natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Desuden var kapaciteten i forbindelserne mellem elnettene i Polen og nabolandene begrænset og den elektricitet, der blev produceret under elkøbsaftaler, dyrere end elektricitet produceret uden for elkøbsaftaler.
Furthermore, connection capacity between Poland and its neighbours was limited, and the electricity generated under the PPAs was more expensive than electricity generated outside the PPAs.
Det kunne således ikke påstås, at elkøbsaftaler på det tidspunkt, de blev indgået, påvirkede samhandelen mellem medlemslandene.
As such, it cannot be argued that the PPAs affected trade between Member States at the time when they were concluded.
Støttens forenelighed i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra a)
Compatibility within the meaning of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty
De interesserede parter påpeger, at elkøbsaftalerne, hvis de var statsstøtte, kunne betragtes som forenelige med fællesmarkedet i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra a).
The interested parties argue that, if the PPAs were state aid, they could be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
De interesserede parter hævder, at elkøbsaftaler ikke kan betragtes som driftsstøtte.
The interested parties argue that the PPAs cannot be regarded as operating aid.
De hidrører fra den pris, der skal betales for varer og tjenester leveret i henhold til en handelsmæssig kontrakt.
They constitute the price payable for goods or services supplied under a business contract.
Desuden er formålet med elkøbsaftaler at muliggøre gennemførelsen af projekter med påviselig karakter af investering (i modsætning til foranstaltninger vedrørende driften).
Besides, the purpose of PPAs is to enable implementation of an investment project, which demonstrates that they are investment (as opposed to operating) measures.
De interesserede parter finder også, at Kommissionen bør anerkende eksistensen af undtagelsesvise omstændigheder, der i den foreliggende sag kan resultere i godkendelse af driftsstøtte.
The interested parties also take the view that the Commission should recognise the existence of exceptional circumstances that could result in the operating aid being authorised in this case.
Den polske elektricitetssektors situation i 1990'erne bør nøje tages i betragtning.
Due consideration should be given to the state of the Polish electricity sector in the 1990s.
Det forekommer klart, at Polen bør betragtes som en af de regioner, der henvises til i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra a).
Clearly, Poland could be treated as one of the regions referred to in Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
En række af elværkerne var beliggende i områder, hvor lukninger ville have haft store samfundsmæssige konsekvenser.
Some of the power generators in question were located in areas where closure would have a very significant impact on the community as a whole.
Elkøbsaftaler fremmede også udviklingen af elektricitetssektoren i Polen og — i medfør af denne sektors betydning — af økonomien som helhed.
PPAs also promoted the development of the electricity sector in Poland and of the economy as a whole, given the importance of this sector.
Støttens forenelighed i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra b)
Compatibility within the meaning of Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty
De interesserede parter hævder, at elkøbsaftalerne, hvis de var statsstøtte, kunne betragtes som forenelige med fællesmarkedet i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra b).
The interested parties argue that, if the PPAs were state aid, they could be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty.
Ifølge de interesserede parter var situationen i den polske elektricitetssektor på tidspunktet for underskrivelsen af elkøbsaftalerne årsag til alvorlige forstyrrelser i den polske økonomi.
According to the interested parties, when the PPAs were signed the state of the Polish electricity sector was creating serious disruption in the Polish economy.
Ifølge de interesserede parter var elkøbsaftaler et middel til at bekæmpe disse alvorlige forstyrrelser.
PPAs, it is argued, were a way of remedying this serious disruption.
Støttens forenelighed i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c)
Compatibility within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c of the EC Treaty)
De interesserede parter hævder, at elkøbsaftalerne, hvis de var statsstøtte, kunne betragtes som forenelige med fællesmarkedet i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c).
The interested parties argue that, if the PPAs were state aid, they could be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
I denne henseende finder de interesserede parter, at elkøbsaftaler ikke bør analyseres ved hjælp af metoden til analyse af strandede omkostninger, da de ikke er udformet med henblik på udligning af disse omkostninger.
In that respect, the interested parties take the view that PPAs should not be analysed in the light of the Stranded Costs Methodology, since they were not designed to compensate for these costs.
I stedet bør elkøbsaftaler analyseres direkte i overensstemmelse med artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c).
