten ni vodilo ločenih računov za javno službo in dejavnosti, ki niso v javnem interesu, [54] in zdi se, da izračun treh ukrepov ali (i) temelji na predpostavki, da se morajo vsi ali večina fiksnih stroškov, ki so skupni javni službi in drugim storitvam, ki niso v javnem interesu, pokriti iz naslova javne službe, ali (ii) na predpostavki, da ni treba razlikovati med javno službo in storitvami, ki niso v javnem interesu, in da se lahko pomoč dodeli za dosego donosnosti vseh dejavnosti podjetja Hurtigruten (tj. dejavnosti javne službe in storitev, ki niso v javnem interesu).
Thus, no proportionate share of fixed common costs is allocated to the commercial activities and thus deducted when determining the State’s compensation for the service.
To pomeni, da se komercialnim dejavnostim ne pripiše sorazmerni delež skupnih fiksnih stroškov, ki bi se odbil pri izračunu nadomestila države za zadevne storitve.
As explained in the more detailed assessment in Section II.3.2 below (on the question of over-compensation), since there is no proper separation of accounts in place and the calculation of the measures does not comply with the above-mentioned criteria - in particular in using unrepresentative hypothetical costs and revenues where the real costs and revenues are known - the Authority concludes that the third Altmark criterion is not fulfilled in this case.
Kot je podrobneje obrazloženo v oceni v razdelku II.3.2 (v zvezi s prekomernim nadomestilom), na podlagi dejstva, da ni vzpostavljeno pravilno vodenje ločenih računov in izračun ukrepov ne izpolnjuje zgoraj navedenih meril – zlasti z uporabo nereprezentativnih hipotetičnih stroškov in prihodkov, čeprav so dejanski stroški in prihodki znani – Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da v tem primeru tretje merilo Altmark ni izpolnjeno.
The Altmark criteria – conclusion
Merila Altmark – sklepna ugotovitev
As three of the four Altmark criteria are not met, and as only one of the criteria need not be satisfied for state compensation for the provision of a public service to constitute state aid, the three measures cannot be held to not confer an advantage on Hurtigruten within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Ker tri od štirih meril Altmark niso izpolnjena in ker se državno nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe označi kot državna pomoč, že če ni izpolnjeno eno samo merilo, ni mogoče trditi, da navedeni trije ukrepi ne dajejo prednosti podjetju Hurtigruten v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
The selective nature of the three measures
Selektivna narava navedenih treh ukrepov
The measures must be selective in that they favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Ukrepi morajo biti selektivni z dajanjem prednosti „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
A selective economic advantage is considered to exist when it is found that a measure does not apply generally to all the undertakings in an EEA State [56].The Authority considers that the three measures increased the State’s remuneration for Hurtigruten and are the result of individual negotiations with this company.
Selektivna ekonomska prednost naj bi obstajala takrat, kadar se za neki ukrep ugotovi, da ne velja na splošno za vsa podjetja v določeni državi EGP. [56]Po mnenju Nadzornega organa so navedeni trije ukrepi vodili k povišanju nadomestila države v korist podjetja Hurtigruten in so izid individualnih pogajanj s tem podjetjem.
Only Hurtigruten enjoyed the possibility to renegotiate an increase in the compensation for the service as it was the only service provider.
Možnost vodenja ponovnih pogajanj za povečanje nadomestila za storitve je lahko izkoristilo samo podjetje Hurtigruten, saj je bilo edini ponudnik storitev.
Therefore, the Authority concludes that the three measures constitute a selective advantage for Hurtigruten.
Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so navedeni trije ukrepi dali selektivno prednost podjetju Hurtigruten.
However, with regard to the reimbursement of the NOx tax/NOx Fund contributions, the Norwegian authorities have provided the Authority with additional information on the administrative practice concerning reimbursements of such charges to public service providers.
Vendar so v zvezi s povračilom davka na NOx / prispevkov v sklad za NOx norveški organi Nadzornemu organu predložili dodatne informacije o upravni praksi, ki se uporablja za povračila takih dajatev ponudnikom javnih storitev.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that they do not consider the reimbursements as selective since ‘the same reimbursement is applied to all maritime passenger transport services carrying out public service obligations (…) all other transport services performed under similar conditions are treated in the same manner. These other transport services include scheduled national and regional car ferries as well as scheduled high speed passenger ferries [57].’ After the introduction of the NOx tax, the administrative practice of the Norwegian authorities has been to fully reimburse the NOx tax/NOx Fund contributions to transport undertakings with public service obligations to the extent that the contributions were related to such obligations [58].
Norveški organi pojasnjujejo, da po njihovem mnenju povračila niso selektivna, ker „se enako povračilo uporablja za vse storitve v pomorskem potniškem prometu, ki opravljajo obveznosti javne službe, (…) vse druge prevozne storitve, ki se opravljajo po podobnih pogojih, se obravnavajo enako. Te druge prevozne storitve vključujejo redne nacionalne in regionalne trajektne povezave za prevoz avtomobilov ter redne visokohitrostne potniške trajektne prevoze“ [57].Po uvedbi davka na NOx upravna praksa norveških organov določa, da se prevoznim podjetjem z obveznostmi javne službe v celoti povrnejo davek na NOx / prispevki v sklad za NOx, če so ti prispevki povezani s takimi obveznostmi.
