natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See among others Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-1487, paragraph 47; Case C-88/03 Portugal v Commission [2006] ECR I-7115, paragraph 54.
Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 13. februarja 2003 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, C-409/00, Recueil 2003, str. I-1487, točka 47 in sodbo z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji, C-88/03, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-7115, točka 54.
OJ L 379 28.12.2006 p. 5, incorporated in the EEA agreement at point 1ea of Annex XV.
UL L 379, 28.12.2006, str. 5, vključeno v Sporazum EGP pod točko 1ea Priloge XV.
See Commission Decision of 21.9.2005 on the implementation of an aid scheme N 192/1997 by Italy – Autonomous Province of Bolzano (OJ L 383 28.12.2006 p. 1, paragraphs 129-133); Commission Decision of 27.7.2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies TSE in bovine animal implemented by Belgium (OJ L 274 19.10.2011 p. 36), part 6, Article 1, paragraph 133.
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 21. septembra 2005 o državni pomoči N 192/1997 Italije – avtonomna pokrajina Bolzano (UL L 383, 28.12.2006, str. 1, odstavki 129–133) in odstavek 133 člena 1 dela 6 Sklepa Komisije z dne 27. julija 2011 o državni pomoči, ki jo je Belgija izvedla za financiranje testiranja na transmisivno spongiformno encefalopatijo (TSE) pri govedu (UL L 274, 19.10.2011, str. 36).
In this regard, it has to be pointed out that the general de minimis Regulation in force at the time this capital injection took place was Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12.1.2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid.
V tej zvezi je treba poudariti, da je bila splošna uredba o pomoči de minimis, ki se je uporabljala v času tega kapitalskega vložka, Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči.
This Regulation however did not apply to the transport sector.
Vendar se ta uredba ni uporabljala za transportni sektor.
As stated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 “[…] this Regulation shall apply to aid granted before its entry into force to undertakings active in the transport sector […]”.
V skladu z odstavkom 1 člena 5 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 se „ta uredba […] uporablja za pomoč, ki se je pred njenim začetkom veljavnosti dodelila podjetjem, ki delujejo v transportnem sektorju […]“.
Case C-39/94 SFEI v La Poste [1996] ECR I-3547, at paragraph 60.
Sodba z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi SFEI proti La Poste, C-39/94, Recueil 1996, str. I-3547, točka 60.
This principle is explained in the Authority’s guidelines Part VI Rules on public service compensation, state ownership of enterprises and aid to public enterprises, application of state aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector.
To načelo je obrazloženo v delu VI smernic Nadzornega organa o predpisih o nadomestilih za javne storitve, državnem lastništvi podjetij in pomoči za državna podjetja, uporabi določb o državni pomoči pri državnih podjetjih v proizvodnem sektorju.
Cf. for example Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, at paragraph 28.
Prim. na primer sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa z dne 23. marca 1994 v združenih zadevah Španija proti Komisiji (C-278/92, C-279/92 in C-280/92, Recueil 1994, str. I-4103, točka 28).
See also Case 40/85 Belgium v Commission (Boch) [1986] ECR 2321, at paragraph 13; Case C-301/87 France v Commission (Boussac) [1990] ECR I-307, at paragraphs 39–40; Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission (Lanerossi) [1991] ECR I-1433, at paragraph 24.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 10. julija 1986 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji (Boch), 40/85, Recueil 1986, str. 2321, točka 13; sodbo z dne 14. februarja 1990 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Boussac), C-301/87, Recueil 1990, str. I-307, točki 39–40 in sodbo z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (Lanerossi), C-303/88, Recueil 1991, str. I-1433, točka 24.
See also the Authority’s Guidelines on the application of state aid rules on public service broadcasting, where at point 93 it is stated that: “(w)hen carrying out commercial activities, public service broadcasters shall be bound to respect market principles and, when they act through commercial subsidiaries, they shall keep arm’s length relations with these subsidiaries. EFTA States shall ensure that public service broadcasters respect the arm’s length principle, undertake their commercial investments in line with the market economy investor principle, and do not engage in anti-competitive practices with regard to their competitors, based on their public funding”.
Glej tudi smernice Nadzornega organa o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči pri storitvah javne radiotelevizije, kjer je v točki 93 navedeno, da: „(p)ri izvajanju komercialnih dejavnosti morajo javni izdajatelji radiotelevizijskega programa spoštovati tržna načela, kadar delujejo prek komercialnih odvisnih podjetij, pa ohranjati strogo poslovne odnose s temi odvisnimi podjetji. Države Efte zagotovijo, da javni izdajatelji radiotelevizijskega programa spoštujejo strogo poslovno podlago, izvajajo svoje komercialne naložbe v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu in glede svojih konkurentov ne izvajajo protikonkurenčnih praks na podlagi njihovih javnih sredstev“.
