natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Costs arising from regulatory obligations imposed by the State can in principle be considered to relate to the inherent costs of the economic activity, so that any compensation for these costs confers an advantage on the undertaking [110].
Zajema tudi primere, v katerih nekaterim subjektom ni treba prevzeti stroškov, ki jih imajo običajno drugi primerljivi subjekti v okviru določenega pravnega reda, ne glede na negospodarsko naravo dejavnosti, na katero se stroški nanašajo [109].
This means that the existence of an advantage is in principle not excluded by the fact that the benefit does not go beyond compensation for a cost stemming from the imposition of a regulatory obligation.
Za stroške, ki izhajajo iz regulativnih obveznosti, ki jih nalaga država, se lahko načeloma šteje, da se nanašajo na stroške, ki so neločljivi del gospodarske dejavnosti, tako da povračilo teh stroškov podjetju daje prednost [110].
The same applies to relief for costs that the undertaking would not have incurred had there been no incentive stemming from the State measure because without this incentive it would have structured its activities differently [111].
To pomeni, da obstoj prednosti načeloma ni izključen zaradi dejstva, da korist ne presega nadomestila za stroške, ki izhajajo iz uvedbe regulativne obveznosti.
The existence of an advantage is also not excluded if a measure compensates charges of a different nature that are unconnected with that measure [112].
Enako velja za olajšave za stroške, ki jih podjetje ne bi imelo, če ne bi bilo spodbude, ki izhaja iz državnega ukrepa, ker bi podjetje brez te spodbude drugače strukturiralo svoje dejavnosti [111].
As regards compensation for costs incurred to provide a service of general economic interest, the Court of Justice made clear in the Altmark judgment that the granting of an advantage can be excluded if four cumulative conditions are met [113].
Obstoj prednosti prav tako ni izključen, če je ukrep nadomestilo za dajatve drugačne narave, ki niso povezane s tem ukrepom [112].
First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined.
Kar zadeva nadomestilo za stroške, ki nastanejo pri zagotavljanju storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, je Sodišče v zadevi Altmark pojasnilo, da se dajanje prednosti lahko izključi, če so izpolnjeni štirje kumulativni pogoji [113].
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izvajati obveznosti javne službe, te obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene.
Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit.
Drugič, merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
Fourth, where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen following a public procurement procedure to select a tenderer capable of providing these services at the least cost to the community, 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 provided with means to meet the public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
Tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe, ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička.
The Authority has further elaborated its understanding of these conditions in its Guidelines on the application of State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest [114].
Četrtič, če podjetje, ki mora izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe, ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, da se izbere tisti ponudnik, ki lahko te storitve opravlja z najmanjšimi stroški za skupnost, se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s sredstvi, zato da lahko zadosti zahtevam javne službe, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
The existence of an advantage is excluded in the case of a reimbursement of illegally levied taxes [115], an obligation for the national authorities to compensate for damage they have caused to certain undertakings [116] or the payment of compensation for an expropriation [117].
Nadzorni organ je podrobneje pojasnil svoje razumevanje teh pogojev v Smernicah o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za nadomestilo, dodeljeno za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [114].
The existence of an advantage is not ruled out by the mere fact that competing undertakings in other EEA States are in a more favourable position [118], because the notion of advantage is based on an analysis of the financial situation of an undertaking in its own legal and factual context with and without the particular measure.
Obstoj prednosti je izključen v primeru povračila nezakonito pobranih dajatev [115], obveznosti nacionalnih organov, da plačajo nadomestilo za škodo, ki so jo povzročili posameznim podjetjem [116] ali plačila nadomestila za razlastitev [117].
The EEA legal order is neutral with regard to the system of property ownership [119] and does not in any way prejudice the right of EEA States to act as economic operators.
Obstoj prednosti ni izključen zgolj zaradi dejstva, da so konkurenčna podjetja v drugih državah EGP v ugodnejšem položaju [118], saj pojem prednosti temelji na analizi finančnega položaja podjetja v lastnem pravnem in dejanskem okolju s posameznim ukrepom in brez njega.
However, when public authorities directly or indirectly carry out economic transactions in any form [120], they are subject to EEA State aid rules.
Pravni red EGP je nevtralen glede lastninskopravne ureditve [119] in nikakor ne posega v pravico države EGP, da deluje kot udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Economic transactions carried out by public bodies (including public undertakings) do not confer an advantage on its counterpart, and therefore do not constitute aid, if they are carried out in line with normal market conditions [121].
Če pa javni organi neposredno ali posredno izvajajo gospodarske transakcije v kakršni koli obliki [120], za njih veljajo pravila EGP o državni pomoči.
This principle has been developed with regard to different economic transactions.
Gospodarske transakcije, ki jih izvajajo osebe javnega prava (vključno z javnimi podjetji), ne dajejo prednosti svoji sopogodbenici in zato ne predstavljajo pomoči, če so izvedene v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji [121].
The EEA courts have developed the ‘market economy investor principle’ to identify the presence of State aid in cases of public investment (in particular, capital injections): to determine whether a public body's investment constitutes State aid, it is necessary to assess whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a comparable size operating in normal conditions of a market economy could have been prompted to make the investment in question [122].
To načelo je bilo oblikovano ob upoštevanju različnih gospodarskih transakcij.
Similarly, the EEA courts have developed the ‘private creditor test’ to examine whether debt renegotiations by public creditors involve State aid, comparing the behaviour of a public creditor to that of hypothetical private creditors that find themselves in a similar situation [123].
Sodišča EGP so oblikovala „načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu“, da se ugotovi obstoj državne pomoči v primerih javnih naložb (zlasti kapitalske injekcije): da se ugotovi, ali naložba osebe javnega prava pomeni državno pomoč, je treba presoditi, ali bi bilo mogoče v podobnih okoliščinah spodbuditi zasebnega vlagatelja primerljive velikosti, ki deluje pod običajnimi pogoji tržnega gospodarstva, da bi izvedel zadevno naložbo [122].
Finally, the EEA courts have developed the ‘private vendor test’ to assess whether a sale carried out by a public body involves State aid, considering whether a private vendor, under normal market conditions, could have obtained the same or a better price [124].
Na podoben način so sodišča EGP oblikovala tudi „merilo zasebnega upnika“, da bi proučila, ali ponovna pogajanja glede dolga s strani javnih upnikov pomenijo državno pomoč, in pri tem primerjala ravnanje javnih upnikov z ravnanjem hipotetičnih zasebnih upnikov, ki se znajdejo v podobnem položaju [123].
Those tests are variations of the same basic concept that the behaviour of public bodies should be compared to that of similar private economic operators under normal market conditions to determine whether the economic transactions carried out by such bodies grant an advantage to their counterparts.
Sodišča EGP so oblikovala tudi „merilo zasebnega prodajalca“ za presojo, ali prodaja, ki jo opravi oseba javnega prava, pomeni državno pomoč, pri čemer se ugotavlja, ali bi zasebni prodajalec pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji lahko dosegel enako ali višjo ceno [124].
In these Guidelines, the Authority will therefore refer, in general terms, to the ‘market economy operator’ (MEO) test as the relevant method to assess whether a range of economic transactions carried out by public bodies take place under normal market conditions and, therefore, whether they involve the granting of an advantage (which would not have occurred in normal market conditions) to their counterparts.
Ti preskusi so različice istega osnovnega načela, in sicer da bi bilo treba ravnanje oseb javnega prava primerjati s podobnimi zasebnimi gospodarskimi udeleženci pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji, da se ugotovi, ali gospodarske transakcije, ki jih izvajajo takšne osebe javnega prava, dajejo prednost njihovim sopogodbenicam.
The general principles and the relevant criteria for applying the MEO test are set out in sections 4.2.2. and 4.2.3.