However, in the case of Hurtigruten, the Norwegian authorities decided to limit the reimbursement to what they held to constitute 90 % of the NOx tax/NOx Fund contribution related to the public service obligation.
Kljub temu so se v primeru podjetja Hurtigruten norveški organi odločili, da nadomestilo omejijo na to, kar naj bi po njihovi presoji predstavljalo 90 % davka na NOx / prispevka v sklad za NOx v povezavi z obveznostjo javne službe.
Fully covering the NOx costs was found to be undesirable as it would result in Hurtigruten having less of an incentive to lower emissions [59].The courts have found tax measures conferring advantages on certain undertakings to be non-selective as they have been justified by the nature and overall structure of the general system of which they are part [60].
Celotno pokritje stroškov za NOx naj ne bi bilo primerno, saj bi zaradi tega podjetje Hurtigruten imelo manj spodbude, da zmanjša emisije. [59]Sodišča so ugotovila, da davčni ukrepi, ki zagotavljajo prednosti določenim podjetjem, niso selektivni, če jih upravičujeta narava in celotna struktura splošnega sistema, katerega del so.
In the Adria-Wien Pipeline case [61] the ECJ assessed an Austrian scheme where an environmental tax on energy consumption was levied on all undertakings, and where undertakings producing goods were entitled to a partial reimbursement of the taxes paid.
V zadevi Adria-Wien Pipeline [61] je Evropsko sodišče preučilo avstrijsko shemo, po kateri je bil vsem podjetjem odmerjen okoljski davek na porabo energije in so bila podjetja, ki proizvajajo blago, upravičena do delnega povračila plačanih davkov.
Undertakings providing services were not eligible for a similar reimbursement.
Podjetja, ki opravljajo storitve, do takega povračila niso bila upravičena.
The question was whether the reimbursement to the goods-producing undertakings constituted state aid.
Šlo je za vprašanje, ali je povračilo podjetjem, ki proizvajajo blago, vključevalo državno pomoč.
The ECJ did not find any justification in the nature or general scheme of the system, as the ecological considerations underlying the national legislation did not justify treating the consumption of energy by undertakings supplying services differently than the consumption of such energy by undertakings manufacturing goods.
Evropsko sodišče ni našlo nobene utemeljitve v naravi ali splošni shemi sistema, saj okoljski premisleki, na katerih temelji nacionalna zakonodaja, niso upravičevali različne obravnave porabe energije pri podjetjih, ki opravljajo storitve, in porabe take energije pri podjetjih, ki proizvajajo blago.
The Court stated that energy consumption by each of those sectors is equally damaging to the environment [62].In the case at hand, similar observations can be made.
Sodišče se je izreklo, da je poraba energije v obeh navedenih sektorjih enako škodljiva za okolje. [62]V obravnavanem primeru lahko ugotovimo podobno.
The purpose of the NOx tax is to lower NOx emissions [63].
Namen davka na NOx je zmanjšanje emisij NOx.
The question is whether the reimbursement of the NOx tax/NOx Fund contribution to public service providers is justified by the nature or general scheme of the NOx tax system.
Vendar je vprašanje, ali se lahko povračilo davka na NOx / prispevka v sklad za NOx ponudnikom javnih storitev upravičuje z naravo ali splošno shemo davčnega sistema NOx.
The NOx tax system has the objective of encouraging undertakings to lower their NOx emissions and thereby reduce environmental pollution.
Cilj davčnega sistema NOx je spodbuditi podjetja k zmanjšanju njihovih emisij NOx in s tem zmanjšati onesnaževanje okolja.
These considerations that underlie the NOx tax do not justify treating public service providers differently to those not providing a public service.
Ti premisleki, na katerih temelji davek NOx, ne upravičujejo tega, da se ponudniki javnih storitev obravnavajo drugače kot tisti, ki ne opravljajo javne službe.
The NOx emitted by public service operators are equally damaging to the environment.
Emisije NOx, ki jih sproščajo upravljavci javnih storitev, so za okolje enako škodljive.
Even if it would be justified within the logic of the NOx tax system, Hurtigruten is carrying out public service obligations at the same time as commercial activities and a proper separation between these two types of activities has not been made when reimbursing the NOx tax/NOx Fund contributions [64].
Tudi če bi način delovanja davčnega sistema NOx to dovoljeval, podjetje Hurtigruten hkrati opravlja obveznosti javne službe in komercialne dejavnosti, med tema dvema vrstama dejavnosti pa se pri povračilu davka na NOx / prispevkov v sklad za NOx ni pravilno razlikovalo. [64]
Therefore, the Authority can only conclude that the compensation of 90% of the NOx tax/NOx Fund contribution in favour of Hurtigruten constitutes a selective measure since other undertakings carrying out similar non-public service transport activities have to carry the full cost of the NOx tax/NOx Fund contributions.