Paragraphs 105–108.
Odstavki 105–108.
Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ L 318 17.11.2006 p. 17), incorporated at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.
Člen 2 Direktive Komisije 2006/111/ES o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji (UL L 318, 17.11.2006, str. 17), ki je vključen v točko 1a Priloge XV k Sporazumu EGP.
As regards, in particular, the quality bonus from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene of NOK 3,9 million, the Authority understands that the funds stem from state resources, or that the payment is imputable to the State.
Nadzorni organ zlasti v zvezi z bonusom za kakovost v višini 3,9 milijona NOK, ki ga je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier dodelilo podjetju AS Sporveisbussene, meni, bodisi da sredstva izhajajo iz državnih virov bodisi da je plačilo mogoče pripisati državi.
As Oslo Municipality is involved in all issues of commercial importance relating to the provision of scheduled bus transport in the Oslo region, and AS Oslo Sporveier is a publicly-owned company, the Authority concludes that the transaction must be held to be imputable to the State and thus represent state resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ker je občina Oslo vključena v vsa vprašanja komercialnega pomena v zvezi z izvajanjem rednega avtobusnega prevoza v regiji Oslo in ker je podjetje AS Oslo Sporveier podjetje v državni lasti, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je treba transakcijo pripisati državi, zaradi česar ta transakcija pomeni državna sredstva v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Case E-5/07 Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2008] EFTA Ct.
Sodba z dne 21. februarja 2008 v zadevi Private Barnehagers Landsforbund proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, E-5/07, 2008, Efta Ct.
Rep. 62 at paragraph 78.
Rep. 62, točka 78.
Case C-35/96 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851 at paragraph 36.
Sodba z dne 18. junija 1998 v zadevi Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Italijanski republiki, C-35/96, Recueil 1998, str. I-3851, točka 36.
See also Case T-289/03 BUPA [2008] ECR II-81.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 12. februarja 2008 v zadevi BUPA, T-289/03, ZOdl. 2003, str. II-81.
Case C-280/00 Altmark [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 89–93.
Sodba Altmark, navedena v opombi 74, točke 89–93.
Case C-280/00 Altmark [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 94–95.
Sodba Altmark, navedena v opombi 74, točki 94–95.
Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke ECR [2001] I-8365, paragraph 41.
Sodba z dne 8. novembra 2001 v zadevi Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH in Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke, C-143/99, Recueil 2001, str. I-8365, točka 41.
Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord and Others v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2005] EFTA Court Report 117 at paragraph 93.
Sodba Sodišča Efte v združenih zadevah Fesil in Finnfjord in drugi proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04, Poročilo Sodišča Efte 2005, str. 117, točka 93.
Moreover, the Court of Justice observed in the Altmark judgment that since 1995 several EU Member States had voluntarily opened up certain urban, suburban or regional transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other EU Member States.
Poleg tega je Sodišče v sodbi Altmark ugotovilo, da je več držav članic EU od leta 1995 prostovoljno odprlo določene trge za mestni, primestni ali regionalni prevoz in s tem ustvarilo možnost, da na njih konkurirajo tudi podjetja, ustanovljena v drugih državah članicah EU.
The risk to inter-Member State trade was thus not hypothetical but real, as the market was open to competition (paragraphs 69 and 79).
Tveganje za trgovino znotraj posamezne države članice torej ni bilo hipotetično, temveč resnično, saj je bil trg odprt za konkurenco (točki 69 in 79).
Paragraphs 77 and 82 of the Altmark judgment.
Sodba Altmark, navedena v opombi 74, točki 77 in 82.
See also Case 102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR 4067, paragraph 19; Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 26.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 13. julija 1988 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji, 102/87, Recueil 1988, str. 4067, točka 19 in sodbo z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-305/89, Recueil 1991, str. I-1603, točka 26.
Paragraphs 50 and 53.
Odstavka 50 in 53.
Cf. Article 1.1 of Part I of Protocol 3.
Prim. člen 1.1 dela I Protokola 3.
The terms “aid schemes” and “systems of aid” are to be treated as synonyms in the Authority’s view.
Pojma „sheme pomoči“ in „sistemi pomoči“ je treba po mnenju Nadzornega organa uporabljati kot sopomenki. Prim.
