natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dermed fører den fuldstændige fritagelse for afgift på el ikke til et fald i statens indtægter, dvs. at foranstaltningen ikke finansieres med statsmidler.
Thus, the full tax exemption from the electricity tax does not result in a loss of State revenue, i.e. the measure is not financed through State resources.
Svenskt Näringsliv mener, at det er i overensstemmelse med systemets logik at fritage den svenske fremstillingsindustri, eftersom industrien har tilstrækkelige årsager til at spare på el, da den udgør en stor del af disse virksomheders omkostninger.
The Confederation of Swedish Enterprises considers that it is in the logic of the system to exempt the Swedish manufacturing industry, as the industry has sufficient reasons for electricity savings because electricity is a large cost component for these companies.
For at bevare den svenske industris konkurrenceevne, mens energiafgiften som helhed forhøjes, må man fritage industrien for elafgiften.
In order to maintain the competitiveness of Swedish industry while raising the energy taxation as a whole, the industry has to be exempted from the electricity tax.
Af de årsager, den svenske regering angiver i betragtning 21 i denne beslutning, mener Svenskt Näringsliv, at foranstaltningerne hverken fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencen eller begunstiger visse produktioner.
For the same reasons as those set out in recital 21 by the Swedish Government, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprises considers the measure does not distort or threaten to distort competition, nor favour certain production.
Af følgende årsager bestrider Svenskt Näringsliv, at der stilles krav om tilbagebetaling i noget tilfælde:
For the following reasons, the Confederation of the Swedish Enterprises contests, in any case, that a recovery can be made:
For det første kan der i henhold til artikel 14 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [6] kun stilles krav om tilbagebetaling af ulovlig støtte, der i samme forordnings artikel 1, litra f), defineres som »ny støtte, der er gennemført i strid med traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3«.
Firstly, according to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [6] (hereafter referred to as the procedural Regulation), a recovery can only be made of unlawful aid, which in Article 1(f) of the same regulation is defined as ‘new aid put into effect in contravention of Article 93(3) of the Treaty’.
Eftersom Kommissionen i punkt 2.2 i sin beslutning om at indlede undersøgelsesproceduren konkluderer, at foranstaltningen udgør eksisterende støtte, kan der ikke stilles krav om tilbagebetaling med tilbagevirkende kraft.
As the Commission in paragraph 2.2 of its decision to open the investigation procedure concludes that the measure constitutes existing aid, no recovery can be made ex tunc.
For det andet kan der ikke stilles krav om tilbagebetaling på grund af støttemodtagernes berettigede forventninger.
Secondly, due to legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries, no recovery can be made.
Den svenske regering stillede forslag om den pågældende lov, og den svenske rigsdag vedtog den.
The act in question has been proposed by the Swedish Government and adopted by the Swedish Parliament.
Virksomheder skal ikke være nødsaget til at stille spørgsmålstegn ved beslutninger truffet af deres eget parlament.
Companies should not have to question decisions from their Parliament.
Dette gælder i endnu højere grad, når der foreligger tidligere kommissionsbeslutninger [7], som godkender foranstaltninger til fordel for fremstillingssektoren som generelle foranstaltninger.
Moreover, there are previous Commission decisions [7], in which measures to the manufacturing sector have been approved as general measures.
Endvidere åbner Rådets direktiv 2003/96/EF af 27. oktober 2003 om omstrukturering af EF-bestemmelserne for beskatning af energiprodukter og elektricitet [8] mulighed for at bevare nulafgiftssatsen på el for store elforbrugere fra den 1. januar 2004.
Moreover, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity [8] (hereafter referred to as the Energy Tax Directive) makes it possible to maintain the zero tax rate on electricity for the large electricity consumers as from 1 January 2004.
En forsigtig erhvervsdrivende skal have ret til en berettiget forventning om, at det også var tilfældet to år før denne dato.
The prudent trader should have the right to legitimately expect that to be the case also for the two years before that date.
For det tredje ville tilbagebetaling være i strid med proportionalitetsprincippet.
Thirdly, a recovery would go against the principle of proportionality.
Formålet med tilbagebetalingen er at genoprette den påståede fordrejning af konkurrencen.
The aim of a recovery is to restore alleged distorted competition.
Da Svenskt Näringsliv ikke mener, at foranstaltningen fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencen, er der ikke tale om nogen berettiget almen interesse i tilbagebetalingen.
As the Confederation of Swedish Enterprises does not consider the measure to distort or threaten to distort competition, there is no legitimate and public interest for a recovery.
Desuden ville mange af de berørte virksomheder have svært ved at tilbagebetale støtten, og for nogle virksomheder kan man ikke udelukke en risiko for konkurs.
Moreover, many of the companies concerned would have difficulties repaying the aid and a risk of bankruptcy cannot be excluded for certain companies.
Endelig deler Svenskt Näringsliv den svenske regerings opfattelse, jf. betragtning 28 i denne beslutning, om at Kommissionen ikke har opfyldt sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999.
Finally, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprises agrees with the opinion of the Swedish Government (see recital 28) that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligation laid down in Article 17(2) of the procedural Regulation.
DEN SVENSKE REGERINGS BEMÆRKNINGER
COMMENTS BY THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT
Afgiftsfritagelsen er ikke en fordel for den svenske fremstillingsindustri
The tax exemption does not constitute an advantage for the Swedish manufacturing industry
Den svenske fremstillingsindustri bruger langt mere el end dens konkurrenter i andre lande, som i stedet bruger kul eller naturgas.
The Swedish manufacturing industry uses a high proportion of electricity compared to competitors in other countries, who instead use coal or natural gas.
Det ville ikke have været muligt at nå dette niveau uden en fritagelse fra afgiften på el for visse sektorer.
It would not have been possible to achieve these levels without an exemption from the electricity tax for certain sectors.
Den svenske regering er derfor ikke enig i, at en afgiftsfritagelse giver den svenske industri en fordel i forhold til andre medlemsstater.
The Swedish Government thus, does not agree that the tax exemption grants an advantage for the Swedish industry compared to other Member States.
Det kræver et vist tidsrum at tilpasse energiafgiftssystemet
A reasonable period is required for adjustment of the energy tax system
Ved brev af 16. marts 2001 accepterede den svenske regering de foranstaltninger, som foreslås i rammebestemmelsernes punkt 75-77.
By letter of 16 March 2001, the Swedish Government accepted the appropriate measures proposed in points 75 to 77 of the Guidelines.
Den 8. november 2001 fastslog Domstolen i sin dom om Østrigs energiafgiftsrabat, at fritagelse af en erhvervsgren for energiafgift udgør statsstøtte, sag C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline [9].
On 8 November 2001, the fact that the exemption of a certain industry from the energy tax constituted State aid was clarified by the Court ruling on the Austrian energy tax rebate (Case C-143/99, Adria-Wien-Pipeline) [9].
Den svenske regering hævder, at det på det tidspunkt, hvor Sverige accepterede de foreslåede foranstaltninger i henhold til rammebestemmelserne, ikke klart fremgik, hvorvidt foranstaltningerne udgjorde statsstøtte.
The Swedish Government states that at the time when Sweden accepted the appropriate measures under the Guidelines, it was not clear whether the measure constituted State aid.
Efter dommen i sagen Adria-Wien Pipeline blev det klart for den svenske regering, at foranstaltningen indeholdt elementer, som skaber problemer på statsstøtteområdet.
Following the Adria-Wien ruling, it became clear for the Swedish Government that the measure contains components which cause problems in the State aid area.
Sverige hævder derfor, at eftersom energiafgiften er teknisk kompliceret, er der behov for en rimelig tidsfrist fra regeringens beslutning til, at de ændrede regler kan træde i kraft.
However, Sweden argues that, as the energy tax is technically complicated, a reasonable time was required from the government decision until the entering into force of amended rules.
Man planlægger at opkræve en energiafgift på el til fremstillingsindustrien fra og med den 1. juli 2004, som overholder minimumsværdierne i det nye energidirektiv 2003/96/EF.
It is envisaged to have an energy tax on electricity for the manufacturing industry, which is in line with the minimum levels of the new Energy Directive in place from 1 July 2004.
Afgiften på el og afgiften på energi bør betragtes som et afgiftssystem
The electricity tax and the energy tax should be seen as one tax system
I Sverige pålægges fossile brændstoffer og el en energiskat, mens fossile brændstoffer pålægges en CO2-afgift.
In Sweden an energy tax is levied on fossil fuels and on electricity and a CO2 tax is levied on fossil fuels.
