natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, before turning to the specific measures under examination, it must first be considered whether the recipients of the funding are undertakings within the meaning of that provision.
Zato je pred obravnavo posebnih ukrepov treba preučiti, ali so prejemniki sredstev podjetja v smislu navedene določbe.
As noted above, NAC is clearly an undertaking and the fact that it performs an educational function does not, in the present case, alter that conclusion.
Kakor je navedeno zgoraj, je jasno, da je NLA podjetje, in dejstvo, da opravlja izobraževalno funkcijo, v tem primeru ne spremeni te ugotovitve.
However, it would appear that NLH does not carry out any form of economic activity in relation to which it receives funding.
Vendar pa se zdi, da NLH ne opravlja nobene oblike gospodarske dejavnosti, za katero prejema sredstva.
According to settled case law, it is the activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market that is the characteristic feature of an economic activity [22].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je ponudba blaga ali storitev na določenem trgu tisto, kar označuje pojem gospodarske dejavnosti [22].
The Authority has not been presented with any information indicating that facilitating the operation of airline pilot education in the north of Norway may be defined in those terms.
Nadzornemu organu niso bile predložene informacije, ki bi nakazovale, da se omogočanje izobraževanja za letalske pilote na severnem Norveškem lahko tako opredeli.
Indeed, again in line with settled case law, only services normally provided for remuneration are to be considered as services within the meaning of the EEA Agreement [23].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se za službe v smislu Sporazuma EGP štejejo le dela, ki so običajno izvedena proti ustreznemu plačilu [23].
Not only is the NLH not paid for what it does, but the funding which it disburses in line with its aim to facilitate the operation of airline pilot education in the north of Norway is more akin to the social objectives identified by the EFTA Court in the Private Barnehagers case, when it held that the Norwegian State was not seeking to engage in gainful activity but was fulfilling its duties towards its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields [24].
NLH ni plačan za to, kar dela, in tudi sredstva, ki jih izplačuje v skladu s svojim ciljem omogočati izobraževanje za letalske pilote na severnem Norveškem, so bližje socialnim ciljem, ki jih je Sodišče Efte opredelilo v zadevi Private Barnehagers, ko je odločilo, da norveška država ne poskuša vzpostavljati profitne dejavnosti, ampak izpolnjuje svojo dolžnost do prebivalstva na socialnem, kulturnem in izobraževalnem področju [24].
Indeed, the funding granted to NLH from Troms County resembles more an internal transfer of resources, thereby earmarking the funding for use in the promotion of airline pilot education in the geographical area for which the County is responsible, than a payment for services rendered.
Financiranje, ki ga je okrožje Troms zagotovilo NLH, je res bolj podobno notranjemu prenosu sredstev in s tem zagotavljanju sredstev za spodbujanje izobraževanja za letalske pilote na geografskem območju, za katero je okrožje odgovorno, kot pa plačilu za opravljanje službe.
Further disbursement of these funds to undertakings such as NAC, engaged in the economic activity of providing airline pilot education, may indeed amount to State aid but, as noted above at II-1, fall outside the scope of this decision.
Nadaljnje izplačevanje teh sredstev podjetjem, kot je NLA, ki izvajajo gospodarsko dejavnost izobraževanja za letalske pilote, je res lahko državna pomoč, vendar pa, kakor je navedeno zgoraj v II.1, ne sodi na področje uporabe te odločbe.
As regards the initial disbursements to NLH, the Authority concludes that, at least at the time the disbursements were made, the NLH itself could not be considered to be a recipient of aid and the two measures in relation to which NLH was the beneficiary need not be assessed further.
Glede začetnih izplačil NLH Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da vsaj v času izplačil NLH ni bilo mogoče šteti za prejemnika pomoči in ukrepov, v zvezi s katerimi je bil NLH upravičenec, ni treba dalje ocenjevati.
The Authority will therefore only consider the existence of an advantage in relation to the measures of which NAC was the beneficiary, namely:direct grant of NOK 4,5 million from the State budget,
Nadzorni organ bo zato preučil samo obstoj ugodnosti v zvezi z ukrepi, katerih prejemnik je bil NLA, in sicer:4,5 milijona NOK neposredne pomoči iz državnega proračuna,
loan from Troms County and subsequent remission thereof,
posojilo okrožja Troms in poznejši odpust posojila,
loan guarantee granted by Troms County without payment of a premium.
jamstvo za posojilo, ki ga je odobrilo okrožje Troms brez plačila premije.
A direct grant aimed at alleviating operational costs clearly satisfies this condition.
Neposredna pomoč za blaženje stroškov poslovanja jasno izpolnjuje ta pogoj.
However, no advantage, within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, can be said to accrue to the beneficiary if normal market principles govern that action.
Vendar pa ni mogoče reči, da je upravičenec imel ugodnosti v smislu člena 61(1) EGP, če za ta ukrep veljajo običajna tržna načela.
According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, in late 2005, the following entities were long-term unsecured creditors of NAC: Sparebanken Finans Nord-Norge AS (NOK 2877000), Troms County (NOK 400000), Indre Troms Samvirkelag BA (NOK 200000) and Eriksen Eiendom (NOK 200000).
Po podatkih norveških organov so bili konec leta 2005 naslednji subjekti dolgoročni nezavarovani upniki NLA: Sparebanken Finans Nord-Norge AS (2877000 NOK), okrožje Troms (400000 NOK), Indre Troms Samvirkelag BA (200000 NOK) in Eriksen Eiendom (200000 NOK).
The Norwegian authorities confirmed that the latter two, both of which are to be considered as private investors, authorised remission of the loans they had granted to NAC, while Sparebanken Finans Nord-Norge granted postponement of instalments for the second half of 2006, but not exemption from interest payments.
Norveški organi potrjujejo, da sta zadnja dva, ki ju je treba šteti za zasebna vlagatelja, odobrila odpust posojil, ki sta jih odobrila NLA, Sparebanken Finans Nord-Norge pa je odobril odlog plačila obrokov do druge polovice leta 2006, ne pa oprostitev plačila obresti.
Thus, while public authorities must pursue their debtors with the same vigour as a private creditor, the Authority considers that since private market players also granted remission of outstanding loans to NAC, the same action by Troms County does not amount to State aid.
Ker morajo javni organi svoje dolžnike terjati prav tako strogo kot zasebni upnik, Nazorni organ meni, da zato, ker so tudi zasebni akterji na trgu NLA odobrili odpust neodplačanih posojil, enako dejanje okrožja Troms ni državna pomoč.
Section 2.1 of the State Aid Guidelines on State guarantees stipulates that State guarantees constitute a benefit to the borrower and a drain on State resources when no premium is paid in return for the guarantee.
Oddelek 2.1 Smernic o državni pomoči glede državnih jamstev določa, da državno jamstvo predstavlja ugodnost za posojilojemalca in odliv državnih sredstev, če se za jamstvo ne plača premija.
It would therefore appear that the guarantee granted to NAC by Troms County conferred an advantage on NAC, thus favouring that undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Zato se zdi, da je jamstvo, ki ga je okrožje Troms odobrilo NLA, NLA prineslo ugodnosti in tako dalo prednost podjetju v smislu člena 61(1) EGP.
Second, the aid measure must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Drugič, ukrep pomoči mora biti selektiven, tako da daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
The measures under examination were directed specifically at NAC and are therefore clearly selective.
Obravnavani ukrepi so bili usmerjeni posebej na NLA in so zato jasno selektivni.
For the measures to constitute State aid, they must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Ukrepi predstavljajo državno pomoč, če izkrivljajo konkurenco in vplivajo na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
On the basis that NAC is in direct competition with other institutions in Norway and around Europe which offer airline pilot education according to common European rules (Joint Aviation Authorities Flight Crew Licence, or JAA-FCL), it would appear that the funding strengthens the position of the recipient and thus has the potential to distort competition between these various schools and affect trade between the States in which they are established.
Na podlagi tega, da je NLA neposredna konkurenca drugim ustanovam na Norveškem in v Evropi, ki izvajajo izobraževanje za letalske pilote v skladu s skupnimi evropskimi pravili (Licenca letalskega osebja Združenih letalskih organov ali JAA-FLC), se zdi, da financiranje krepi položaj prejemnika in zato lahko izkrivlja konkurenco med temi različnimi šolami in vpliva na trgovino med državami, v katerih so ustanovljene.
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Authority concludes that the following measures do not amount to State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da naslednji ukrepi niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) EGP:
project funding to NLH from Troms County (I-2.1(b) above),
financiranje projektov za NLH s strani okrožja Troms (I.2.1(b) zgoraj),
the grant of remission of a loan from Troms County in favour of NAC (I-2.1(c) above), and
odobritev odpusta posojila okrožja Troms v korist NLA (I.2.1(c) zgoraj), in
loan to NLH from the Municipality of Målselv (I-2.1(e) above),
posojilo občine Målselv za NLH (I.2.1(e) zgoraj),
and that the following measures, granted in favour of NAC, do amount to State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA:
in da naslednji ukrepi, odobreni v korist NLA, so državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) EGP:
direct grant of NOK 4,5 million from the State budget (I-2.1(a) above), and
4,5 milijona NOK neposredne pomoči iz državnega proračuna (I.2.1(a) zgoraj), in
loan guarantee granted by Troms County without payment of a premium (I-2.1(d) above).
jamstvo za posojilo, ki ga je odobrilo okrožje Troms brez plačila premije (I.2.1(d) zgoraj).
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘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 (…).
Po členu 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču „Nadzorni organ Efte je treba o kakršnih koli načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči obvestiti dovolj zgodaj, da se mu omogoči, da predloži svoje pripombe […].
The Norwegian authorities did not notify the aid measures described above to the Authority.
Norveški organi zgoraj opisanih ukrepov niso priglasili Nadzornemu organu.
The Authority therefore concludes that, in relation to the measures identified as aid (namely the direct grant and the loan guarantee described, respectively, at I-2.1(a) and (d) above), the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da norveški organi v zvezi z ukrepi, ki so bili opredeljeni kot pomoč (in sicer neposredna pomoč in jamstvo za posojilo, opisana v I.2.1(a) in (d) zgoraj, niso upoštevali obveznosti, ki jim jih nalaga člen 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The support granted therefore amounts to ‘unlawful aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Zato je dodeljena podpora „nezakonita pomoč“ v smislu člena 1(f) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
Assessment under Article 61 EEA
Ocena na podlagi člena 61 EGP
None of the situations described in Article 61(2) EEA can be applied to the present case.
V tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti nobenega od položajev, opisanih v členu 61(2) EGP.
The region in question does not fall within the scope of Article 61(3)(a) EEA and paragraph (b) of Article 61(3) EEA does not apply to the present case.
Zadevna regija ne sodi na področje uporabe člena 61(3)(a) EGP in odstavek (b) člena 61(3) EGP se v tem primeru ne uporablja.
The contested funding does not appear to promote horizontal Community objectives within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) EEA directly, such as research and development, employment, the environment etc. Indeed, the Norwegian authorities have not invoked this derogation.
Zdi se, da sporno financiranje neposredno ne spodbuja horizontalnih ciljev Skupnosti v smislu člena 61(3)(c) EGP, kot so raziskave in razvoj, zaposlovanje, okolje itd. Norveški organi se ne sklicujejo na to odstopanje.
The Authority therefore considers that the contested funding cannot be considered to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of that paragraph.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da spornega financiranja ni mogoče šteti za združljivega z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v smislu navedenega odstavka.
Assessment under Article 59(2) EEA
Ocena na podlagi člena 59(2) EGP
Pursuant to Article 59(2) EEA, ‘undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest … shall be subject to the rules contained in this Agreement, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them, The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties’.
Na podlagi člena 59(2) EGP „podjetja, pooblaščena za opravljanje službe splošnega gospodarskega pomena […] ravnajo po pravilih iz tega sporazuma, zlasti po pravilih o konkurenci, kolikor uporaba takšnih pravil pravno ali dejansko ne ovira izvajanja posebnih nalog, ki so jim dodeljene. Razvoj trgovine ne sme biti prizadet v takšnem obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z interesi pogodbenic“.
The application of that provision has been developed in the State Aid Guidelines on public service compensation, paragraph 25 of which stipulates that the Guidelines will be applied to the assessment of non-notified aid which was granted after the adoption of those Guidelines.
Uporaba te določbe je bila razvita v odstavku 25 Smernic o državni pomoči za nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe, ki določa, da se Smernice uporabljajo za ocenjevanje nepriglašene pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena po sprejetju navedenih smernic.
In all other cases, the provisions in force at the time the aid was granted will be applied.
V vseh drugih primerih se bodo uporabljale določbe, veljavne na datum odobritve pomoči.
The two measures under examination pre-date the adoption of the Guidelines (20 December 2005).
Oba obravnavana ukrepa sta začela veljati v času pred sprejetjem Smernic (20. decembra 2005).
No specific rules on public service compensation existed prior to the introduction of what was then Chapter 18C of the State Aid Guidelines (now simply called the Chapter on public service compensation).
Pred uvedbo takratnega poglavja 18C Smernic o državni pomoči (ki se sedaj imenuje preprosto Poglavje o nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe) ni bilo posebnih pravil o nadomestilu za opravljanje javne službe.
The Authority nevertheless finds it appropriate to base the assessment of earlier measures on the Commission Communication on services of general economic interest in Europe [25] read together with case law of the Court of Justice rendered prior to the granting of the aid.Moreover, the Authority finds that the content of Chapter 18C of the State Aid Guidelines did not fundamentally alter the basis for assessment, but simply clarified what is required in order to fulfil the various criteria contained in Article 59(2) EEA.
Nadzornemu organu se kljub temu zdi primerno, da ocena zgodnejših ukrepov temelji na Sporočilu Komisije o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega interesa v Evropi [25], branem skupaj s sodno prakso, ki jo je Sodišče izreklo pred dodelitvijo pomoči.Nadzorni organ tudi ugotavlja, da vsebina poglavja 18C Smernic o državni pomoči ni bistveno spremenila podlage za oceno, ampak je samo razjasnila, kaj je potrebno za izpolnitev meril iz člena 59(2) EGP.
Compatibility of the two measures under examination will therefore be assessed on the basis of the following (cumulative) principles, taking due account of the timing of the measures and with due regard to the fact that Article 59(2) EEA constitutes a derogation and as such must be interpreted restrictively:
Združljivost obeh obravnavanih ukrepov bo zato ocenjena na podlagi naslednjih (kumulativnih) načel, z upoštevanjem časovne razporeditve ukrepov in ob ustreznem upoštevanju dejstva, da člen 59(2) EGP predstavlja odstopanje in zato ga je treba razlagati restriktivno:
the service in question must be a ‘service of general economic interest’ and must be clearly defined as such,
zadevna služba mora biti „služba splošnega gospodarskega pomena“ in mora biti jasno opredeljena kot taka,
the undertaking in question must be officially entrusted with the provision of that service,
zadevno podjetje mora biti uradno pooblaščeno za opravljanje navedene službe,
the application of the competition rules would obstruct the performance of the particular tasks assigned to the undertaking in question, and
uporaba pravil konkurence bi ovirala izvajanje posebnih nalog, dodeljenih zadevnemu podjetju, in
development of trade must not be affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties.
razvoj trgovine ne sme biti prizadet v takšnem obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z interesi pogodbenic.
Service of general economic interest
Služba splošnega gospodarskega pomena
EFTA States have a wide discretion in determining the level of services in the general economic interest and may, where necessary, impose public service obligations in order to ensure that level.
Države Efte imajo široko diskrecijo pri določanju ravni služb splošnega gospodarskega pomena in lahko po potrebi pri zagotavljanju te ravni uvedejo obveznosti javnih služb.
The definition by a State of what it regards as a service of general economic interest is subject only to control for manifest error.
Pri opredelitvi države, kaj šteje za službo splošnega gospodarskega pomena, se preverja samo, da ne pride do očitnih napak.
However, in all cases, for the derogation in Article 59(2) EEA to apply, the public service mission must be clearly defined.
Vendar je treba v vseh primerih za uporabo odstopanja v členu 59(2) EGP jasno opredeliti poslanstvo javne službe.
In this respect, it follows from case law that the concept of ‘service of general economic interest’ covers services that exhibit special characteristics as compared to the economic interest of economic activity in general [26].
V tej zvezi iz sodne praske izhaja, da pojem „služba splošnega gospodarskega pomena“ zajema službe, ki imajo v primerjavi z gospodarskim pomenom gospodarskih dejavnosti na splošno posebne značilnosti [26].
One such special feature may be the fact that the public authorities consider that the service needs to be provided even where the market may not have sufficient incentive to do so [27].
Ena taka posebna značilnost je lahko dejstvo, da javni organi menijo, da je službo treba opravljati tudi tam, kjer na trgu za to ni dovolj spodbude [27].
Thus, where certain services are deemed to be in the general interest and market forces do not result in satisfactory provision of such services, the State concerned can lay down specific public service obligations to secure the level of service provided.
Kjer se torej za posamezne službe šteje, da so splošnega gospodarskega pomena in tržne sile ne zagotavljajo ustreznega opravljanja teh služb, zadevna država lahko določi posebne obveznosti javnih služb, da zavaruje raven opravljanja službe.
In relation to the direct grant of NOK 4,5 million, the Authority notes that the relevant post in the State budget for 2005 allocates funding to ‘airline pilot education located in Tromsø/Bardufoss’.
V zvezi s 4,5 milijona NOK neposredne pomoči Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da ustrezna postavka v državnem proračunu za leto 2005 financiranje namenja za „izobraževanje za letalske pilote v Tromsø/Bardufossu“.
The Authority is of the view that this cannot amount to a clear definition of a public service mission.
Nadzorni organ meni, da to ne more biti jasna opredelitev poslanstva javne službe.
Moreover, even if it were to be argued that the special characteristic is the fact that the entire course takes place in Norway and that this is the ‘general interest’ element of the service, the Authority notes that nothing in the budget or in other documents submitted to the Authority makes the grant conditional on such a feature.
Tudi če bi sprejeli razlago, da je posebna značilnost dejstvo, da cel program poteka na Norveškem in da je to element storitve, ki pomeni „splošni pomen“, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da v proračunu ali drugi dokumentaciji, predloženi Nadzornemu organu, ni ničesar, kar bi nakazovalo, da je pomoč pogojena s tako značilnostjo.
The Authority is therefore of the opinion that in the present case the definition of a service of general economic interest amounts to manifest error.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je v tem primeru opredelitev službe splošnega gospodarskega pomena očitna napaka.
Thus, the condition for Article 59(2) EEA to apply (i.e. that an undertaking performs a service of general economic interest) is not fulfilled in the case at hand.
Tako v obravnavanem primeru pogoj za uporabo člena 59(2) EGP (tj. da podjetje opravlja službo splošnega gospodarskega pomena) ni izpolnjen.
Finally, in relation to the measure identified at I-2.1(d) above, the Authority is of the view that a guarantee for a certain amount of debt, defined in general, cannot amount to ensuring the fulfilment of a particular task of general economic interest and that this measure therefore does not fall to be assessed under Article 59(2) EEA.
V zvezi z ukrepom, opredeljenim v I.2.1(d) pa Nadzorni organ meni, da jamstvo za posamezen znesek dolga, opredeljeno na splošno, ne more zagotavljati izpolnjevanja določene naloge splošnega gospodarskega pomena in da ta ukrep zato ne sodi na področje, ki se ocenjuje na podlagi člena 59(2) EGP.
Entrustment
Pooblastilo
Even assuming that the service in question had been properly defined, in order for the exception in Article 59(2) EEA to apply the public service mission must be specifically entrusted through an act of public authority.
Tudi če predpostavljamo, da je bila zadevna služba pravilno opredeljena, mora biti za uporabo izjeme iz člena 59(2) EGP jasno opredeljeno poslanstvo javne službe in poverjena mora biti z aktom javnega organa.
The Authority notes that both measures under examination would appear to grant a financial advantage to NAC without entrusting them with any public service mission in return for the funding.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da se zdi, da je NLA imel finančne koristi od obeh obravnavanih ukrepov, ne da bi mu bilo v zameno za financiranje poverjeno poslanstvo javne službe.
With reference to the argument of the Norwegian authorities based on Commission practice, the Authority is of the opinion that it does not follow from the decisions of that body that simply receiving funding from the State amounts to entrustment, when no description of the public service mission or the conditions under which it must be ensured is given [28].
V zvezi s trditvijo norveških organov, ki temelji na praksi Komisije, Nadzorni organ meni, da iz sklepov tega organa ni razvidno, da preprosto prejemanje sredstev od države pomeni pooblastilo, če ni podan opis poslanstva javne službe ali pogoji, pod katerimi jo je treba zagotavljati [28].