PPAs should instead be analysed directly in the light of Article 87(3)(c).
De interesserede parter hævder, at elkøbsaftaler havde til formål at lette udviklingen af den polske energisektor ved at tiltrække udenlandske investeringer i moderne, miljøvenlige elværker.
The interested parties claim that PPAs were designed to enable the development of the Polish energy sector by attracting foreign investment in modern, environmentally friendly power plants.
Elkøbsaftalerne skulle således »lette udviklingen af visse økonomiske aktiviteter«.
As such, PPAs were intended to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities.’
De interesserede parter hævder også, at elkøbsaftaler kun i mindre omfang påvirkede samhandelen med elektricitet mellem medlemsstaterne.
The interested parties also claim that PPAs had little impact on trade in electricity between Member States.
Af tekniske grunde var forbindelserne mellem Polen og andre lande begrænset.
For technical reasons, interconnections between Poland and other countries were limited.
Importen var forbundet med tekniske barrierer, og mulighederne for eksport var allerede fuldt udnyttede, så det kan ikke påstås, at elkøbsaftalerne medførte begrænsninger på dette område.
Imports faced technical barriers and full use had already been made of the scope for exports, so it cannot be claimed that PPAs introduced restrictions in this area.
Ifølge de interesserede parter identificerede Kommissionen ikke i sin første rapport om energimarkedet elkøbsaftaler som en forhindring for integrationen af de europæiske energimarkeder.
According to the interested parties, in its initial report on the energy market, the Commission did not identify PPAs as an obstacle to integration of the European energy markets.
De interesserede parter konkluderer, at elkøbsaftalerne »ikke ændrede vilkårene for samhandelen til skade for de fælles interesser«.
The interested parties conclude that the PPAs had ‘no adverse effect on trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’
De interesserede parter hævder også, at elkøbsaftalerne burde være undersøgt i overensstemmelse med Fællesskabets retningslinjer for statsstøtte i forbindelse med miljøbeskyttelse, idet elkøbsaftalerne specielt havde til formål at bringe elværkerne i Polen i overensstemmelse med kravene i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2001/80/EF af 23. oktober 2001 om begrænsning af visse luftforurenende emissioner fra store fyringsanlæg.
The interested parties also argue that the PPAs should have been analysed in the light of the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection, bearing in mind the fact that PPAs were specifically designed to bring power generators in Poland into line with the requirements of Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.
Elkøbsaftalerne burde have været undersøgt under interimproceduren i henhold til tiltrædelsestraktaten
The PPAs should have been examined under the interim mechanism referred to in the Accession Treaty
De interesserede parter hævder, at elkøbsaftalerne bør undersøges i henhold til statsstøtteprocedure PL 1/03 indledt af Kommissionen ved anvendelse af interimproceduren i tiltrædelsestraktaten.
The interested parties argue that PPAs should be examined under state aid procedure No PL 1/03, which was initiated by the Commission in application of the interim mechanism provided for in the Accession Treaty.
Sag PL 1/03 drejede sig om Polens anmeldelse af første udgave af loven om afskaffelse af elkøbsaftaler.
Case No PL 1/03 dealt with the notification by Poland of the initial version of the bill for the abolition of PPAs.
De interesserede parter finder, at Kommissionen ved sin undersøgelse af anmeldelsen sandsynligvis nåede frem til samme konklusion om forbindelsen mellem elkøbsaftaler og lovforslaget som vedrørende forbindelsen mellem elkøbsaftaler og selve loven, nemlig at de er »tæt forbundne«.
The interested parties consider that, when it examined the notification, the Commission probably reached the same conclusion on the link between the PPAs and the initial bill as on the link between the PPAs and the Bill, namely that the PPAs and the bill are ‘closely linked.’
Ifølge de interesserede parter er den logiske følge heraf, at Kommissionen burde have undersøgt elkøbsaftaler ved hjælp af samme procedure som den, den anvendte ved undersøgelsen af det første lovforslag, dvs. procedure PL 1/03, ligesom den gjorde i den foreliggende sag.
According to the interested parties, the logical conclusion is that the Commission should have analysed the PPAs by way of the same procedure that it used to analyse the initial bill, i.e. procedure No PL 1/03, just as it did in the present case.
