natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, it cannot be excluded that a limited economic advantage may have been conferred on Mesta AS via the prices of (some of) the construction contracts.
Tako ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da je bila družba Mesta AS prek cen (nekaterih) pogodb o gradbenih delih deležna omejene gospodarske prednosti.
However, as will appear from the reasons set out below, potential State aid involved in this context would be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Kot pa je razvidno iz spodaj navedenih razlogov, bi morebitna državna pomoč v tem okviru veljala za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Operation and maintenance contracts
Pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju
As a preliminary point the Authority recalls that the Norwegian authorities have argued that the measures in favour of Mesta AS in relation to the operation and maintenance contracts constitutes compensation for costs that Mesta AS had to bear due to public service obligations imposed on it.
Nadzorni organ želi najprej spomniti, da so norveški organi trdili, da ukrepi v korist družbe Mesta AS v zvezi s pogodbami o upravljanju in vzdrževanju pomenijo nadomestilo za stroške, ki jih je morala družba Mesta AS nositi zaradi obveznosti javne službe, ki so ji bile naložene.
Although this argument has been made to support a submission that the measures may be considered compatible on the basis of Article 59(2) EEA, for the sake of completeness, the Authority has considered whether the presence of a public service obligation would exclude the presence of State aid all together on the basis of the criteria established in the Altmark judgment [182].In the Altmark judgment the Court of Justice held that compensation for public service obligations does not constitute State aid when four cumulative criteria are met.
Čeprav je bil ta argument namenjen v podporo trditvi, da lahko ukrepi veljajo za združljive na podlagi člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP, je Nadzorni organ zaradi celovitosti proučil, ali bi obveznost javne službe v celoti izločila obstoj državne pomoči na podlagi meril, določenih v sodbi Altmark [182]. V sodbi Altmark je Sodišče menilo, da nadomestilo za obveznosti javne službe ne pomeni državne pomoči, kadar so izpolnjena štiri kumulativna merila.
First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and such obligations must be clearly defined.
Prvič, podjetje prejemnik mora dejansko imeti obveznosti javne službe, ki jih izvaja, in take obveznosti morajo biti jasno opredeljene.
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Drugič, parametri, na podlagi katerih je izračunano nadomestilo, morajo biti objektivno in pregledno določeni vnaprej.
Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit.
Tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno za pokritje vseh ali dela stroškov, nastalih zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in razumnega dobička.
Finally, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, would have incurred.
In nazadnje, kadar podjetje, ki naj bi izvajalo obveznosti javne službe, ni izbrano na podlagi postopka javnega naročanja, ki bi omogočil izbiro ponudnika, ki je navedene storitve zmožen izvajati po najnižji ceni, je treba potrebno stopnjo nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo značilno dobro vodeno in ustrezno opremljeno podjetje.
When these four criteria are met cumulatively, the State funding does not entail an advantage to the undertaking.
Če so izpolnjena vsa štiri navedena merila, državno financiranje ne pomeni prednosti za podjetje.
As to the present case the Authority observes that Mesta AS has not been selected in a public procurement procedure.
Glede obravnavanega primera Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da družba Mesta AS ni bila izbrana v postopku javnega naročanja.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have neither argued that (nor provided the Authority with information enabling a verification of whether) the costs incurred by Mesta AS correspond to the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped.
Poleg tega norveški organi niso trdili (niti Nadzornemu organu predložili informacij, ki bi omogočile preveritev), da stroški, nastali družbi Mesta AS, ustrezajo stroškom značilnega podjetja, ki je dobro upravljano in ustrezno opremljeno.
The public service obligation has in the case of Mesta AS therefore not been discharged at the required cost efficiency established by the fourth criterion of the Altmark judgment.
Tako v primeru družbe Mesta AS obveznost javne službe ni bila izvajana v skladu z zahtevano stroškovno učinkovitostjo, določeno v četrtem merilu sodbe Altmark.
Already for that reason the presence of State aid can therefore not be excluded on the basis of a reference to the Altmark judgment.
Tako že zaradi tega ni mogoče izključiti obstoja državne pomoči na podlagi sklicevanja na sodbo Altmark.
The Authority observes that all operation and maintenance contracts were transferred to Mesta AS on 1 January 2003 at prices which had been established on the basis of costs within the Production Department.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so bile vse pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju 1. januarja 2003 prenesene na družbo Mesta AS po cenah, ki so bile določene na podlagi stroškov v Oddelku za gradnjo.
The prices were therefore not resulting from public tenders and not based on expert evaluations.
Te cene torej niso izhajale iz javnih razpisov niti niso temeljile na strokovnih ocenah.
The Norwegian authorities and Mesta AS have argued that by establishing Mesta AS on 1 January 2003 and awarding Mesta AS all operation and maintenance contracts in relation to the national road network the authorities established a, de facto, monopoly.
Norveški organi in družba Mesta AS so trdili, da so organi z ustanovitvijo družbe Mesta AS 1. januarja 2003 in dodelitvijo vseh pogodb o upravljanju in vzdrževanju v zvezi z državnim cestnim omrežjem družbi Mesta AS vzpostavili dejanski monopol.
There was therefore no ‘operation and maintenance’ market yet and hence no market price.
Takrat še ni bilo nobenega trga za „upravljanje in vzdrževanje“ in zato ni bilo tržne cene.
That market was only opened gradually by putting 25 % of the contract portfolio up for public tender on an annual basis.
Navedeni trg se je odpiral postopoma, tako da se je na javnih razpisih oddajalo po 25 % pogodbenega portfelja na leto.
Since there was no market price there was no other alternative but to transfer the contracts at cost based prices.
Ker ni bilo tržne cene, ni bilo nobene druge možnosti, kot da se pogodbe prenesejo po cenah na podlagi stroškov.
This argument is based on the contention that the activity of operating and maintaining roads was not open for competition on 1 January 2003.
Ta argument temelji na trditvi, da dejavnost upravljanja in vzdrževanja cest 1. januarja 2003 še ni bila odprta za konkurenco.
However, the Authority observes that not only was some of the operation and maintenance work of the Public Road Administration carried out by subcontractors prior to 2003 [183], but municipalities also tendered out operation and maintenance works in respect of municipal roads long before January 2003 [184].
Vendar Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so nekaj upravljavskih in vzdrževalnih del Uprave za javne ceste pred letom 2003 opravili podizvajalci [183], pa tudi, da so občine že precej pred januarjem 2003 na razpisih oddajale upravljavska in vzdrževalna dela v zvezi z občinskimi cestami [184].
In other words, the activity of ‘operating’ and ‘maintaining roads’ was already open for competition prior to January 2003 and that did not change with the establishment of Mesta AS.
Povedano drugače, dejavnost „upravljanja“ in „vzdrževanja cest“ je bila odprta za konkurenco že pred januarjem 2003 in to se z ustanovitvijo družbe Mesta AS ni spremenilo.
On the contrary, Mesta AS was placed on the operation and maintenance market as an operator by the Norwegian authorities and has, as of its establishment, been competing with other undertakings without being constrained from participating in public tenders or taking on road operation and maintenance assignments for other contracting authorities than the Public Road Administration [185].
Nasprotno, norveški organi so družbo Mesta AS umestili na trg upravljanja in vzdrževanja kot ponudnika storitev in družba je od svoje ustanovitve tekmovala z drugimi podjetji brez omejitev sodelovanja na javnih razpisih ali prevzemanja nalog upravljanja in vzdrževanja cest za druge naročnike, ki niso Uprava za javne ceste [185].
Hence on 1 January 2003 the operation and maintenance service market was open for competition and this can therefore not be a reason for stating that there was no market price.
Tako je bil trg za storitve upravljanja in vzdrževanja 1. januarja 2003 odprt za konkurenco, zato to ne more biti razlog za navedbo, da ni bilo tržne cene.
It is true that operation and maintenance work in respect of one part of that market, namely in respect of ‘the national road network’ has been reserved for the Production Department, but this does not alter the conclusion as regards the operation and maintenance market in general.
Res je, da je bilo upravljavsko in vzdrževalno delo v zvezi z enim segmentom navedenega trga, tj. „državnim cestnim omrežjem“, rezervirano za Oddelek za gradnjo, vendar to ne spremeni ugotovitve glede trga upravljanja in vzdrževanja na splošno.
Moreover, a price analysis carried out in Akershus (prior to 2000) showed that the price level of the operation and maintenance contracts was about 20–25 % above that of the contracts entered into by market operators.
Poleg tega je analiza cen, ki so jo opravili v Akershusu (pred letom 2000), pokazala, da je raven cen pogodb o upravljanju in vzdrževanju za približno 20–25 % presegala raven cen pogodb, ki so jih sklenili ponudniki na trgu.
The Authority observes that the test/pilot projects were indeed prices resulting from public tenders, and not only did such tender contracts cover the national road work, but they even involved the very same road stretches as the operation and maintenance contracts carried out by the Production Department [186].
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so preizkusni/pilotni projekti dejansko vključevali cene, ki so izhajale iz javnih razpisov, pogodbe na podlagi takih razpisov pa niso zajemale le državnega cestnega omrežja, temveč celo popolnoma iste cestne odseke kot pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju, ki jih je izvajal Oddelek za gradnjo [186].
In the view of the Authority a market price level had therefore been identified by the test/pilot tender prices for comparable contracts prior to 1 January 2003.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je bila tržna raven cen tako ugotovljena s cenami preizkusnih/pilotnih razpisov za primerljive pogodbe pred 1. januarjem 2003.
As regards the argument of the Norwegian authorities that the prices resulting from the test/pilot tenders were not reliable due to the significant difference between the highest and lowest bids, the Authority points out that in a public tender it is the winning bid which represents the market price, not the range of bids.
Glede argumenta norveških organov, da cene, ki so izhajale iz preizkusnih/pilotnih razpisov, niso bile zanesljive zaradi precejšnje razlike med najvišjo in najnižjo ponudbo, Nadzorni organ poudarja, da ni razpon ponudb, temveč je v javnem razpisu izbrana cena tista, ki pomeni tržno ceno.
If this would not be the case there would never be a way to establish a market price via public tenders.
Če ne bi bilo tako, tržne cene nikoli in nikakor ne bi mogli določiti na javnih razpisih.
Indeed, to argue that the test/pilot contracts (based on public tenders) are not indicative of market value would be to contend that public tenders do not result in market prices.
Trditev, da preizkusne/pilotne pogodbe (na podlagi javnih razpisov) ne odsevajo tržne vrednosti, bi bila hkrati tudi trditev, da tržne cene niso posledica javnih razpisov.
Moreover, contrary to what has been argued by the Norwegian authorities the fact that the test/pilot tenders were launched with a different purpose than obtaining information of the market price (namely to ‘educate’ the Public Road Administration as a contracting authority), or that the tenders represented only a small part of the national road network, do not disqualify the resulting tender prices from representing market prices.
Poleg tega, nasprotno trditvam norveških organov, dejstvo, da preizkusni/pilotni razpisi niso bili objavljeni zaradi pridobivanja informacij o tržni ceni (temveč zaradi „izobraževanja“ Uprave za javne ceste kot naročnika) ali da so razpisi pokrivali le delček državnega cestnega omrežja, ne pomeni, da posledične cene iz razpisov ne pomenijo tržnih cen.
In this regard the Authority recalls that the Commission has recently referred to prices resulting from public tenders in the road operation and maintenance market as representing market prices [187].The Authority also recalls that the Norwegian authorities have argued that the public tender test/pilot contract subsequently involved additional works.
Glede tega želi Nadzorni organ spomniti, da se je Komisija nedavno sklicevala na cene, ki so posledica javnih razpisov na trgu upravljanja in vzdrževanja cest, kot tržne cene [187].Nadzorni organ želi še spomniti, da so norveški organi trdili, da so preizkusne/pilotne pogodbe javnih razpisov pozneje vključevale dodatna dela.
Such additional works were included in the price of the transitional contracts and therefore pushed up the price of the transitional contracts.
Taka dodatna dela so bila vključena v ceno prehodnih pogodb in so zato dvignila ceno prehodnih pogodb.
The Authority notes that, in any event, the work which were subject to public tenders and thus to competition was exclusive of additional works and it is thus the price for this work which represents the market price.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da delo, ki je bilo predmet javnih razpisov in s tem konkurence, v nobenem primeru ni vključevalo dodatnih del, tako da je cena tega dela tista, ki pomeni tržno ceno.
The additional works are awarded to whoever the winner of the public tender is without being subject to a new tender round.
Dodatna dela se dodelijo zmagovalcu javnega razpisa, ne da bi bil za to potreben nov razpis.
So, even if the additional works might have been part of the reason for a higher price of the contracts transferred to Mesta AS it does not change the assessment of whether the price, exclusive of additional works, represents the market price.
Čeprav so bila dodatna dela morebiti delno razlog za višjo ceno pogodb, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS, to torej ne spremeni ocene, ali cena, ki ne vključuje dodatnih del, pomeni tržno ceno.
As stated above, the Authority considers that a market price level had been identified by the test/pilot tender prices for comparable contracts prior to 1 January 2003 and that the Norwegian authorities were not unaware that the price level identified by the market was lower than the prices at which the contracts were transferred.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, Nadzorni organ meni, da je bila raven tržne cene ugotovljena s cenami preizkusnih/pilotnih razpisov za primerljive pogodbe pred 1. januarjem 2003 in da norveški organi niso bili nepoučeni o tem, da je bila na trgu ugotovljena raven cene nižja od cen, po katerih so bile prenesene pogodbe.
Moreover, even after the issuance of the first public tenders – upon which the authorities must have become aware of the price difference [188] – the authorities did not take steps to renegotiate the transitional contracts.
Poleg tega organi niti po objavi prvih javnih razpisov – po kateri so morali opaziti cenovne razlike [188] – niso ukrepali glede spremembe pogojev prehodnih pogodb.
Whether or not the transitional contracts conferred an economic advantage in favour of Mesta AS, the contracts constitute a public service obligation within the meaning of Article 59(2) EEA.
Ne glede na to, ali je bila družba Mesta AS s prehodnimi pogodbami deležna gospodarske prednosti ali ne, te pogodbe pomenijo obveznost javne službe v smislu člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
The remuneration paid for the services have therefore been assessed under this provision with a view to determine the presence of any overcompensation.
Zato je bilo nadomestilo, plačano za navedene storitve, ocenjeno v skladu s to določbo, da bi ugotovili, ali je šlo za kakršno koli čezmerno nadomestilo.
Document duty and registration fee
Taksa za dokumente in vpis v zemljiško knjigo
An economic advantage may be provided through a reduction in the undertaking’s tax burden in various ways, including a reduction in the tax base or total or partial reduction in the amount of tax, or a deferment, cancellation or even special rescheduling of tax debt [189].
Gospodarska prednost se lahko zagotovi z zmanjšanjem davčne obremenitve podjetja na različne načine, vključno z znižanjem davčne osnove oziroma celotnim ali delnim zmanjšanjem zneska davka, odlogom, odpisom ali celo posebnim reprogramiranjem davčnega dolga [189].
The real estate transferred from the Production Department to Mesta AS was registered as a ‘name change’ implying that Mesta AS benefits from the protection offered by registration in the real estate registry while being exempted from paying document duty and registration fees, normally falling due in the case of transfer of title to property.
Nepremičnine, prenesene z Oddelka za gradnjo na družbo Mesta AS, so bile evidentirane kot „sprememba imena“, kar pomeni, da je bila družba Mesta AS deležna ugodnosti zaradi zaščite, ki izhaja iz vpisa v register nepremičnin, medtem ko je bila oproščena plačila takse za dokumente in vpis v zemljiško knjigo, ki jo je običajno treba plačati v primeru prenosa lastninske pravice.
The Authority considers therefore that Mesta AS received an economic advantage which it would not have received during the normal course of business.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je družba Mesta AS prejela gospodarsko prednost, ki je ne bi bila deležna pri običajnem poteku poslovanja.
In this regard the Authority observes that the fact that, in the absence of an exemption, the Norwegian authorities would have increased their initial contribution in cash (corresponding to the amount of the duty), does not alter the assessment of whether the grant of the exemption involves an economic advantage for Mesta AS.
Glede tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da dejstvo, da bi norveški organi, če te oprostitve ne bi bilo, povečali začetni prispevek v gotovini (ki bi ustrezal znesku takse), ne spremeni ocene, ali odobritev oprostitve pomeni gospodarsko prednost za družbo Mesta AS.
Restructuring and other reorganization measures
Ukrepi za prestrukturiranje in drugi reorganizacijski ukrepi
The condition of the presence of state resources is fulfilled because the total amount of estimated restructuring costs of NOK 1468 million is intended to be covered by grants awarded by the Norwegian State between 2003 and 2005 (of which Mesta AS has received an amount of NOK 993,6 million).
Pogoj obstoja državnih sredstev je izpolnjen, saj naj bi s subvencijami države Norveške med letoma 2003 in 2005 pokrili skupni znesek 1468 milijonov NOK ocenjenih stroškov prestrukturiranja (od česar je družba Mesta AS prejela 993,6 milijona NOK).
Moreover, the capital injected by the Norwegian authorities as equity into Mesta AS for purposes of covering the costs of the temporary salary also represents funds provided by the State.
Poleg tega tudi kapital, ki so ga norveški organi v družbo Mesta AS vložili kot trajni kapital zaradi pokritja stroškov začasne plače, pomeni sredstva, ki jih je zagotovila država.
The contribution of capital and assets (i.e. machinery, real estate and contracts)
Vložek kapitala in sredstev (tj. stroji, nepremičnine in pogodbe)
It appears from the Transparency Directive [191] and the State Aid Guidelines on Public authorities’ holdings’ that the provision of capital to public undertakings involves state resources.
Iz Direktive o preglednosti [191] in Smernic o državni pomoči glede matičnih družb javnih organov izhaja, da zagotavljanje kapitala javnim podjetjem vključuje državna sredstva.
In line with the Commission’s decision making practice the Authority considers likewise the investment by the State in the form of contribution in kind (such as machinery, real estate and contracts) involves the transfer of state resources [192].(iii) Transfer of transitional contracts
V skladu z prakso odločanja Komisije Nadzorni organ podobno meni, da tudi vložek države v obliki prispevka v naravi (kot so stroji, nepremičnine in pogodbe) vključuje prenos državnih sredstev [192].(iii) Prenos prehodnih pogodb
The transfer by the public authorities of a contract for purposes of the provision of services by a state integrated entity in return for revenues by the State, to an undertaking, which takes over the role as a service provider, involves state resources in the form of payments by the State for the provision of services.
Prenos pogodbe, ki ga opravijo javni organi, zaradi zagotavljanja storitev subjekta, ki je del državne strukture, v zameno za prihodke od države, na podjetje, ki prevzame vlogo ponudnika storitev, vključuje državna sredstva v obliki plačil države za izvajanje storitev.
A loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.
Izguba davčnega prihodka je enaka porabi državnih sredstev v obliki davčnega odhodka.
Such state support may be provided just as much through tax provisions of a legislative nature as through the practices of the tax authorities.
Tako državno podporo je mogoče zagotoviti tako z davčnimi določbami zakonodajne narave kot s praksami davčnih organov.
By virtue of its exemption from paying document duty and registration fee Mesta AS has kept the sums corresponding to the payment of the relevant duty and fee otherwise payable to the Norwegian authorities.
Z oprostitvijo plačila takse za dokumente in vpis v zemljiško knjigo je družba Mesta AS obdržala zneske, ki ustrezajo plačilu ustrezne dajatve in takse, ki bi jo morala plačati norveškim organom.
As the State is therefore foregoing revenue the exemption involves the transfer of state resources.
Ker se država torej odreče prihodku, oprostitev pomeni prenos državnih sredstev.
This is in line with the Authority’s conclusion in the Entra case adopted on 14 December 2005 [193].
To je skladno s sklepno ugotovitvijo Nadzornega organa v zadevi Entra, sprejeto 14. decembra 2005 [193].
The provision by the State of funds to finance the restructuring costs as well as any contribution by the State of assets, including contracts, at a value which is below market value favour one company only, namely Mesta AS.
Če država zagotavlja sredstva za financiranje stroškov prestrukturiranja ali prispeva kakršna koli druga sredstva, vključno s pogodbami, po vrednosti, ki je nižja od tržne, to pomeni dajanje prednosti le eni družbi, to je družbi Mesta AS.
The measures are therefore selective in nature.
Zato so ti ukrepi po svoji naravi selektivni.