V teh smernicah se bo Nadzorni organ zato na splošno skliceval na preskus „udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu“ kot ustrezno metodo za presojo, ali razne gospodarske transakcije, ki jih izvajajo osebe javnega prava, potekajo pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji in ali pomenijo dajanje prednosti njihovim sopogodbenicam (do česar ne bi prišlo pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji).
The purpose of the MEO test is to assess whether the State has granted an advantage to an undertaking by not acting like a market economy operator with regard to a certain transaction.
Splošna načela in ustrezna merila za uporabo preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu so določena v oddelkih 4.2.2 in 4.2.3.
In that respect, it is not relevant whether the intervention constitutes a rational means for the public bodies to pursue public policy (for example employment) considerations.
Namen preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu je ugotoviti, ali je država dala prednost podjetju s tem, da se pri določeni transakciji ni obnašala kot udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Similarly, the profitability or unprofitability of the beneficiary is not in itself a decisive indicator for establishing whether or not the economic transaction in question is in line with market conditions.
V zvezi s tem ni pomembno, ali posredovanje oseb javnega prava pomeni razumen način uresničevanja interesov javne politike (na primer zaposlovanje).
The decisive element is whether the public bodies acted as a market economy operator would have done in a similar situation.
Na podoben način dobičkonosnost ali nedobičkonosnost upravičenca sama po sebi ni odločilen dejavnik za ugotovitev, ali je gospodarska transakcija v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
If this is not the case, the beneficiary undertaking has received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions [125], placing it in a more favourable position compared to that of its competitors [126].
Odločilna je ugotovitev, ali je oseba javnega prava ravnala tako, kot bi v podobnem položaju ravnal udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu.
For the purpose of the MEO test, only the benefits and obligations linked to the role of the State as an economic operator – to the exclusion of those linked to its role as a public authority – are to be taken into account [127].
Če ni tako, je upravičeno podjetje prejelo gospodarsko prednost, kar ne bi bilo mogoče pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji [125], in je zato v ugodnejšem položaju, kot ga imajo njegovi konkurenti [126].
Indeed, the MEO test is normally not applicable if the State acts as a public authority rather than as an economic operator.
Za namene preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu se morajo upoštevati samo koristi in obveznosti, ki so povezane z vlogo, ki jo ima država kot gospodarski subjekt, izključene pa so tiste, ki so povezane z njeno vlogo javnega organa [127].
For example, if a State intervention is driven by public policy reasons (for instance, for reasons of social or regional development), the State's behaviour, while being rational from a public policy perspective, may at the same time include considerations which a market economy operator would normally not consider.
Dejansko se preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu običajno ne uporablja, če država deluje kot javni organ in ne kot gospodarski subjekt.
Accordingly, the MEO test should be applied leaving aside all considerations which exclusively relate to an EEA State's role as a public authority (for example social, regional or sectoral policy considerations) [128].
Na primer, če država posreduje zaradi interesa javne politike (na primer zaradi socialnega ali regionalnega razvoja), je ravnanje države sicer razumno z vidika javne politike, lahko pa hkrati vključuje premisleke, na katere se udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu običajno ne bi oziral.
Whether a State intervention is in line with market conditions must be examined on an ex-ante basis, having regard to the information available at the time the intervention was decided upon [129].
Zato bi bilo treba uporabiti preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu brez upoštevanja kakršnih koli premislekov, ki se izključno nanašajo na državo EGP v vlogi javnega organa (na primer premislekov o socialni, regionalni ali sektorski politiki) [128].
In fact, any prudent market economy operator would normally carry out its own ex-ante assessment of the strategy and financial prospects of a project [130], for instance, by means of a business plan.
Ali je državno posredovanje v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, je treba proučiti na predhodni podlagi, ob upoštevanju informacij, ki so na voljo v času, ko je bila sprejeta odločitev za posredovanje [129].
It is not enough to rely on ex-post economic evaluations entailing a retrospective finding that the investment made by the EEA State concerned was actually profitable [131].