Den svenske regering betragter afgifterne som dele af samme afgiftssystem, som skal sikre højere energieffektivitet og mindske CO2-udslippet.
The taxes are viewed by the Swedish Government as parts of the same tax system, which aims at increasing energy efficiency and CO2 emissions.
Den svenske regering hævder derfor, at Kommissionen i sin vurdering af foreneligheden med fællesmarkedet skal tage hensyn til skattebyrden fra alle dele af afgiftssystemet i stedet for at betragte fritagelsen fra afgiften på el som en isoleret foreteelse.
Thus, the Swedish Government argues that the Commission in its assessment of compatibility should take into account the tax burden resulting from all components of the tax system together rather than assessing the exemption from the electricity tax in isolation.
Kommissionen fulgte ikke den procedure for forslag til foranstaltninger, der er beskrevet i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999.
The Commission did not respect the procedural steps regarding appropriate measures, which are set out in the procedural Regulation.
Støtten er dermed ikke ulovlig og kan ikke kræves tilbagebetalt
The aid is not illegal and can thus not be recovered
Den svenske regering fremsendte ved gentagne lejligheder oplysninger til Kommissionen, hvor den pågældende støtteordning fremstod i sin helhed [10].
The Swedish Government has, on several occasions, submitted to the Commission information from which the scheme in question is evident [10].
Sverige mener dermed at have opfyldt sin forpligtelse i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 om at afgive alle nødvendige oplysninger med henblik på Kommissionens revision af eksisterende støtteordninger.
Thus, Sweden considers its obligation according to Article 17(1) of the procedural Regulation to submit all necessary information to the Commission’s review of existing aid schemes to be fulfilled.
Den svenske regering hævder, at Kommissionen overtrådte artikel 17, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999, som kræver, at Kommissionen underretter den pågældende medlemsstat om, at den mener, at en foranstaltning er blevet uforenelig med fællesmarkedet, inden den foreslår passende foranstaltninger.
The Swedish Government argues that the Commission has violated Article 17(2) of the procedural Regulation, which requires the Commission to inform the Member State if it considers that a measure has become incompatible with the common market before it proposes appropriate measures.
Kommissionen foreslog uden at underrette de svenske myndigheder foranstaltninger ikke for enkelte ordninger, men for samtlige ordninger, der gjaldt på det tidspunkt, hvor de nye miljørammebestemmelser trådte i kraft.
The Commission proposed, without such information, appropriate measures not for individual schemes but for all schemes in force at the time when the new environmental guidelines came into force.
Som følge af denne formelle procedurefejl er støtten ikke ulovlig og kan således ikke kræves tilbagebetalt.
Due to procedural irregularity the aid is not illegal and cannot be recovered.
Et krav om tilbagebetaling ville udgøre beskatning med tilbagevirkende kraft, hvilket den svenske grundlov ikke tillader
A recovery would constitute retroactive taxation, which is not allowed according to Swedish constitutional law
I henhold til grundlovens kapitel 2, § 10, stk. 2, kan der ikke opkræves afgift, hvis den ikke er baseret på en forskrift, som gjaldt, da den omstændighed indtraf, der udløste afgiften.
According to chapter 2, Article 10, second paragraph, of the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen), tax can not be levied unless it is based on a provision which was in force at the time when the fact that gave rise to the tax took place.
Eftersom den svenske lov om energiafgift ikke indeholder regler, der siger, at virksomheder i fremstillingsindustrien skal betale afgift af el, ville en ændring af loven indebære en sådan beskatning med tilbagevirkende kraft, som er ulovlig ifølge den svenske grundlov.
As the Swedish Act on Tax on Energy does not contain rules according to which companies in the manufacturing industry are obliged to pay tax on electricity, an amendment of the act would constitute such retroactive taxation, which is illegal according to Swedish constitutional law.
Det tidsrum, der skal vurderes
Period to be assessed
I sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren efter artikel 88, stk. 2, fandt Kommissionen, at foranstaltningen udgjorde eksisterende støtte som defineret i artikel 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 på det tidspunkt, hvor Sveriges tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union, og frem til den 1. januar 2002.
In its decision to open the Article 88(2) procedure, the Commission found that the measure constituted existing aid as defined in Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 at the time of Sweden’s accession to the European Union and until 1 January 2002.
Sverige har udtrykkeligt accepteret de foranstaltninger, Kommissionen har foreslået, ifølge hvilke samtlige eksisterende miljøstøtteordninger skulle tilpasses rammebestemmelserne (jf. punkt 77).
Sweden has expressly accepted the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission according to which all existing environmental aid schemes should have been brought into line with the Guidelines (point 77).
Kommissionen fandt, at dette ikke var sket i den foreliggende sag.
The Commission found that that had not been done in this case.
Den anmodede derfor Sverige om at fremsætte alle relevante bemærkninger for undersøgelsen for perioden mellem den 1. januar 2002 og den 31. december 2005.
Sweden was therefore asked to submit all comments which could be relevant for the investigation for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2005.
Den svenske regerings bemærkninger i brevet af 9. juli dækker udtrykkelig den periode, som Kommissionen havde anmodet om oplysninger om.
The comments received from the Swedish Government by letter dated 9 July 2003 cover explicitly the period requested by the Commission.
Den svenske regering har benyttet sin ret til at forsvare sig for hele perioden.
The Swedish Government has exercised its rights of defence with regard to the full period.
Interesserede parter fik mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger til tilpasningen af støtteordningen i samme periode.
Third parties were able to comment on the application of the scheme for the same period.
Svenskt Näringsliv fremsatte sine bemærkninger til fritagelsen fra energiafgiften i brev af 29. september 2003.
The Confederation of Swedish Enterprises presented its comments on the energy tax exemption by letter dated 29 September 2003.
Dermed er interesserede parters ret til at fremsætte bemærkninger overholdt.
Their right to submit observations has therefore been respected.
Ved loven om ændring af loven om energiafgift (1994:1776) [11] indføres et nyt elafgiftssystem.
By Act on amendment of the Act (1994:1776) on Tax on Energy [11], a new electricity tax system will be introduced.
Loven skal træde i kraft den 1. juli 2004, og anmeldtes til Kommissionen i et brev af 1. april 2004 [12].
That act should enter into force on 1 July 2004 and was notified to the Commission by letter dated 1 April 2004 [12].
Kommissionen vil derfor træffe en separat beslutning om denne foranstaltning.
Thus, a separate Commission decision will be taken for that measure.
Derfor gælder vurderingen af foreneligheden med fællesmarkedet perioden fra den 1. januar 2002, indtil det nuværende system udløber.
Consequently, this compatibility assessment concerns the period from 1 January 2002 until such time as the current system is applied.
Forekomsten af støtte
Existence of aid
For at en foranstaltning kan betragtes som statsstøtte i henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, skal fire kriterier være opfyldt samtidig.
In order for a measure to be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, four criteria have to be simultaneously fulfilled.
Den skal begunstige visse virksomheder, den skal være selektiv, den skal være finansieret med statsmidler, og den skal påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The measure must favour certain undertakings, it must be selective, it must be funded through State resources and it must affect trade between Member States.
Ved sin vurdering af, hvorvidt foranstaltningen begunstiger støttemodtagerne, skal Kommissionen sammenligne virksomheder, som faktisk og retligt befinder sig i sammenlignelige situationer [13].
In its assessment of whether the measure provides the beneficiaries with an advantage, the Commission has to compare companies in a comparable legal and factual situation [13].
Kommissionen kan derfor ikke bedømme den svenske fremstillingsindustris stilling i forhold til andre europæiske fremstillingsindustrier, men skal bedømme den svenske fremstillingsindustris fordele i forhold til situationen for andre virksomheder i Sverige.
Thus, the Commission cannot assess the position of the Swedish manufacturing industry vis-à-vis any other European manufacturing industry, but has to assess the advantage of the Swedish manufacturing industry compared to the situation of other companies in Sweden.
I denne forbindelse giver det faktum, at foranstaltningen fritager virksomheder i fremstillingssektoren fra omkostninger, som de ellers skulle have båret, disse virksomheder en fordel i forhold til andre sektorer i den svenske industri.
In this respect, the fact that the measure discharges companies, in the manufacturing sector, of a cost that they would otherwise have to bear, provides the undertakings with an advantage compared to other sectors in the Swedish industry.
Ved kun at indrømme visse virksomheder en afgiftsfritagelse begunstiger foranstaltningen dem i forhold til andre virksomheder, hvilket kan fordreje konkurrencen.