Cf. Sinnaeve/Slot, The new Regulation on State aid Procedures, Common Market Law Review 36/1999, p. 1153, footnote 28.
Sinnaeve/Slot, nova uredba o postopkih državne pomoči, Pregled zakonodaje o skupnem trgu št. 36/1999, str. 1153, opomba 28.
Council Regulation 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83 27.3.1999 p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1).
See the Authority’s Decision No 405/08/COL HFF (OJ L 79 25.3.2010 p. 40 and the EEA Supplement No. 14, 25.3.2010, p. 20), Chapter II.2.3.1, p. 23: “The State guarantee on all State institutions for all their obligations follows from general unwritten rules of Icelandic public law predating the entry into force of the EEA Agreement. The guarantee is applicable to all State institutions, regardless of when they are established, or of their activities, or changes in those activities. This possible aid measure must be regarded as a scheme falling within the definition in Article 1 (d) in part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.”
Glej Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 405/08/COL HFF (UL L 79, 25.3.2010, str. 40) in Dopolnilo EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije št. 14, 25.3.2010, str. 20), poglavje II.2.3.1, str. 23: „Državno jamstvo za vse obveznosti vseh državnih ustanov izhaja iz splošnih nepisanih pravil islandskega javnega prava, ki so veljala že pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP. Jamstvo se uporablja za vse državne ustanove, ne glede na datum njihove ustanovitve ali dejavnosti ali spremembe teh dejavnosti. Ta morebitni ukrep pomoči je treba obravnavati kot shemo, ki spada v opredelitev iz člena 1(d) v delu II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču“.
See Commission Decision in Case E-45/2000 (Netherlands) Fiscal exemption in favour of Schiphol Group (OJ C 37 11.2.2004 p. 13).
Glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi E-45/2000 (Nizozemska), Davčna izjema v korist skupine Schiphol, (UL C 37, 11.2.2004, str. 13).
From the Authority’s Decision No 491/09/COL Norsk Film group (OJ C 174 1.7.2010 p. 3), Chapter II.2 p. 8: “the yearly payments made by the Norwegian State since the 1970s to Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS for the production of feature films and to maintain an infrastructure necessary for the production of films were based on an existing system of aid. The Authority considers that in this case, where regular payments were consistently made over a very long period of time, the practice shows that state support was an essential element in the financing of the company. The Authority considers on that basis that the annual grants were made under an existing system of state aid within the meaning of Article 62 EEA.” In that case, the Authority opened the formal investigation into a payment of NOK 36 million that had been made in addition to the regular payments and an alleged preferential tax measure.
Nadzorni organ je v Odločbi št. 491/09/COL v zvezi s skupino Norsk Film (UL C 174, 1.7.2010, str. 3), poglavje II.2, str. 8 ugotovil, da: „so letna plačila norveške države od sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja različnim podjetjem iz skupine Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS za produkcijo celovečernih igranih filmov in vzdrževanje infrastrukture, potrebne za filmsko produkcijo, izhajala iz obstoječega sistema pomoči. Nadzorni organ meni, da praksa v tem primeru, v katerem so se redna plačila dosledno izplačevala v zelo dolgem obdobju, kaže, da je bila državna podpora bistveni element financiranja družbe. Nadzorni organ na navedeni podlagi meni, da so se letne subvencije izplačevale v okviru obstoječega sistema državne pomoči v smislu člena 62 EGP“. Nadzorni organ je v navedenem primeru začel formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s plačilom v višini 36 milijonov NOK, izvedenim poleg rednih plačil, in domnevnim preferencialnim davčnim ukrepom.
With Decision No 204/11/COL ( OJ L 287 18.10.2012 p. 14 and the EEA Supplement No. 58, 18.10.2012, p. 1) the Authority closed the procedure on the basis that the NOK 36 million payment was made on the basis of the existing aid scheme and that the tax measure did not constitute state aid.
Z Odločbo št. 204/11/COL ( UL L 287, 18.10.2012, str. 14 in Dopolnilo EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije št. 58, 18.10.2012, str. 1) je Nadzorni organ zaključil postopek na podlagi tega, da je bilo plačilo v višini 36 milijonov NOK izvedeno v okviru obstoječe sheme pomoči in da davčni ukrep ni pomenil državne pomoči.
See Commission Decision in Case E-10/2000 (Germany) State guarantees for public banks in Germany (OJ C 150 22.6. 2002 p. 6).
Glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi E-10/2000 (Nemčija), Državne garancije za javne banke v Nemčiji, (UL C 150, 22.6.2002, str. 6).
Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3.
Člen 1(d) dela II Protokola 3.
See Commission Decision in Case E 4/2007 (France) Charges aéroportuaires, paragraph 56 (OJ C 83 7.4.2009 p. 16).
Glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi E 4/2007 (Francija), Letališke takse, odstavek 56 (UL C 83, 7.4.2009, str. 16).
See to that effect, the judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten, at paragraphs 74-75, where the EFTA Court states as follows:“In the case at hand, the City of Oslo was entitled, under the provisions of the 1976 Transport Act and the implementing regulations, to provide financial support in order to enable the operation of non-profitable scheduled bus services. The fact that the level of the compensation was “negotiated” does not, as such, entail that the payments did not cover actual losses incurred in the operation of those services and were per se not covered by the scheme. The Court considers that in so far as the compensation payments were indeed used to finance the operation of non-profitable scheduled bus services, the defendant may correctly have classified those payments as existing aid. The argument that the aid must be considered as new aid because it was granted on an annual and discretionary basis under the city budget must (…) be rejected.”
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča Efte v zadevi Konkurrenten, E-14/10, točki 74–75, v katerih Sodišče Efte navaja:„V tej zadevi je bila občina Oslo v skladu z določbami Zakona o prevozu iz leta 1976 in izvedbenimi predpisi pristojna za zagotavljanje finančne podpore, da bi omogočila izvajanje nedonosnih rednih avtobusnih storitev. Dejstvo, da je bila višina nadomestila ‚predmet pogajanj‘, samo po sebi ne pomeni, da plačila niso pokrivala dejanskih izgub, ki so nastale pri izvajanju navedenih storitev, in da kot takšna niso bila vključena v shemo. Sodišče meni, da je tožena stranka, če so bila nadomestila dejansko uporabljena za financiranje izvajanja nedonosnih rednih avtobusnih storitev, pravilno opredelila navedena plačila kot obstoječo pomoč. Trditev, da je treba pomoč šteti za novo pomoč, ker je bila dodeljena na letni in diskrecijski podlagi iz mestnega proračuna, je treba (…) zavrniti“.
Cf. Case SA.21654 (ex NN-69/2007 and C-6/2008) Public Commercial Property Åland Industrihus (OJ L 125 12.5.2012 p. 33) paragraphs 107–109 in particular.
Prim. zadevo SA.21654 (ex NN-69/2007 in C-6/2008), Državna poslovna lastnina Property Åland Industrihus, (UL L 125, 12.5.2012, str. 33), zlasti odstavki 107–109.
Case C-44/93 Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit [1994] ECR I-3829, paragraph 28.
Sodba z dne 9. avgusta 1994 v zadevi Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit, C-44/93, Recueil 1994, str. I-3829, točka 28.
Opinion of Advocate- General Trabucchi in Case 51/74 Van der Hulst [1975] ECR 79.
Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Trabucchija z dne 4. decembra 1974 v zadevi Van der Hulst (51/74, Recueil, str. 79).
See Article 4(1) of the consolidated version of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14.7. 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3 (available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf).
Glej člen 4(1) prečiščene različice Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 o izvedbenih določbah iz člena 27 dela II Protokola 3 (na voljo na spletni strani: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf).
See also the opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Namur.
Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Lenza v zadevi Namur.
State aid NN 73/2008 (ex N 240/08) – Hungary – Sharing of loans between MÁV Zrt. and MÁV-TRAKCIÓ Zrt.
Državna pomoč NN 73/2008 (ex N 240/08) – Madžarska – Skupna posojila MÁV Zrt. in MÁV-TRAKCIÓ Zrt.
(OJ C 109 13.5.2009 p. 5) at paragraphs 59-60.
(UL C 109, 13.5.2009, str. 5), točki 59-60.
Case E 14/2005 (Portugal) Compensation payments to public service broadcaster RTP, at paragraph 79 (unofficial translation).
Zadeva E 14/2005 (Portugalska), Plačila nadomestil javnemu izdajatelju radiotelevizijskega programa RTP, odstavek 79 (neuradni prevod).
Paragraphs 73, 74 and 76.
Točke 73, 74 in 76.
The same logic applies for schemes that have been approved by the Authority or the European Commission.
Enaka utemeljitev velja za sheme, ki jih je odobril Nadzorni organ ali Evropska komisija.
See for example Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1994] ECR-4635, paragraphs 25–26.
Glej na primer sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 1994 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-47/91, Recueil 1994, str. 4635, točki 25-26.
Paragraph 87 of the judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.
Točka 87 sodbe Sodišča Efte v zadevi Konkurrenten, E-14/10.
For clarity, the Authority notes that, the commercial activities capital injection was not granted on the basis of the existing aid scheme.
Nadzorni organ zaradi jasnosti navaja, da kapitalski vložek v komercialne dejavnosti ni bil dodeljen na podlagi obstoječe sheme pomoči.
Had it represented state aid, that aid would consequently have been new aid.
Če bi pomenil državno pomoč, bi bila navedena pomoč posledično nova pomoč.
In the assessment above, the Authority has however concluded that that measure did not constitute state aid, as it was made in accordance with the market economy investor principle.
Vendar Nadzorni organ v zgornji oceni ugotavlja, da navedeni ukrep ni pomenil državne pomoči, saj je bil opravljen v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 11 January 2007.
Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 11. januarja 2007.
The letter was registered by the Authority on 12 January 2007 (Event No 406541).
Nadzorni organ je dopis evidentiral 12. januarja 2007 (ev. št. 406541).
Secondly, the EFTA Court held that the Authority had infringed its obligation to open the formal investigation procedure in respect of aid granted during the period 1997 – 2000.
Sodišče Efte je presodilo, da je Nadzorni organ kršil svojo obveznost, v skladu s katero bi moral začeti formalni postopek preiskave glede pomoči, ki je bila odobrena za obdobje 1997–2000.
It found that the Authority could not exclude the possibility that AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene had received aid in excess of the losses associated with discharging the public service obligations, and that the Authority indeed considered that such overcompensation could have possibly occurred in the past.
Ugotovilo je, da Nadzorni organ ni mogel izključiti možnosti, da sta AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene pridobila pomoč, katere znesek bi presegal izgube, povezane z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe, in da je Nadzorni organ dejansko upošteval, da bi v preteklosti lahko prišlo do takšnega prekomernega nadomestila.
The Norwegian authorities responded in a telephone conference on 28 October 2011.
Norveški organi so odgovorili v telefonski konferenci 28. oktobra 2011.
As regards the calculation of the compensation, the standard agreement was based on the same principles as Article 3 of the 1980 Regulation.
Standardni sporazum je glede izračuna nadomestila temeljil na enakih načelih kot člen 3 uredbe iz leta 1980.
The standard main agreement also provided for a separation of costs between the public transport services and other commercial services.
V njem je bilo tudi določeno, da je treba ločiti stroške med javnimi prevoznimi storitvami in drugimi komercialnimi storitvami.
On this basis, scheduled bus transport was gradually put up for public tender in five lots during the period 2003–2008.
Na tej podlagi je bil za redni avtobusni prevoz v obdobju 2003–2008 postopoma objavljen postopek oddaje javnih naročil v petih sklopih.
The respective contracts entered into force the year following that in which they had been tendered out.
Zadevne pogodbe so začele veljati v naslednjem letu po oddaji javnih naročil.
AS Sporveisbussene merged with Unibuss AS in 2009.
Podjetje AS Sporveisbussene se je leta 2009 združilo s podjetjem Unibuss AS.
That company kept the name Unibuss AS and took over as the parent company retaining ownership of Unibuss Tur AS and Unibuss Ekspress AS.
Slednje je obdržalo ime Unibuss AS ter kot matično podjetje prevzelo preostalo lastništvo nad podjetjema Unibuss Tur AS in Unibuss Ekspress AS.
According to an overview of the annual results of the bus activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the average annual profit of the companies was 0,49 % in the period from 1994 to 2008.
V skladu s pregledom letnih rezultatov avtobusnih dejavnosti podjetij AS Oslo Sporveier in AS Sporveisbussene, ki so jih predložili norveški organi, je povprečni letni dobiček podjetij v obdobju 1994–2008 znašal 0,49 %.
This figure, however, includes revenues from commercial activities from 2005 onwards.
Vendar ta številka vključuje prihodke iz komercialne dejavnosti od leta 2005 naprej.
In 2004, the specific model of a bonus/malus system was agreed on [46].
Leta 2004 je bil sprejet poseben model sistema bonusov/malusov [46].
According to that system, the performance of AS Sporveisbussene is assessed in accordance with the following criteria: (i) total customer satisfaction, (ii) punctuality, (iii) level of safety and comfort, and (iv) the driver being forthcoming.
V skladu z navedenim sistemom se uspešnost podjetja AS Sporveisbussene ocenjuje na podlagi naslednjih meril: (i) popolno zadovoljstvo potnika, (ii) točnost, (iii) raven varnosti in udobja ter (iv) ustrežljivost voznika.