Vsak preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu bi običajno opravil lastno predhodno analizo strategije in finančnih možnosti projekta [130], na primer s pomočjo poslovnega načrta.
If an EEA State argues that it acted as a market economy operator it must, where there is doubt, provide evidence showing that the decision to carry out the transaction was taken on the basis of economic evaluations comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator (with characteristics similar to those of the public body concerned) would have had carried out to determine the profitability or economic advantages of the transaction [132].
Sklicevanje na naknadne ekonomske analize, ki vsebujejo naknadno ugotovitev, da je bila naložba zadevne države EGP dejansko donosna, ne zadostuje [131].
Whether a transaction is in line with market conditions must be established through a global assessment of the effects of the transaction on the undertaking concerned without considering whether the specific means used to carry out that transaction would be available to market economy operators.
Če država EGP trdi, da je ravnala kot udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu, mora v primeru dvoma predložiti dokaze, da je bila odločitev o izvedbi transakcije sprejeta na podlagi ekonomske analize, primerljive s tisto, ki bi jo v podobnih okoliščinah razumen udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu (s podobnimi značilnostmi kot jih ima zadevna oseba javnega prava) izvedel za določitev dobičkonosnosti ali gospodarskih prednosti transakcije [132].
For instance, the applicability of the MEO test cannot be ruled out simply because the means employed by the State are fiscal in nature [133].
Ali je transakcija v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, je treba ugotoviti s celovito presojo učinkov transakcije na zadevno podjetje, ne glede na to, ali bi bila prav ta sredstva, ki so se uporabila za izvajanje te transakcije, na voljo udeležencem v tržnem gospodarstvu.
In certain cases, several consecutive measures of State intervention may, for the purposes of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, be regarded as a single intervention.
Na primer, uporabe preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu ni mogoče zavrniti samo zato, ker so sredstva, ki jih uporablja država, davčne narave [133].
This could be the case, in particular, where consecutive interventions are so closely linked to each other, especially having regard to their chronology, their purpose and the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of those interventions, that they are inseparable [134].
V nekaterih primerih se lahko za namene člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP več zaporednih ukrepov državnega posredovanja šteje za eno samo posredovanje.
For instance, a series of State interventions which take place in relation to the same undertaking in a relatively short period of time, are linked to each other, or were all planned or foreseeable at the time of the first intervention, may be assessed as one intervention.
To bi se lahko zgodilo zlasti, če so zaporedna posredovanja tako tesno povezana med seboj, zlasti ob upoštevanju časovne razporeditve, namena in položaja podjetja v času teh posredovanj, da jih ni mogoče ločiti med seboj [134].
On the other hand, when the later intervention was a result of unforeseen events at the time of the earlier intervention [135] the two measures should normally be assessed separately.
Na primer, če se več državnih posredovanj izvede v zvezi z istim podjetjem v razmeroma kratkem času, če so med seboj povezana ali pa so bila vsa načrtovana ali predvidljiva v času prvega posredovanja, se lahko presojajo kot eno posredovanje.
To assess whether certain transactions are in line with market conditions all the relevant circumstances of the particular case should be considered.
Po drugi strani pa, kadar je bilo poznejše posredovanje posledica nepredvidenih dogodkov v času izvajanja prejšnjega posredovanja [135], bi bilo treba ta dva ukrepa praviloma presojati ločeno.
For instance, there can be exceptional circumstances in which the purchase of goods or services by a public authority, even if carried out at market prices, may not be considered in line with market conditions [136].
Da bi presodili, ali so nekatere transakcije v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, bi bilo treba pretehtati vse ustrezne okoliščine posameznega primera.
When applying the MEO test, it is useful to distinguish between situations in which the transaction's compliance with market conditions can be directly established through transaction-specific market data and situations in which, due to the absence of such data, the transaction's compliance with market conditions has to be assessed on the basis of other available methods.
Na primer, obstajajo lahko izjemne okoliščine, v katerih se šteje, da nakup blaga ali storitev s strani javnega organa ni v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, čeprav je bil opravljen po tržnih cenah [136].
Cases where compliance with market conditions can be directly established
Pri uporabi preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu je koristno razlikovati med primeri, v katerih je mogoče neposredno s posebnimi tržnimi podatki o transakciji ugotoviti, da je transakcija v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, in primeri, v katerih je treba zaradi odsotnosti teh podatkov presoditi skladnost transakcije s tržnimi pogoji na podlagi drugih razpoložljivih metod.
A transaction's compliance with market conditions can be directly established through transaction-specific market information in the following situations
Primeri, v katerih se lahko skladnost s tržnimi pogoji ugotovi neposredno
where the transaction is carried out ‘pari passu’ by public entities and private operators; or
Skladnost transakcije s tržnimi pogoji mogoče ugotoviti neposredno na podlagi posebnih tržnih informacij o transakciji, v naslednjih primerih:
where it concerns the sale and purchase of assets, goods and services (or other comparable transactions) carried out through a competitive, transparent non-discriminatory and unconditional tender procedure.
kadar je bila transakcija opravljena enakovredno s strani javnih in zasebnih subjektov; ali
In such cases, if the specific market information concerning the transaction shows that it does not comply with market conditions, it would not normally be appropriate to use other assessment methodologies to reach a different conclusion [137].
kadar transakcija zadeva prodajo in nakup sredstev, blaga in storitev (ali druge primerljive transakcije) prek konkurenčnega, preglednega, nediskriminatornega in brezpogojnega razpisa.
Pari passu transactions
Če v takih primerih posebne tržne informacije o transakciji kažejo, da transakcija ni v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, običajno ne bi bilo primerno uporabiti druge metodologije presoje, da se doseže drugačen sklep [137].
When a transaction is carried out under the same terms and conditions (and therefore with the same level of risk and rewards) by public bodies and private operators who are in a comparable situation (a ‘pari passu’ transaction) [138], as may occur in public private partnerships, it can normally be inferred that such a transaction is in line with market conditions [139].
Enakovredne transakcije (tj. transakcije pari passu)
In contrast, if a public body and private operators who are in a comparable situation take part in the same transaction at the same time but under different terms or conditions, this normally indicates that the intervention of the public body is not in line with market conditions [140].
Kadar se transakcija izvede pod enakimi pogoji (in s tem enako stopnjo tveganja in koristi) s strani oseb javnega prava in zasebnih subjektov, ki so v primerljivem položaju (enakovredna transakcija) [138], kot je lahko primer pri javno-zasebnih partnerstvih, je mogoče praviloma sklepati, da je transakcija v skladu s tržnimi pogoji [139].
In particular, to consider a transaction ‘pari passu’, the following criteria should be assessed:
Nasprotno pa, če bi oseba javnega prava in zasebni subjekti, ki so v primerljivem položaju, hkrati sodelovali pri isti transakciji, vendar pod različnimi pogoji, bi to običajno pomenilo, da posredovanje osebe javnega prava ni v skladu s tržnimi pogoji [140].
whether the intervention of the public bodies and private operators is decided and carried out at the same time or whether there has been a time lapse and a change of economic circumstances between those interventions;
Da bi se transakcija štela za enakovredno, je treba presoditi zlasti naslednja merila:
whether the terms and conditions of the transaction are the same for the public bodies and all private operators involved, also taking into account the possibility of increasing or decreasing the level of risk over time;
ali se je posredovanje oseb javnega prava in zasebnih subjektov izvajalo in o njem odločalo istočasno ali pa obstaja časovni zamik in je med dvema posredovanjema prišlo do spremembe gospodarskih razmer;
whether the intervention of the private operators has real economic significance and is not merely symbolic or marginal [141]; and
ali so pogoji transakcije enaki za osebe javnega prava in vse udeležene zasebne subjekte, tudi ob upoštevanju možnosti, da se s časom povečuje ali zmanjšuje stopnja tveganja;