natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As concerns the rental charge, the invitation to tender sets a minimum rental charge of ISK 19000000 per year for each fibre to ensure that the cost of operation and maintenance of the optical fibres would be covered [9].
Rok za predložitev in odpiranje ponudb je bil 19. junija 2008.
The closing date for submitting offers and for opening of offers was 19 June 2008.
Ocena ponudb je temeljila na naslednjih merilih:
The assessment of offers was based on the following criteria:
Preglednica 1
Table 1
Razpisna merila za dodelitev
Award criteria in the tender
Stvar presoje
Matter of Judgment
Odstotne točke
Percentage points
Spodbujanje konkurence
Stimulation of Competition
Zakupnina
Rental Charge
Začetek opravljanja storitev
Commencement of Services
Opravljanje storitev
Supply of Services
Število omrežnih priključnih točk
Number of network termination points
Enotna tarifa za vso državo
One Tariff throughout the Country
Na razpis je prispelo pet ponudb, ki so jih predložila štiri neodvisna podjetja, kot je povzeto v preglednici 2 v nadaljevanju.
The outcome of the tender was that five offers were received from four independent undertakings, as summarised in Table 2 below.
Dve ponudbi sta bili obravnavani kot variantni ponudbi:
Two of the offers were variant offers:
Preglednica 2
Table 2
Ponudbe, ki so bile predložene v zvezi z razpisom
Offers received in the tender
Ime družbe
Name of company
Ponujena zakupna cena
Leasing price offered
Razpisna merila: skupno število doseženih točk
Award criteria: total points scored
Glavna ponudba
Main offer
Različica ponudbe [10]
Variant offer [10]
Prejete ponudbe je po oceni, ki jo je izvedlo neodvisno svetovalno podjetje Mannvit, ovrednotil center Ríkiskaup.
The evaluation of received offers was made by Ríkiskaup, following an assessment conducted by the independent consulting firm Mannvit.
Na podlagi podatkov centra Ríkiskaup in podjetja Mannvit, se je za vse štiri družbe, ki so predložile ponudbe, štelo, da izpolnjujejo zahtevane tehnične zmogljivosti za izvedbo projekta ter splošne zahteve v zvezi z osebnim in finančnim položajem kandidatov za projekt, ki so bile določene v povabilu k oddaji ponudb.
According to information from Ríkiskaup and Mannvit, all four companies submitting bids were found to have met the required technical capacity to perform the project, as well as the general requirements set out in the invitation to tender regarding the personal and financial situation of the candidates for the project.
Podjetje Mannvit pa je izrazilo pridržek v zvezi s predlogom družbe Hringiðan.
However, Mannvit made a reservation regarding the proposal from Hringiðan.
Na podlagi tega predloga naj bi projekt izvedlo podjetje, ki bi ga financirala družba Hringiðan.
According to that proposal, the project was to be performed by an undertaking to be founded by Hringiðan.
Podjetje Mannvit je menilo, da ni mogoče oceniti finančne in tehnične zmogljivosti tega podjetja, ki takrat še ni bilo ustanovljeno.
Mannvit did not consider it possible to assess the capacity — both financial and technical — of this undertaking, which at the time had not been established.
V skladu s pogoji razpisa je ponudbo družbe Hringiðan torej bilo mogoče izključiti.
According to the terms of the tender, Hringiðan's offer could therefore be excluded.
Podjetje Mannvit je predvidelo učinek izključitve ponudbe družbe Hringiðan na rezultat razpisa, vendar je ugotovilo, da ta nima nobenega učinka, saj se ponudba družbe Hringiðan ni uvrstila med najboljši dve ponudbi in zato v vsakem primeru ni bila uspešna.
Mannvit simulated the effect of an exclusion of Hringiðan's offer on the result of the tender, but found that there was no impact as Hringiðan's offer was not amongst the top two bids and was therefore in any event unsuccessful.
Kot je navedeno v preglednici 2, sta na podlagi meril za dodelitev največ točk prejeli družbi Fjarski ehf.