Nadzorni organ torej lahko samo ugotovi, da je 90-odstotno povračilo davka na NOx / prispevka v sklad za NOx v korist podjetja Hurtigruten selektivni ukrep, saj morajo druga podjetja, ki opravljajo podobne prevozne dejavnosti, ki niso javna služba, sama nositi vse stroške davka na NOx / prispevkov v sklad za NOx.
Thus, the Authority concludes that the three measures constitute a selective advantage in favour of Hurtigruten.
Zato Nadzorni organ sklepa, da navedeni trije ukrepi dajejo selektivno prednost podjetju Hurtigruten.
Distort competition and affect trade between Contracting Parties
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino med pogodbenicama
When financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid [65].As shown above, the three measures confer a selective economic advantage on Hurtigruten.
Če se s finančno pomočjo okrepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj EGP, se šteje, da pomoč vpliva na trgovino. [65]Kot je prikazano zgoraj, navedeni trije ukrepi dajejo selektivno ekonomsko prednost podjetju Hurtigruten.
The market for domestic maritime services (maritime cabotage) within which Hurtigruten operates was opened to EEA-wide competition in 1998 [66].
Trg za domače pomorske storitve (pomorska kabotaža), na katerem deluje podjetje Hurtigruten, je bil v letu 1998 odprt za konkurenco na ravni celotnega EGP [66].
Moreover, Hurtigruten is also engaged in the tourism sector, in particular through the offer of cruises/round trips along the Norwegian coast.
Poleg tega je podjetje Hurtigruten dejavno tudi v turističnem sektorju, zlasti s ponudbo križarjenj / povratnih potovanj vzdolž norveške obale.
Other operators offer cruises along the same parts of the Norwegian coast [67].
Tudi drugi prevozniki ponujajo križarjenja po istih odsekih norveške obale.
Moreover, Hurtigruten also operates a number of different cruises in various European states.Hence, the Authority concludes that compensation granted to Hurtigruten is liable to distort competition and affect intra-EEA trade.
Podjetje Hurtigruten pa izvaja še številna druga križarjenja v različnih evropskih državah. Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da bi nadomestilo, dodeljeno podjetju Hurtigruten, lahko izkrivljalo konkurenco in vplivalo na trgovino znotraj EGP.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
V skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 se „Nadzorni organ Efte pravočasno obvesti, kar mu omogoča, da lahko predloži pripombe na kakršne koli načrte izvedbe ali spremembe pomoči (…). Zadevna država ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta pravnomočna odločitev“.
The Norwegian authorities did not notify the three measures to the Authority.
Norveški organi navedenih treh ukrepov niso priglasili Nadzornemu organu.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations to do so set out in Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da norveški organi niso spoštovali svojih obveznosti iz člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
The Norwegian authorities invoke Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement and maintain that the measures constitute necessary compensation for public service obligation within the framework of the Authority’s guidelines on aid to maritime transport and the general principles of public service compensation.
Norveški organi se sklicujejo na člen 59(2) Sporazuma EGP in navajajo, da so ukrepi nujno nadomestilo za obveznost javne službe v okviru Smernic Nadzornega organa o pomoči za pomorski promet in splošnih načel o nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe.
Furthermore, they have invoked Article 61(3)(c) and claim that the measures under scrutiny can be deemed compatible with the EEA Agreement as restructuring measures under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.
Sklicujejo se tudi na člen 61(3)(c) in trdijo, da se lahko ukrepi, ki se preiskujejo, štejejo za združljive s Sporazumom EGP kot ukrepi prestrukturiranja v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
In the following, the Authority assesses the compatibility of the aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as public service compensation on the basis of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement and a rescue and restructuring measure, or an ‘emergency measure’, under Article 61(3).
V nadaljevanju bo Nadzorni organ preučil združljivost pomoči z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP kot nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe na podlagi člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP ter ukrepa za reševanje in prestrukturiranje oziroma „izrednega ukrepa“ v skladu s členom 61(3).
The legal framework for assessing state aid in the form of maritime public service compensation
Pravni okvir za oceno državne pomoči v obliki nadomestila za pomorsko javno službo
It follows from Article 4 of the Maritime cabotage regulation and Section 9 of the Authority’s Guidelines on aid to maritime transport that EFTA States may impose public service obligations or conclude public service contracts for certain maritime transport services provided that the compensation fulfils the rules of the EEA Agreement and the procedure governing state aid.
Iz člena 4 Uredbe o pomorski kabotaži in razdelka 9 Smernic Nadzornega organa o pomoči za pomorski promet izhaja, da države Efte lahko naložijo obveznosti javne službe ali sklenejo pogodbe za opravljanje storitev po javnem naročilu za nekatere storitve pomorskega prometa, če je nadomestilo v skladu s pravili iz Sporazuma EGP in postopkom, ki ureja državno pomoč.
Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
Člen 59(2) Sporazuma EGP se glasi: