natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With respect to the effect on trade and the fact that the present case concerns a local market for bus transport in Oslo, the Authority recalls that in the Altmark judgment, which also concerned regional bus transport services, the Court of Justice held that:
Ob upoštevanju tega, da škodi trgovini, in dejstva, da se ta zadeva nanaša na lokalni trg avtobusnih prevozov v Oslu, Nadzorni organ opozarja, da je Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Altmark, ki se je tudi nanašala na storitve regionalnih avtobusnih prevozov, navedlo, da:
“a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States … The second condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, does not therefore depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.” [93](165) This means that even if – as in the present case – only the local bus transport market (Oslo) is concerned, public funding made available to one operator in such a local market is liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties [94].
„javna subvencija, dodeljena nekemu podjetju, ki opravlja le lokalni ali regionalni prevoz in ki ne opravlja tega prevoza zunaj države članice izvora, lahko vseeno vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami … Tako torej drugi pogoj za uporabo člena 92(1) Pogodbe, v skladu s katerim mora biti pomoč taka, da prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, ni odvisen od lokalne ali regionalne narave opravljenega prevoza ali pomena zadevnega področja dejavnosti“ [93]. (165) To pomeni, da bi lahko javna sredstva, ki so dana na voljo enemu izvajalcu na takšnem lokalnem trgu, škodila trgovini med pogodbenicama, tudi če bi se kot v tem primeru upošteval samo trg lokalnega avtobusnega prevoza (Oslo) [94].
Consequently, the Authority considers that the annual compensation and the public service capital injection were liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da bi trgovini med pogodbenicama lahko škodila tudi letno nadomestilo in kapitalski vložek v javne storitve.
Conclusion on the annual compensation and the public service capital injection
Sklep o letnem nadomestilu in kapitalskem vložku v javne storitve
On the basis of the assessment above, the Authority concludes that the annual compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier and (thereafter) to AS Sporveisbussene and the public service capital injection to cover the underfunding of the pension fund constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi zgornje ocene Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da letno nadomestilo za podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier in (s tem) za podjetje AS Sporveisbussene ter kapitalski vložek v javne storitve za kritje primanjkljaja v pokojninskem skladu pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATE AID MEASURES AS EXISTING AID OR NEW AID – THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE CAPITAL INJECTION
OPREDELITEV UKREPOV DRŽAVNE POMOČI KOT OBSTOJEČA ALI NOVA POMOČ – LETNO NADOMESTILO IN KAPITALSKI VLOŽEK V JAVNE STORITVE
Introduction – the EFTA Court’s Judgment in Case E-14/10
Uvod – Sodba Sodišča Efte v zadevi E-14/10
Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that “existing aid” shall mean:
Člen 1(b)(i) dela II Protokola 3 določa, da „obstoječa pomoč“ pomeni:
“all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.”
„vso pomoč, ki je v zadevnih državah Efte obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP, to je sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki so se začele izvajati pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP in se uporabljajo tudi po začetku njegove veljavnosti“.
The Authority notes that AS Oslo Sporveier, at the time of the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway (1 January 1994), was compensated for carrying out scheduled bus transport in Oslo in accordance with the provisions of the transport legislation and established administrative practice (pre-dating the EEA Agreement), as described in detail above.
Nadzorni organ navaja, da je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier ob začetku veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP na Norveškem (1. januarja 1994) prejelo nadomestilo za izvajanje rednih avtobusnih prevozov v Oslu v skladu z določbami prometne zakonodaje in ustaljeno upravno prakso (ki sega v obdobje pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP), kot je podrobno opisano zgoraj.
In its judgment in Case E-14/10 annulling the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL, the EFTA Court stated the following:
Sodišče Efte se je v sodbi v zadevi E-14/10, s katero razveljavlja Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 254/10/COL, izreklo tako:
“Whether the aid granted […] constitutes “existing aid” […] depends upon the interpretation of the provisions of Protocol 3 SCA […]
„Ali dodeljena pomoč […] pomeni „obstoječo pomoč“ […] je odvisno od razlage določb Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču […]
[…] to qualify as an “existing aid measure” under the EEA State aid rules, it must be part of an aid scheme that was put into effect before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.” [95]
[…] da bi se lahko obravnavala kot „ukrep obstoječe pomoči“ v skladu s pravili EGP o državni pomoči, mora biti del sheme pomoči, ki se je začela izvajati pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP“ [95].
Definition of an aid scheme
Opredelitev sheme pomoči
Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that an “aid scheme”:
Člen 1(d) dela II Protokola 3 določa, da „shema pomoči“:
“shall mean any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount;“
„pomeni vsak akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov dodeliti individualno pomoč podjetjem, opredeljenem v aktu na splošen in abstrakten način, in kateri koli akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče dodeliti pomoč, ki ni povezana z določenim projektom, enemu ali več podjetjem za nedoločen čas in/ali v nedoločenem znesku“.
Article 1(e) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that “individual aid”:
Člen 1(e) dela II Protokola 3 določa, da „individualna pomoč“:
“shall mean aid that is not awarded on the basis of an aid scheme and notifiable awards of aid on the basis of an aid scheme;”
„pomeni pomoč, ki ni dodeljena na podlagi sheme pomoči, in pomoč, ki jo je treba uradno prijaviti, dodeljena na podlagi sheme pomoči“.
This distinction is of particular importance in the context of existing aid, as Protocol 3 provides the Authority with the competence to keep under constant review existing systems of aid [96].
Ta razlika je zlasti pomembna v okviru obstoječe pomoči, saj se s Protokolom 3 na Nadzorni organ prenaša pristojnost za stalno pregledovanje obstoječih sistemov pomoči [96].
Likewise, Section V of Part II of Protocol 3 applies only to existing aid schemes [97].
Podobno se oddelek V dela II Protokola 3 nanaša samo na obstoječe sheme pomoči [97].
The Authority notes that this definition was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in 2001 with the insertion of Part II of Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ navaja, da je bila ta opredelitev vključena v Sporazum EGP leta 2001, ko se je vanj vključil del II Protokola 3.
Prior to 2001, when Protocol 3 was brought in line with the Procedural Regulation [98], there was no similarly precise definition in EEA law determining what an aid scheme was.
Pred letom 2001, ko se je Protokol 3 uskladil s postopkovno uredbo [98], ni v pravu EGP obstajala nobena podobno natančna opredelitev, ki bi določala, kaj shema pomoči pomeni.
Moreover, the rationale for the concept of existing aid – in principle that of providing EEA States and beneficiaries of state aid with some legal certainty regarding arrangements that predate the entry into force of state aid control in their legal systems whilst providing the Authority with the possibility of bringing such systems in line with EEA law – must in the Authority’s view be borne in mind.
Poleg tega je treba po mnenju Nadzornega organa upoštevati utemeljitev za pojem obstoječe pomoči – načeloma utemeljitev, da se državam EGP in upravičenkam do državne pomoči zagotavlja določena pravna gotovost v zvezi z dogovori, ki izhajajo iz obdobja pred začetkom veljavnosti nadzora državne pomoči v njihovih pravnih sistemih, ob hkratnem zagotavljanju, da ima Nadzorni organ možnosti takšne sisteme uskladiti s pravom EGP.
Furthermore the Authority notes that the case-law of the European Courts does not provide detailed guidance as regards the interpretation of this definition.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ navaja, da sodna praksa sodišč EU ne določa podrobnih smernic v zvezi z razlago te opredelitve.
The Authority has thus reviewed its own case practice and that of the European Commission and found that existing “aid schemes” have been held to encompass non-statutory customary law [99] and administrative practice related to the application of statutory [100] and non-statutory law [101].
Nadzorni organ je zato pregledal svojo lastno sodno prakso in prakso Evropske komisije ter ugotovil, da obstoječe „sheme pomoči“ obsegajo neobvezujoče običajno pravo [99] in upravno prakso, povezano z uporabo obvezujočega [100] in neobvezujočega prava [101].
In one case, the European Commission found that an aid scheme relating to Anstaltslast and Gewährträgerhaftung was based on the combination of an unwritten old legal principle combined with widespread practice across Germany [102].
Evropska komisija je v enem primeru ugotovila, da je shema pomoči za Anstaltslast in Gewährträgerhaftung temeljila na kombinaciji nepisanega starega pravnega načela in razširjene prakse v Nemčiji [102].
The measures under investigation
Ukrepi v preiskavi
The Authority recalls that the Norwegian transport legislation in essence sets out the following key parameters that are relevant for the aid measures at hand: (i) a system of co-financing of scheduled bus transport services (from state and county), (ii) that the counties are responsible for administering the scheduled bus transport services, control concessions, routes, schedules and ticket prices, and (iii) a detailed concession system.
Nadzorni organ opozarja, da norveška prometna zakonodaja v osnovi določa naslednje ključne parametre, ki so pomembni za zadevne ukrepe pomoči: (i) sistem sofinanciranja storitev rednega avtobusnega prevoza (iz države in okrožja), (ii) da so okrožja odgovorna za upravljanje storitev rednega avtobusnega prevoza, nadzor koncesij, proge, vozne rede in cene vozovnic ter (iii) podroben sistem koncesij.
Moreover, according to the Norwegian authorities, Article 22 CTA entails that Oslo Municipality is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes, where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service.
Poleg tega po navedbah norveških organov člen 22 ZKP pomeni, da mora občina Oslo plačati nadomestilo izvajalcem za izvajanje prevoznih storitev na nedonosnih progah, na katerih dohodek od prodaje vozovnic ne krije stroškov izvajanja storitve.
Article 22 CTA allows for compensation to cover the cost of the public service minus the ticket revenue.
V skladu s členom 22 ZKP lahko nadomestilo krije stroške javne storitve, od česar se odšteje dohodek od prodaje vozovnic.
Before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, Oslo Municipality chose to provide scheduled bus transport services under the relevant provisions of the CTA and CTR, compensating unprofitable routes in accordance with the administrative practice described above.
Pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP se je občina Oslo odločila, da bo izvajala storitve rednega avtobusnega prevoza na podlagi ustreznih določb ZKP in UKP, pri tem pa dodelila nadomestilo za nedonosne proge v skladu z zgoraj opisano upravno prakso.
This continued without interruption until the last directly awarded concession had run its course on 30 March 2008.
To se je nadaljevalo brez prekinitve do 30. marca 2008, ko je prenehala veljati zadnja neposredno dodeljena koncesija.
In order to conclude on the existence of an aid scheme, it is necessary to examine whether the legal framework for the financing of scheduled bus transport in Oslo can be considered to be “an act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner” [103].
Da bi se ugotovilo, ali obstaja shema pomoči, je treba proučiti, ali pravni okvir za financiranje rednega avtobusnega prevoza v Oslu lahko pomeni „akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov dodeliti individualno pomoč podjetjem, opredeljenim v aktu na splošen in abstrakten način“ [103].
This definition includes three criteria: (i) an act on the basis of which aid can be awarded, (ii) the act shall not require any further implementing measures, and (iii) the act shall define the potential aid beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner.
Ta opredelitev vključuje tri merila: (i) akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče dodeliti pomoč, (ii) akt ne zahteva nikakršnih dodatnih izvedbenih ukrepov ter (iii) akt na splošen in abstrakten način opredeljuje potencialne upravičence do pomoči.
As for the first criterion, the Authority notes that the CTA and the CTR are acts on the basis of which Oslo Municipality awarded the compensation.
Nadzorni organ v zvezi s prvim merilom navaja, da sta ZKP in UKP akta, na podlagi katerih je občina Oslo dodelila nadomestilo.
As for the second criterion, it is noted that the administration of any aid scheme requires a certain decision-making process that allows for individual awards of aid without the adoption of further implementing measures.
Kar zadeva drugo merilo, je navedeno, da je za upravljanje katere koli sheme pomoči potreben določen postopek odločanja, ki omogoča, da se individualna pomoč dodeli brez sprejemanja dodatnih izvedbenih ukrepov.
A mere “technical application”, as indicated above, of the provisions providing for the scheme would thus not be an implementing measure [104].
Zgolj „tehnična uporaba“ določb, kot je navedeno zgoraj, v katerih je določena shema, tako ne bi bila izvedbeni ukrep [104].
Moreover, the mere fact that a decision awarding aid under an aid scheme has implications for the budget of the authority administering that scheme, cannot, in the Authority’s view, mean that such decisions are to be regarded as implementing measures [105].
Poleg tega zgolj dejstvo, da ima odločitev o dodelitvi pomoči v okviru sheme pomoči posledice za proračun organa, ki upravlja navedeno shemo, po mnenju Nadzornega organa ne more pomeniti, da je treba takšne odločitve šteti za izvedbene ukrepe [105].
In a similar vein, considering acts of entrustment, such as the award of a concession, this, as any entrustment, specifies one particular undertaking, and cannot by definition thus relate to a group of undertakings “defined in a general and abstract manner” (compare the third criterion).
Podobno, če se upoštevajo akti pooblastitve, kot je dodelitev koncesije, je to tako kot pri vseh drugih pooblastitvah značilno za posamezno podjetje, kar torej v skladu z opredelitvijo ne more biti povezano s skupino podjetij, „opredeljenih na splošen in abstrakten način“ (primerjaj tretje merilo).
The Authority is of the view that “implementing measures” should be understood as entailing a certain degree of discretion, that would influence to a significant degree the amount, characteristics or conditions under which the aid is granted.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je treba „izvedbene ukrepe“ razumeti, kot da imajo za posledico določeno mero diskrecijske pravice, ki bi v veliki meri vplivala na znesek, značilnosti ali pogoje za dodelitev pomoči.
In particular, it would seem that every scheme determines the purpose aid can be awarded for.
Zlasti bi to pomenilo, da vsaka shema določa namen, za katerega se pomoč lahko dodeli.
Thus, where a public body for example is empowered to use different instruments to promote the local economy and grants several capital injections thereof, this implies the use of considerable discretion as to the amount, characteristics or conditions and purpose for which the aid is granted, and is hence not to be regarded as an aid scheme [106].
Kadar je torej javni organ na primer pristojen, da uporabi različne instrumente za podpiranje lokalnega gospodarstva in pri tem dodeli več kapitalskih vložkov, to pomeni uporabo precejšnje diskrecijske pravice glede zneska, značilnosti ali pogojev in namena, za katerega se pomoč dodeli, zaradi česar tega ni mogoče šteti kot sheme pomoči [106].
In the case at hand, it is clear that no further legislative measures needed to be adopted for the compensation payments to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.
V zadevnem primeru je jasno, da za izplačila nadomestil podjetjema AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene ni bilo treba sprejeti nobenih dodatnih zakonodajnih ukrepov.
The Authority thus is of the opinion that the CTA and CTR limited the discretion of Oslo Municipality, and the Municipality’s administrative practice appears all along to have been in line with this.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da sta ZKP in UKP omejila diskrecijsko pravico občine Oslo ter da se zdi, da je bila upravna praksa občine s tem ves čas skladna.
Moreover, the compensation was not based on discretionary budget allocations.
Poleg tega nadomestilo ni temeljilo na diskrecijski dodelitvi proračunskih sredstev.
Oslo Municipality, after choosing to maintain the public service, was not free to decide whether to cover the loss of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.
Občina Oslo se po odločitvi, da bo ohranila javno storitev, ni mogla prosto odločiti, ali bo pokrila izgube podjetij AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene.
The municipality could not have awarded aid for different purposes on the basis of the provisions described above.
Občina na podlagi zgoraj opisanih določb ni mogla dodeliti pomoči za druge namene.
The State and the Ministry of Transport are responsible for the coordination and development of public transport in Norway and exercise this prerogative in a way that restricts the counties’ powers.
Država in Ministrstvo za promet sta odgovorna za usklajevanje in razvoj javnega prevoza na Norveškem in to posebno pravico uveljavljata na način, ki omejuje pristojnosti okrožij.
The amount of the compensation granted is limited, as mentioned above, by the national guidelines under the CTR, and the administrative practice relating to the method of calculation has remained unchanged since the early 1980s.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, znesek dodeljenega nadomestila omejujejo nacionalne smernice na podlagi UKP, upravna praksa v zvezi z metodo izračuna pa ostaja nespremenjena od zgodnjih 80. let prejšnjega stoletja.
As for the third criterion, the compensation system in Oslo applies to all concessionaires that are entrusted with the provision of bus services on unprofitable routes.
V zvezi s tretjim merilom se sistem nadomestila v Oslu uporablja za vse koncesionarje, ki jim je bilo zaupano izvajanje avtobusnih storitev na nedonosnih progah.
In view of the above, the Authority concludes that an aid scheme was in place in Oslo.
Glede na navedeno Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da se je shema pomoči v Oslu izvajala.
The provisions providing for that aid scheme were the CTA, the CTR and the relevant administrative practice in Oslo.
Predpisi, ki so določali navedeno shemo pomoči, so bili ZKP, UKP in ustrezna upravna praksa v Oslu.
Definition of existing aid
Opredelitev obstoječe pomoči
Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that existing aid encompasses all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.
Člen 1(b)(i) dela II Protokola 3 določa, da obstoječa pomoč vključuje vso pomoč, ki je v zadevnih državah Efte obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP, to je sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki so se začele izvajati pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP in se uporabljajo tudi po začetku njegove veljavnosti.
Further, Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that “new aid” is:
Poleg tega člen 1(c) dela II Protokola 3 določa, da „nova pomoč“
“all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid;”
„pomeni vsako pomoč, sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki ni obstoječa pomoč, vključno s spremembami obstoječe pomoči“.
In Namur, the Court of Justice stated the following:
V sodbi v zadevi Namur je Sodišče navedlo, da
“[…] the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amounts in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered. Whether aid may be classified as new aid or as alteration of existing aid must be determined by reference to the provisions providing for it.” [107](193) Moreover, as Advocate-General Trabucchi pointed out in his Opinion in Van der Hulst, modifications are substantial if the main elements of the system have been changed, such as the nature of the advantage, the purpose pursued with the measure, the legal basis, the beneficiaries or the source of the financing [108].
„[…] nastanka nove pomoči ali spremembe obstoječe pomoči ni mogoče ocenjevati glede na obseg pomoči ali zlasti njen znesek v finančnem smislu v katerem koli obdobju delovanja podjetja, če se pomoč dodeli v skladu s predhodnimi zakonskimi določbami, ki se niso spremenile. Treba je določiti, ali se pomoč lahko opredeli kot nova pomoč ali sprememba obstoječe pomoči s sklicevanjem na določbe, s katerimi je določena“ [107].(193) Poleg tega, kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec Trabucchi v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Van der Hulst, so spremembe bistvene, če se spremenijo glavni elementi sistema, kot je značilnost prednosti, namen, ki naj bi se dosegel z ukrepom, pravna podlaga, upravičenci ali vir financiranja [108].
As set out in the factual description of the case above, there are a number of events that could potentially be considered as altering the scheme and turning it into new aid.
Kot je določeno v opisu dejstev v navedeni zadevi, obstajajo številni dogodki, ki bi lahko pomenili spremembo sheme in njeno preoblikovanje v novo pomoč.
These events are assessed in the following.
Ti dogodki so ocenjeni v nadaljevanju.
1997 internal reorganisation
Notranja reorganizacija v letu 1997
In 1997, an internal reorganisation led the newly established entity AS Sporveisbussene to take over the responsibility of carrying out the scheduled bus transport services previously provided by AS Oslo Sporveier.
Leta 1997 se je po notranji reorganizaciji ustanovil nov subjekt AS Sporveisbussene, ki naj bi prevzel odgovornost za izvajanje storitev rednega avtobusnega prevoza, ki jih je do tedaj izvajalo podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier.
Purely formal or administrative changes to an aid scheme do not lead to the reclassification of existing aid as new [109].
Povsem formalne ali upravne spremembe sheme pomoči ne vodijo k spremembi obstoječe pomoči v novo [109].
The question is whether this reorganisation brought with it a change to the existing aid scheme involving new aid.
Vprašanje je, ali je zaradi te reorganizacije nastala sprememba obstoječe sheme pomoči, ki je vključevala novo pomoč.