As set out in Table 2, the two companies scoring the highest on the basis of the award criteria were Fjarski ehf.
(92,18 točke) in Vodafone (89,67 točke).
(92,18 points) and Vodafone (89,67 points).
Z navedenima družbama so se začela pogajanja.
Negotiations were entered into with those two companies.
Zakupna pogodba je bila torej sklenjena z družbo Vodafone za samo eno od obeh vlaken.
Fjarski ehf., however, decided to pull out of the project.
Pogodba, sklenjena 1. februarja 2010 med družbo Vodafone in islandsko Agencijo za obrambo (Varnarmálastofnun), določa uporabo optičnega vlakna v kablu z osmimi optičnimi vlakni, ki je dolg približno 1850 km in obkroža Islandijo.
A lease contract was therefore negotiated with Vodafone and for only one of the two fibres.
V pogodbi je navedeno, da je bilo sporno vlakno navedeno na inventarju zveze NATO.
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ICELANDIC DEFENCE AGENCY AND VODAFONE
V skladu s členom 16 Zakona o obrambi št. 34/2008 je bil zakupodajalec upravičen do sklenitve zakupne pogodbe za uporabo takih prostorov v imenu države in zveze NATO.
The annual lease is set at ISK 19150000 (excluding VAT), indexed according to the building cost index as from June 2008.
Določbe v zvezi s tem so navedene v členu 8 pogodbe.
The term of the contract is 10 years.
V pogodbi je ponovljena določba iz razpisa, da niso vključeni nobeni prostori za opremo zakupnika.
The contract states that the fibre at issue was registered on NATO's inventory list.
Zakupnik bo odgovoren za pridobitev potrebnih prostorov za svojo opremo ali kakršnih koli drugih prostorov, ki so potrebni, da lahko uporablja vlakna.
Under Article 16 of the Defence Act No 34/2008, the lessor was entitled, on behalf of the State and of NATO, to conclude a lease for the use of such facilities.
Zakupnik je torej odgovoren za zagotovitev dostopa do prostorov in priključnih točk, kjer namerava povezati svojo opremo z vlaknom.
However, in view of Iceland's international commitments, it was necessary to include a clause authorising the lessor to take over the cited facilities without notice in times of war.
Zakupnik je odgovoren za vso komunikacijo z lastniki kabla ali prostorov.
Provisions to this effect are found in Article 8 of the contract.
PRITOŽBA
The contract repeats the provision of the tender that it does not include any facilities for equipment of the lessee.
Pritožba družbe Míla se nanaša na že navedeno pogodbo, ki je bila na podlagi razpisa sklenjena 1. februarja 2010 med islandsko Agencijo za obrambo in telekomunikacijskim operaterjem Vodafone.
The lessee will be responsible for obtaining necessary facilities for its equipment or any other facilities needed to be able to use the fibres.
Pritožnik trdi, da sklenjena pogodba vključuje državno pomoč v obliki zakupnine za uporabo optičnega vlakna po ceni, ki je znatno nižja od zneska, ki bi ga tržni vlagatelj štel za sprejemljivega.
The lessee is thus responsible for securing access to facilities and the assembly points where it intends to connect its equipment to the fibre.
Družba Míla to trditev utemeljuje z naslednjim [11]:
The lessee is responsible for all communications with the owners of the cable or facilities.
V času razpisa je bila družba Míla edina stran, ki je delovala na trgu, zato praviloma ni mogla pridobiti 40 % točk, uporabljenih v merilih za dodelitev, tj. točk, ki so bile dodeljene za spodbujanje konkurence.
THE COMPLAINT
V skladu s tem je metoda vrednotenja predloženih ponudb, kot je povzeta v preglednici 1, dejansko izključila družbo Míla iz razpisa.
Míla's complaint relates to the contract referred to above, concluded on the basis of the tender on 1 February 2010 between the Icelandic Defence Agency and the telecommunication operator Vodafone.
Družba Míla pa ni imela nobenega gospodarskega motiva za udeležbo na razpisu, saj je s svojimi vlakni že imela zadostno prenosno zmogljivost.
The complainant claims that the awarded contract involves state aid in the form of a rent for the use of the optical fibre at a level significantly below what a market investor would have considered to be acceptable.
Zato ni predložila nobene ponudbe.
In support of this contention, Míla essentially argued as follows [11]:
Zakupnine, ponujene na razpisu, so bile nižje od zneska, ki bi ga tržni vlagatelj štel za sprejemljivega.
At the time of the tender, Míla was the only party operating in the market and was therefore by definition unable to acquire 40 % of the points used in the award criteria, i.e. the points awarded for stimulation of competition.
Te zakupnine predvsem niso zagotovile ustreznega prispevka k fiksnim stroškom (tj. stroški gradnje, obnove in amortizacije kabla) in primerne donosnosti kapitalske naložbe za Islandijo kot lastnico vlaken.
Accordingly, the method of evaluation of the submitted tenders, as summarised in Table 1, effectively excluded Míla from the tender.
Družba Míla je ocenila, da tržna cena za pravico do zakupa znaša več kot 85 milijonov ISK na leto, torej bi na podlagi zakupnine v vrednosti 19,15–20 milijonov ISK na leto skupna pomoč za vsako od obeh družb domnevno znašala 464,2 milijona ISK v predvideni dvajsetletni življenjski dobi vlakna [12].
However, Míla did not have any economic motive for taking part in the tender as it already had sufficient transmission capacity in its own fibres.
Pritožnik je z dopisom z dne 19. septembra 2012 predložil nadaljnje podatke o svoji navedbi v zvezi z državno pomočjo za družbo Vodafone.
It did therefore not submit any bid.
Pritožnik je zlasti opozoril na novo tarifo podjetja Orkufjarskipti [13] za zakup kabla iz optičnih vlaken [14].
The rental prices offered in the tender were below what a market investor would have deemed an acceptable rent.
Tarifa navaja zakupnino za vsako vlakno v kablu s šestimi optičnimi vlakni v smislu mesečne zakupnine v ISK na kilometer v kablu [15].
In particular, these prices did not provide an appropriate contribution to fixed costs (i.e. the costs of construction, renewal and depreciation of the cable) and an adequate return on the capital investment for the Icelandic state as the owner of the fibres.
Pritožnik je na podlagi pomnožitve tarife z dolžino kabla, ki v skladu z zakupno pogodbo z družbo Vodafone meri približno 1850 km, ugotovil, da bi zakupnina za vlakno te dolžine v skladu s tarifo morala znašati 107137200 ISK na leto.
Míla estimated the market price for the lease right at over ISK 85 million per year, resulting in an alleged total aid amount of ISK 464,2 million over the estimated twenty year lifetime of the fibre to each of the two companies, based on a rental price of ISK 19,15 - 20 million per year [12].
STALIŠČE ISLANDSKIH ORGANOV V ZVEZI S PRITOŽBO
By letter dated 19 September 2012, the complainant submitted further information regarding its allegation of state aid to Vodafone.
Islandski organi so v odgovor na pritožbo predložili mnenje, da zakup optičnih vlaken zveze NATO ne pomeni državne pomoči, saj sklenitev pogodbe zakupniku ne daje nobene gospodarske prednosti, ki bi presegala tržne pogoje, ne vključuje uporabe državnih sredstev in ne izkrivlja konkurence ali je ne ogroža.
The complainant notably drew attention to a new tariff by the undertaking Orkufjarskipti [13] for the rent of a fibre optic cable [14].
V zvezi s tem se islandski organi sklicujejo na memorandum Ministrstva za zunanje zadeve z dne 7 maja 2008 o predlaganem dajanju optičnih vlaken zveze NATO v zakup.
The tariff specifies the rent for each fibre in a six-fibre optical cable in terms of monthly rent in ISK per kilometre in the cable [15].
Memorandum na splošno pojasnjuje predlagani postopek oddaje javnega naročila, vključno s postopki povabila k oddaji ponudb in merili za izbiro ustreznih zakupnikov med ponudniki.
By multiplying the tariff with the length of the cable, according to the lease with Vodafone, about 1850 km, the complainant concludes that the rent for a fibre of that length according to the tariff should be ISK 107137200 per year.
Cilji projekta so zajemali znižanje stroškov vzdrževanja in upravljanja optičnih vlaken zveze NATO, izboljšanje javnega dostopa do širokopasovnih povezav in spodbujanje konkurence na področju prenosa podatkov na domačem trgu.
POSITION OF THE ICELANDIC AUTHORITIES REGARDING THE COMPLAINT
Islandski organi menijo, da je bilo dajanje dveh vlaken v zakup ukrep, ki ni bil pomoč.
In response to the complaint, the Icelandic authorities submitted that the leasing out of the NATO optical fibres does not constitute state aid, as the award of the contract does not confer any economic advantage upon the lessee which goes beyond market conditions, does not entail the use of state resources, and does not distort or threaten to distort competition.
Nadalje menijo, da bi projekt koristil izvajanju vladnih politik v zvezi z elektronskimi komunikacijskimi storitvami in informacijsko družbo.
In this regard the Icelandic authorities refer to a Memorandum of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, dated 7 May 2008, on the proposed lease-out of NATO optical fibres.
Prav tako bi omogočil infrastrukturno konkurenco na trgu zakupljenih vodov na območjih, kjer trenutno ni konkurence, kar bi nadalje spodbudilo več konkurence na podrejenih trgih, na primeru na trgu za širokopasovne povezave visokih hitrosti.
The Memorandum explains in general terms the proposed tender procedure, including the modalities of the invitation to tender and the criteria for the selection of eligible lessees from among the bidders.
Kar zadeva trditev pritožnika, da je bilo vlakno v lasti Islandije in da bi morala zakupnina vključevati fiksne stroške, povezane z gradnjo, obnovo in odpisom kablov, so islandski organi zagotovili pojasnila o lastništvu in stroških gradnje.
The objectives of the project were to lower the maintenance and operating costs of NATO's optical fibres, to increase public broadband access and to encourage competition in data transmission on the domestic market.
Opozorili so, da je vgradnjo kabla financirala zveza NATO, ne pa Islandija.
The Icelandic authorities consider that the lease-out of the two fibres was a non-aid measure.
Poleg tega je bil kabel naveden na inventarju organizacije in trije od osmih vlaken so bili namenjeni uporabi v zvezi z dejavnostmi ameriških sil na Islandiji.
They further note that the project would benefit the implementation of government policies regarding electronic communication services and information society.
Po odhodu ameriških sil z Islandije leta 2006 in 2007 je upravljanje treh vlaken na podlagi pisnega dogovora z zvezo NATO prevzela Islandija kot „država gostiteljica, država uporabnica“.
It would also make infrastructure competition possible in the leased-lines market in areas where there was no competition at the time, which in turn would lead to more competition in downstream markets such as the market for high-speed broadband connection.
Čeprav so islandski organi prevzeli operativno upravljanje vlaken, ima zveza NATO še vedno več izključnih pravic do teh vlaken.
In view of the complainant's contention that the fibre was owned by the Icelandic State and that the rental price should have included fixed costs related to the construction, renewal and write-down of the cables, the Icelandic authorities provided clarifications on the ownership and costs of construction.
Islandija teh treh vlaken nima v lasti.
They note that it was NATO, and not the Icelandic State, which financed the installation of the cable.
Ta tri vlakna so v lasti zveze NATO, dokler velja obrambni sporazum med Islandijo in ZDA.
Furthermore, the cable was registered on the inventory list of the organisation, and three out of eight fibres were reserved for use related to the operations of the American forces in Iceland.
Zveza NATO ima prednostne pravice do uporabe vlaken.
After the departure of the American forces from Iceland in 2006 and 2007, the Icelandic State took over the operation of the three fibres, as a so-called ‘host-nation, user-nation’, on the basis of a written arrangement with NATO.
Kakršni koli prihodki od zakupa vlaken se lahko uporabijo zgolj za upravljanje in vzdrževanje sredstev zveze NATO [16].
Even though the Icelandic authorities have assumed operational management of the fibres, they remain subject to a number of exclusive NATO rights.
To predvsem pomeni, da Islandija ne more obdržati nobenih prihodkov, ki presegajo te stroške, ampak jih mora prenesti na zvezo NATO.
The Icelandic State does not own the three fibres.
Zveza NATO je prvotno vložila v vgraditev kabla iz optičnih vlaken in krila te stroške.
As long as the Defence Agreement between Iceland and the US is in force, the three fibres are the property of NATO.
Vzdrževanje in upravljanje vlaken je zajeto v obveznosti Islandije kot članice zveze NATO, ki jih mora spoštovati.
NATO has the priority rights to the use of the fibres.
Glede na mnenje islandskih organov pritožnik zmotno trdi, da bi morala država vložiti 250 milijonov ISK, zato da bi uspešni ponudnik lahko imel na voljo enega od vlaken in ga prosto uporabljal, ker sta se dva vlakna dejavno uporabljala za islandski protiletalski obrambni sistem.
Any rental income from the fibres can only be used for the operation and maintenance of NATO's assets [16].
Prvotni namen je bil dati v zakup dva vlakna.
This means in particular that any income in excess of these costs cannot be retained by Iceland but has to be transferred to NATO.
Ocena stroškov za to, da bi se omogočilo komercialno uporabo obeh vlaken, je bila 20–65 milijonov ISK.
NATO originally invested in and paid the cost of the installation of the fibre optic cable.
Ker je eden od uspešnih ponudnikov umaknil svojo ponudbo, je bilo treba omogočiti uporabo samo enega vlakna.
The maintenance and operation of the fibres are a part of Iceland's obligations as a member of NATO and are not optional.
Strošek je bil torej veliko nižji od prvotno ocenjenega in precej nižji od zakupnine družbe Vodafone za vlakno.
According to the Icelandic authorities, the complainant is not correct when claiming that since two of the fibres were in active use for the IADS system, the State needed to invest ISK 250 million to make one of the fibres available and free for use by the successful bidder.
Znova je bilo omenjeno, da je v skladu s točko 1.2.4 povabila k oddaji ponudb iz aprila 2008 ocena stroškov upravljanja in vzdrževanja vsakega od dveh vlaken, ki naj bi se dala v zakup, za Islandijo znašala približno 19000000 ISK na leto [17].
The intention was initially to lease out two fibres.
Po mnenju islandskih organov ukrep kot rezultat uspešnega povabila k oddaji ponudb ne vključuje nobene vrste državnega financiranja.
The cost assessment for making both fibres free for commercial use was ISK 20-65 million.
Ukrep prav nasprotno zagotavlja prihodke za državo na podlagi zakupa vlaken, ki bi jih država drugače morala še naprej vzdrževati z državnimi sredstvi.
As one of the two successful bidders withdrew its offer, only one fibre needed to be set free.
Poleg tega islandski organi izpostavljajo, da omejitve, ki izhajajo iz lastništva zveze NATO in tega, da ima zveza NATO prednost pri uporabi med vojno, pomenijo, da bi cena lahko bila nižja, če takih omejitev ne bi bilo.
The cost was therefore much lower than initially estimated and well below Vodafone's rent for the fibre.
Ta dejavnik bi na vse ponudnike enako vplival, tržna cena pa bi se temu morala prilagoditi [18].
It is recalled that according to point 1.2.4 of the invitation to tender of April 2008, the Icelandic State's cost of operation and maintenance of each of the two fibres to be leased out was estimated at about ISK 19000000 per year [17].
Islandski organi so menili, da uporaba merila za dodelitev v zvezi s spodbujanjem konkurence in domnevna dejanska izključitev podjetja z monopolom na trgu ne moreta sami po sebi biti podlaga za ugotovitev, da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco ali daje prednost določenemu podjetju.
In the opinion of the Icelandic authorities, as a result of the successful call for tenders the measure does not involve any type of state financing.
Po mnenju islandskih organov je bila vlada v celoti pooblaščena za uporabo več meril za dodelitev.
On the contrary, the measures produce revenue for the State from leasing out fibres which the State would otherwise have had to continue to maintain through state resources.
Poleg tega so bila merila legitimna ter upoštevala so pomembne cilje v zvezi z okrepitvijo konkurence in zagotavljanjem dobrih storitev za splošno javnost.
Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities point out that the restrictions stemming from the ownership of NATO and NATO's priority of use during war times mean that the price may have been lower than if no such restriction had existed.
Islandski organi so tudi predložili mnenje, da bi se lahko državna pomoč, če bi Nadzorni organ obravnaval ukrep kot takšno pomoč, štela za združljivo s členom 61(3) Sporazuma EGP, pri čemer bi se upoštevali cilji ukrepa, vključno s ciljem povečanja javnega dostopa do širokopasovnih povezav na območjih, ki prejemajo pomoč.
This factor would have affected all the tenderers in the same way, and the market price had to adjust to that fact [18].
V zvezi s tem so islandski organi tudi pozvali Nadzorni organ, naj oceni, ali bi se moralo takšno pomoč obravnavati kot financiranje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, kot je to opisano v poglavju 2.2.2 smernic nadzornega organa za širokopasovna omrežja [19].
The Icelandic authorities were of the opinion that neither the application of the award criterion on stimulation of competition nor the alleged effective exclusion of an undertaking holding a monopoly position on the market could, as such, lead to the conclusion that the measure distorts competition or confers an advantage upon an undertaking.
ODLOČBA št. 410/12/COL IN SODBA SODIŠČE EFTE V ZADEVI E-1/13
According to the Icelandic authorities, the Government was fully authorised to use multiple award criteria.
Nadzorni organ je 21. novembra 2012 sprejeli Odločbo št. 410/12/COL, v kateri je sklenil, da ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Moreover, the criteria were legitimate and pursued important objectives aimed at enhancing competition and ensuring good services to the general public.
Nadzorni organ je menil, da zakup za uporabo in upravljanje optičnega vlakna ni pomenil državne pomoči, saj je bila zakupna pogodba sklenjena na podlagi uporabe javnega razpisa, ki je lahko določil tržne pogoje, zato pogodba ni dala gospodarske prednosti družbi Vodafone.
Finally, the Icelandic authorities submitted that, in the event that the Authority would consider the measure to constitute state aid, such aid could be considered compatible with Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement, by reference to the objectives of the measure, including the objective of increasing public broadband access in assisted areas.
Sodišče Efte je 27. januarja 2014 razveljavilo Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 410/12/COL.
In this regard, the Icelandic authorities also invited the Authority to assess whether such aid should be considered to constitute the financing of services of general economic interest (‘SGEI’), as referred to in Chapter 2.2.2 of the Authority's Broadband Guidelines [19].
Sodišče je sklenilo, da bi Nadzorni organ moral začeti formalni postopek preiskave, saj je imel na voljo podatke in dokaze, ki bi na podlagi nepristranskosti morali vzbuditi dvome ali opozoriti na resne težave v zvezi s tem, ali je zakupna pogodba dala gospodarsko prednosti družbi Vodafone [20].
DECISION No 410/12/COL AND THE EFTA COURT JUDGMENT IN CASE E-1/13
Sodišče je menilo, da bi moral Nadzorni organ podvomiti v to, ali je cena, dogovorjena na podlagi razpisa, izražala dejansko tržno ceno za zakup takega sredstva.
On 21 November 2012, the Authority adopted Decision No 410/12/COL concluding that the measure did not involve state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Sodišče je zlasti poudarilo, da razpisna merila za dodelitev niso izražala dejavnikov, ki bi jih zasebni vlagatelj štel za pomembne pri razpisu za zakup, in da Nadzorni organ očitno ni ocenil vseh okoliščin in posledic uporabnosti preskusa vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.