De interesserede parter bemærker, at beslutningen om at indlede proceduren også ophæver Kommissionens beslutning vedrørende sagen PL 1/2003.
The interested parties note that the decision to initiate the procedure also repeals the Commission decision concerning case PL 1/03.
Kommissionen begrundede denne beslutning om ophævelse med henvisning til, at Polen ikke havde gennemført loven før tiltrædelsen, og procedurerne i tiltrædelsestraktaten derfor ikke fandt anvendelse på loven.
The Commission justified this repealing decision on the grounds that Poland had failed to implement the initial bill prior to accession and that therefore the procedures laid down in the Accession Treaty did not apply to it.
De interesserede parter hævder, at der dermed ikke tages hensyn til den uadskillelige forbindelse mellem det første lovforslag og elkøbsaftalerne.
The interested parties argue that this ignores the intrinsic relationship between the initial bill and the PPAs.
I modsætning til hvad der er tilfældet i det første lovforslag, ville elkøbsaftaler være forblevet inden for anvendelsesområdet for de i tiltrædelsestraktaten fastsatte procedurer.
Contrary to the initial bill, the PPAs would have remained within the scope of the procedures laid down in the Accession Treaty.
Kommissionen burde have fortsat analysen af elkøbsaftaler ved hjælp af procedure PL 1/03, dvs. tiltrædelsestraktatens procedurer, og burde ikke have indledt en ny procedure i henhold til EF-traktaten.
The Commission should have continued to analyse the PPAs by way of procedure No PL 1/03, i.e. under the procedures of the Accession Treaty, and should not have initiated a new procedure under the EC Treaty.
Fratagelse af rettigheder
Deprivation of rights
De interesserede parter hævder, at ophævelsen af elkøbsaftalerne betyder, at de fratages deres rettigheder (uden passende erstatning).
The interested parties argue that termination of the PPAs means that they are deprived of their rights (without adequate compensation).
Bemærkninger til lovforslaget
Comments on the Bill
Kun ELCHO, bankerne og PAK fremsatte bemærkninger til lovforslaget.
Only ELCHO, the Banks and PAK submitted comments on the Bill.
De interesserede parter gentager deres påstand om, at elkøbsaftaler som anført ovenfor ikke udgør en økonomisk fordel.
The interested parties reiterate their viewpoint that the PPAs do not constitute an economic advantage (see above).
De anfører, at der i konsekvens heraf ikke kan være tale om økonomisk fordel ved betaling af behørig kompensation for deres ophævelse.
They argue that, as a consequence, the payment of fair compensation for termination cannot constitute an advantage either.
De interesserede parter henviser til Domstolens dom i Asteris-sagen.
The interested parties refer to the Asteris judgement.
Kompensation udbetalt i henhold til lovforslaget minder ifølge de interesserede parter om erstatning for skade og er tilmed garanteret i henhold til international privatret og artikel 10 i energichartertraktaten.
Compensation paid under the Bill is, they argue, akin to compensatory damages, and in addition is guaranteed under private international law and Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty.
De interesserede parter hævder også, at lovforslaget ikke omfatter statsmidler, idet den skatteafgift, der skal finansiere det, ikke går gennem PSE, men gennem en eller flere private operatører eller selskaber.
The interested parties also argue that the Bill does not involve state resources in so far as the parafiscal levy that will fund it does not go through PSE, but through one or more private operators or companies.
De interesserede parter anfører også, at lovforslaget kan betragtes som foreneligt med EF-traktaten i overensstemmelse med artikel 87, stk. 3, litra a)-c), og artikel 86, stk. 2.
The interested parties also argue that the Bill can be regarded as compatible with the EC Treaty in the light of Articles 87(3)(a)-(c) and 86(2).
I denne forbindelse påberåber de interesserede parter sig de samme argumenter som dem, der anvendtes ved diskussionen om elkøbsaftalernes forenelighed med traktatens bestemmelser.
In this respect, the interested parties are invoking the same arguments as the ones used when discussing the compatibility of PPAs with these Treaty provisions.
Med hensyn til lovforslagets forenelighed med metoden til analyse af strandede omkostninger hævder bankerne, at denne metode blev udformet og vedtaget under helt andre omstændigheder.
Regarding the Bill's compatibility with the Stranded Costs Methodology, the Banks argue that this method was conceived and adopted in a totally different context.
Formålet med metoden til analyse af strandede omkostninger var at løse problemet med inddrivelse af tabte midler i forbindelse med liberalisering.
The objective of the Stranded Costs Methodology was to resolve the problem of how to recover sunk costs following liberalisation.
Lovforslaget tog imidlertid hensyn til de omstændigheder, der kendetegnede situationen i Polen på tidspunktet for undertegnelsen af elkøbsaftalerne.
The Bill, by contrast, took account of the circumstances prevailing in Poland when the PPAs were signed.
Bankerne kritiserer, at Kommissionen i sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren betegnede visse elværker i Polen som »ineffektive« og søgte at analysere, om lovforslaget ville resultere i en opretholdelse af de garanterede fortjenester for liberaliseringen.
The Banks criticise the fact that, in its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission qualified certain power plants in Poland as ‘inefficient’ and sought to analyse whether the Draft Law would result in the level of income guaranteed before liberalisation being maintained.
Ifølge bankerne ville denne logik resultere i, at ethvert elværk opført før en ny medlemsstats tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union ville blive betegnet som ineffektivt, hvilket ville have som konsekvens, at enhver aftale indgået med disse værker automatisk ville blive betragtet som indeholdende statsstøtte.
According to the Banks, this logic would result in any power plants constructed before the accession of a new Member State to the European Union being deemed inefficient, with the consequence that any contracts concluded with these power plants would automatically be regarded as including state aid.
Dette ville føre den vidtgående konklusion, at alle kontrakter bør opsiges før tiltrædelsesdatoen og derefter genforhandles.
In turn, this would lead to the far-reaching conclusion that all contracts would have to be terminated at the date of accession and then renegotiated.
Dette ville hverken juridisk eller økonomisk give nogen mening.
This would make no legal or economic sense.
Bankerne tilføjer, at Kommissionen ikke har leveret hverken overbevisende eller håndgribelige beviser for, at elværkerne er ineffektive.
The Banks add that the Commission has failed to provide any convincing or tangible evidence that the power plants are inefficient.
Ifølge bankerne foretog Kommissionen en fejlagtig skelnen mellem elværker, der ved tiltrædelsen var færdigopførte eller næsten færdigopførte, og andre elværker.
In short, according to the Banks, the Commission made a wrong distinction between power plants that had been completed, or nearly completed, at the time of accession, and the others.
Derved overså Kommissionen den kendsgerning, at kompensationen beregnes ud fra etablerede regler i national og international ret.
In so doing, the Commission overlooked the fact that compensation must be calculated with reference to the established rules of domestic and international law.
Ifølge bankerne er den pris, en ny aktør er parat til at betale for at komme ind på markedet, ikke relevant i forbindelse med disse beregninger.
According to the Banks, the price which a new player is prepared to pay to enter the market is irrelevant to these calculations.
KOMMENTARER FRA POLEN
COMMENTS FROM POLAND ON THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE
Polen finder, at staten har en forpligtelse til at sikre energiforsyningen, og dette indebærer en sikring af energileverancerne under skyldig hensyntagen til miljøet.
Poland takes the view that the state has a duty to ensure energy security, which includes securing energy supplies, with due account for environmental requirements.
Polen hævder, at elkøbsaftalerne var den eneste måde, hvorpå Polen kunne leve op til denne forpligtelse på tidspunktet for undertegnelsen af disse aftaler.
Poland argues that PPAs were the only way of discharging this duty in Poland at the time when the agreements were signed.
Der var behov for betydelige investeringer for at modernisere Polens elektricitetsmarked, og energiselskaberne selv havde kun meget begrænsede ressourcer.
Significant investment was necessary to modernise the Polish electricity market, and the energy companies themselves had very limited resources.
Bankerne gjorde långivningen betinget af et bestemt indtægtsniveau i en bestemt periode.
The Banks made the granting of loans contingent on a certain level of income being guaranteed for a specified period.
Elkøbsaftalerne blev betragtet som garantier for disse lån.
PPAs were regarded as collateral for these loans.
PSE var den eneste aktør, som var i stand til at implementere elkøbsaftalerne.
