Примери за използване на Passante на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
For your daily commute to your internship, utilize the Milan Metro,the city tram, or Il Passante, the underground railway.
That route can be made either by using the Passante until its intersection with the A27 in the direction of Belluno, or by using firstly the A57 motorway and then taking the fork to the A27 towards the north, in the direction of Belluno.
By contrast, it is inadmissible in so far as it disputes the finding that the direct award of the concession for the Passante does not constitute State aid.
It is on those two routes, which may be taken by using either the Tangenziale or the Passante that the respective holders of the concessions on those sections are in competition with each other.
For the purposes of the present judgment, the designation‘Tangenziale' shall apply to stretches of the A57 andthe A27 motorways which may be avoided by using the Passante.
Therefore, the second plea of inadmissibility as regards the direct award of the concession for the management of the Passante must be upheld and it must be rejected as regards the increase of the toll on the Tangenziale.
Therefore, the applicant association has not demonstrated that the contested decision affected its members differently than all other operators wishing to exploit the concession on the Passante.
The first plea in law, which is exclusively directed against the finding that the direct award of the concession for the Passante does not constitute State aid, cannot successfully be raised against the finding that the increase of the toll on the Tangenziale does not constitute State aid.
Moreover it is not disputed between the parties that the common objective of the two measures was specifically to divert through traffic to the Passante, in order to reduce traffic on the Tangenziale.
The Passante is a section of motorway, put into operation on 8 February 2009, which drivers may use instead of the A57 motorway, known as the‘Tangenziale di Mestre', and/or the A27 motorway to connect in both directions Padua(Italy) with either Belluno(Italy), in the north, or Trieste(Italy), in the east.
Therefore, the applicant has failed to establish that its members were affected by the contested decision in a manner that is different to any other economic operator seeking to operate the concession for the Passante.
The Italian authorities therefore clearly considered that,in the event of a lower toll for the journey on the Tangenziale than on the Passante, solely bringing the latter into service as an alternative route was not going to be sufficient to divert the traffic towards that new section to the extent desired.
The head of claim raised by the applicant is restricted to the question of the increase of the toll on the Tangenziale andthe allocation of income from that increase to the construction costs of the Passante.
That act authorises‘the insertion, in supplementary acts… to agreements in force with companies which manage motorways intersecting with the Passante di Mestre, clauses providing for the ISO-compliant toll in order to ensure, in time,the flow of necessary resources to complete the Passante'.
In the context of its observations on the plea of inadmissibility it pointed out the interests of its 23 members which had been deprived of the possibility of participating in a call for tenders for the concession for the management of the Passante.
The applicant claims that the construction of the Passante was financed by a tariff increase on the Tangenziale and that that increase, which led to an equal toll for both sections, produced a distortion of competition by diverting traffic from the Tangenziale to the benefit of the Passante.
In the present case, firstly, it intervenes to protect the interests of its 23 members as regards the fact that it was deprived of the possibility of participating in a call for tenders for the purposes of the Passante concession, awarded directly to CAV.
In that regard, it must be acknowledged that the traffic flow on the Tangenziale was already likely to reduce substantially on account of the mere fact of the opening of the Passante and that it is not possible to determine to what extent that reduction was compounded by the fact that, in addition, the toll on the Tangenziale was increased.
Accordingly, ultimately, the result of the increase of the toll appliedon the Tangenziale and the other sections mentioned in the previous paragraph enable the Italian State to recover the sums which it spent for the purpose of the construction of the Passante.
It follows that the argument put forward by the Commission during the hearing,that the transfer of traffic from the Tangenziale to the Passante would have occurred in the same way in the absence of the equivalent toll on both routes, drivers' choice being made exclusively on the basis of the traffic situation, must be rejected.
As regards the categorisation of the increase of the toll on the Tangenziale as State aid, the parties primarily disagree on the question of whether that measure implies a transfer of State resources for the benefit of CAV as concessionaires of the Passante.
It must be borne in mind, in that regard,that the applicant does not claim that the conditions of the concession agreement for the Passante, concluded on 30 January 2009 between the ANAS and CAV, constitute State aid in that there is an imbalance between the obligation of CAV under that agreement, on the one hand, and the benefits which the latter could draw from the concession, on the other.
The first plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, lack of and contradictory nature of grounds andthe infringement of Article 107 TFEU, as regards the direct award to CAV of the concession for the construction and management of the Passante.
By letter dated 12 November 2009,the applicant reiterated its complaint, by requesting the Commission to analyse the concession at issue in favour of CAV as regards awarding the contract without a call for tenders for constructing and managing the Passante and as regards the increase of the toll on the A57 and the A27 motorways which are an alternative route to the Passante.
As part of its observations on the objection of inadmissibility, the applicant claims an interest of its 23 members,as they were allegedly deprived from the opportunity to participate in a public tender for the award of the contract for the management and exploitation of the Passante.
It restricted itself to disputing the causal link between the increase of the toll on the Tangenziale and the reduction in traffic on that section,the latter being due, in its view, to the simple fact of the Passante entering into service as a competing route.
It should be added that, as holders of the concessions on the Tangenziale, those two companies were the only ones, with SAVP, which were negatively affected by that increase of the toll and that increase benefited their only competitor on the relevant market,namely CAV as holders of the concession on the Passante.
It is necessary to examine that question separately in respect of each of the two measures called into question by the applicant before the General Court,namely the award without a call for tenders of the concession for the Passante and the increase of the toll on the Tangenziale.
In that letter, the applicant stated, in particular, as regards the alleged infringement of the rules on State aid, that the amount of the toll on the Tangenziale had been increased in order to ensure an equivalent toll for drivers between the full journey made on both sections,despite the fact that the Passante was longer than the Tangenziale.
Since the criteria regarding the allocation of State resources are not satisfied, the fact remains that, without it being necessary to examine the other constituent elements of the concept of State aid, the increase of thetoll on the Tangenziale, and the allocation of the result of the increase on the reimbursement of the construction costs of the Passante, under the Agreement, do not constitute State aid.