By granting a tax exemption only to certain undertakings, the measure favours them in comparison to other undertakings, which has the potential to distort competition.
Fritagelsen er begrænset til virksomheder i fremstillingssektoren (NACE Rev. 1, sektor C og D).
The exemption is restricted to undertakings in the manufacturing sector (NACE Rev. 1 Sections C and D).
EF-Domstolen har fastslået [14], at »hverken den omstændighed, at ordningen omfatter et stort antal virksomheder, eller at disse virksomheder hører til i forskelligartede og store erhvervssektorer, gør det muligt at fastslå, at en statslig foranstaltning udgør en generel økonomisk-politisk foranstaltning«.
It has been established by the European Court of Justice [14], that ‘neither the large number of eligible undertakings nor the diversity and size of the sectors to which those undertakings belong provide any grounds for concluding that a State initiative constitutes a general measure’.
Svenskt Näringsliv henviser til, at Kommissionen i beslutning N 255/96 og NN 72/A/00 godkendte den svenske CO2-afgiftsordning som en generel foranstaltning. Det er ikke korrekt.
The Confederation of Swedish Enterprises refers to the fact the Commission has, in decisions concerning aid N 255/1996 and NN 72/A/2000, approved the Swedish CO2 tax scheme as being a general measure.
I førstnævnte beslutning fandt man, at CO2-afgiftsordningen indeholdt statsstøtte, som var forenelig med fællesmarkedet.
This is not correct, in the first-mentioned decision the CO2 tax scheme is found to constitute compatible State aid.
Den anden beslutning vedrører en forlængelse af den samme ordning, som godkendes efter samme bestemmelser.
The second decision concerns a prolongation of the same scheme and is approved under the same provisions.
Derimod er det Kommissionens faste praksis [15], hvilket bekræftes af EF-Domstolens retspraksis [16], at betragte fritagelser for den energiintensive industri eller for en given økonomisk sektor som en særskilt foranstaltning.
On the contrary, it is constant practice of the Commission [15], confirmed by the European Courts’ case-law [16], to regard exemptions for the energy intensive industry or for a given sector of the economy as being selective measures.
Dermed konkluderer Kommissionen, at afgiftsfritagelsen er selektiv.
Thus, the Commission concludes that the tax exemption is selective.
Kommissionen finder, at foranstaltningens selektivitet ikke er begrundet af logikken i systemet, eftersom den ikke stemmer overens med afgiftens underliggende logik.
The Commission finds that the selectivity of the measure is not justified by the logic of the system as it is not consistent with the internal logic of the tax.
Tværtimod er fritagelsen en klar afvigelse fra afgiftens overordnede struktur og funktion.
On the contrary, the exemption is a clear deviation from the overall structure and functioning of the tax.
Formålet med afgiften er at give virksomhederne et incitament til at træffe energibesparende foranstaltninger.
The objective of the tax is to steer undertakings to take energy saving measures.
Selv om de pågældende virksomheder allerede i vid udstrækning træffer energibesparende foranstaltninger for at mindske deres energiudgifter, har energiafgiften en supplerende virkning.
Even if the undertakings concerned already take energy reduction measures to a large extent in order to reduce their energy costs, it cannot be said that the energy taxation has no additional steering effect.
Energiforbruget er generelt afhængigt af teknik og kan kun fastsættes på kort sigt.
Energy consumption is in general technology-dependent and, thus, only fixed in the short term.
På lang sigt er det normalt muligt at opnå yderligere effektivitet blandt andet gennem tekniske fremskridt og innovation.
In the long term, inter alia, through technological progress and innovation, it is normally possible to achieve further efficiency gains.
I denne forbindelse kan en fritagelse fra energiafgift for virksomheder i fremstillingssektoren, som samtidig er forurenere, fordi energiforbruget i alle sektorer er lige skadeligt for miljøet, ikke indgå i systemets logik.
In this respect, as energy consumption by all sectors is equally damaging to the environment, any exemption from an energy tax for undertakings in the manufacturing industry, which by definition are also polluters, cannot be in the logic of the system.
Foranstaltningen ligger staten til last og finansieres ved hjælp af statsmidler, eftersom staten accepterer et tab af afgiftsindtægter.
The measure is imputable to the State and financed by State resources as the State accepts a loss of tax revenue.