PSE was the only entity that was capable of implementing the PPAs.
Ved undersøgelsen af dette selskabs adfærd bør der tages hensyn til, at statens vigtigste hensyn ikke er generering af profit, men at opfylde sine forpligtelser i almenvellets interesse.
When analysing this company's behaviour, it should be borne in mind that the main motive of the state is not to generate profit but to discharge its duties in the general interest.
Polen anfører, at eftersom elkøbsaftalerne blev indgået ved en åben, gennemsigtig og ikke-diskriminerende udbudsprocedure, bør den kendsgerning, at staten er part i aftalerne, betragtes som markedets pris for sikring af den offentlige interesse, hvilket fører til den konklusion, at der ikke er noget element af statsstøtte.
Poland argues that, since the PPAs were concluded by way of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure, the state's participation in them should be seen as representing the market price for discharging the duty in the public interest, which leads to the conclusion that there is no state aid element involved.
Dette er i overensstemmelse med konceptet offentlig-privat partnerskab, som fremmes af Kommissionen.
This is compatible with the concept of public-private partnership, which is promoted by the Commission.
Ifølge de polske myndigheder blev elkøbsaftalerne indgået på markedsvilkår, og deres udformning afspejlede især de kreditvilkår, bankerne tilbød elværkerne.
According to Poland, the PPAs were concluded under market terms and their form reflected in particular the credit terms offered by the banks to power generators.
Polen anførte desuden, at eftersom begreberne tjenester af almindelig økonomisk interesse og offentlig-private partnerskaber altid anvendes om en specifik sektor, kan elkøbsaftalerne ikke betragtes som abnormt sektorspecifikke instrumenter.
Furthermore, Poland argues that, since the concepts of SGEIs and public-private partnership always refer to a specific sector, the PPAs cannot be viewed as instruments which are abnormally sector-specific.
Polen anfører også, at salgspriserne i forbindelse med privatiseringen af elværker har afspejlet værdien af elkøbsaftaler.
Poland also argues that, in cases where power plants were privatised, the sales price took account of the value of the PPA.
Dette udelukker derfor ethvert element af økonomisk fordel, som er en af de kumulative elementer i definitionen af statsstøtte.
This therefore rules out any element of economic advantage, which is one of the cumulative elements for defining state aid.
Polen finder også, at elkøbsaftalerne ikke udgør støtte efter tiltrædelsen.
Poland also takes the view that the PPAs do not constitute aid which is still applicable after accession.
Polen betragter elkøbsaftaler som individuel støtte og fastslår, at implementeringen af disse, selv efter tiltrædelsen, kun er overførsel af støtte, der er tildelt før tiltrædelsen.
Poland regards PPAs as individual aid, and states that their implementation, even after accession, is nothing more than the transfer of aid awarded before accession.
Elkøbsaftaler angiver også klart statens maksimale engagement.
The PPAs also clearly indicate the state's maximum exposure.
Polen anfører i sin kommentar, at metoden til analyse af strandede omkostninger ikke kan anvendes på elkøbsaftalerne.
Poland states in its opinion that the Stranded Costs Methodology cannot be applied to the PPAs themselves.
Metoden kan først anvendes, efter at elkøbsaftalerne er ophævet.
It is applicable only after the PPAs have been terminated.
Kort sagt finder de polske myndigheder, at det er ukorrekt at hævde, at elkøbsaftaler garanterer en bestemt pris for elektriciteten over en bestemt periode.
In conclusion, the Polish authorities dispute the statement that the PPAs guarantee a certain price for the electricity over a specified period.
I stedet finder Polen, at elkøbsaftaler sikrer, at omkostningerne ved produktion af elektricitet dækkes, og at der sikres en lille fortjenstmargin, i det omfang det er nødvendigt for at betale gæld.
Poland argues that instead the PPAs ensure that the costs of generating electricity are covered and allow for a small profit margin to the extent necessary to repay the debt.
Ifølge de polske myndigheder bør prisen på en vare eller en tjeneste i overensstemmelse med markedsøkonomiske principper altid afspejle kapitalomkostningerne ved finansiering af investeringen.
According to Poland, in accordance with market economy principles, the price of a product or service should always reflect the costs of the capital obtained to finance the investment.