natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som anført i betragtning 118 er det transmissionsnetoperatørerne, og ikke andre operatører, der er udpeget til at forvalte EEG-afgiften.
Moreover, as mentioned in recital 124, State control is exercised by a series of regulatory and control measures that should not be assessed on a stand-alone basis.
Desuden synes der ikke at foreligge et retligt grundlag, som kan forhindre en medlemsstat i at bemyndige mere end én enhed til at forvalte statslige midler.
In the case at hand, the relevant legislation goes into so much detail that the system ensures State control without needing further involvement of State authorities.
Tyskland og interesserede parter bemærker desuden de påståede forskelle mellem EEG-loven af 2012 og dommen afsagt for nylig i sagen Vent de colère [74]: I Frankrig blev det pågældende bidrag opkrævet fra forbrugerne af en fond, der blev drevet af staten, hvorimod de private transmissionsnetoperatører i Tyskland opkræver EEG-afgiften fra private leverandører, som kan vælte den over på forbrugerne.
In addition, the BNetzA has significant powers to influence the process.
I Frankrig var niveauet for afgiften fastlagt ved et ministerielt dekret, mens det i Tyskland beregnes af transmissionsnetoperatørerne på baggrund af deres faktiske omkostninger.
In contrast, Germany argues that the EEG-Act 2012 differs significantly from the situation in Essent.
I Frankrig vil staten intervenere i tilfælde af et underskud, mens et underskud i Tyskland afholdes af transmissionsnetoperatørerne og derefter kompenseres ved hjælp af en stigning i afgiften det følgende år.
In the latter case, the level of the charge was defined by the law regardless of what costs it needed to cover.
Tyskland fejlfortolker retspraksis ved at hævde, at der kun er tale om statsmidler, hvis statens udøvende magt råder over midlerne.
Moreover, surpluses in excess of NLG 400 million were transferred to the State budget.
Som anført i betragtning 130 er statsbegrebet ikke begrænset til den udøvende magt, idet det også omfatter lovgiveren.
In contrast, the level of the EEG-surcharge is determined by the TSOs based on the sales on the spot market, and the State has no possibility to influence this.
Det er heller ikke påkrævet, at staten kan råde over midlerne, som om de var en del af dens eget budget.
Moreover, the EEG account's surpluses are kept within the system, as they influence the surcharge in the following year.
Som anført i betragtning 114 er det uvæsentligt, om den enhed, der forvalter statens midler er privat eller offentlig.
As shown in recital 126, State control over the resources does not mean that there have to be flows from and to the State budget [73] involving the respective resources.
Desuden beregner transmissionsnetoperatørerne EEG-afgiften på grundlag af deres omkostninger på en måde, der er fastlagt i EEG-loven af 2012, og den omstændighed, at staten har indført en markedsmekanisme i ordningen, påvirker ikke det faktum, at der er tale om statsmidler.
Moreover, in the case at hand the level of the EEG-surcharge is calculated in accordance with regulatory provisions taking into account the market price obtained by the TSOs.
Staten bestemmer ligeledes, hvad der skal ske i tilfælde af et underskud.
As explained in recital 13 of the Opening Decision, the way in which the TSOs calculate the EEG-surcharge after they know the price obtained on the spot market, is fully regulated and laid down in the EEG-Act 2012.
Staten betaler ikke selv for underskuddet, men regulerer og kontrollerer, hvordan underskuddet dækkes, hvilket i sidste ende sker gennem EEG-afgiften.
Moreover, Germany contends that while in Essent, one specific body had been entrusted with the administration of the charge, the EEG-Act 2012 actually imposes obligations on an indefinite number of private operators, that is to say, network operators, TSOs and electricity suppliers, and those obligations are defined in a general manner.
Desuden påstår Tyskland, at dommen i sagen Vent de colère kræver, at staten har skønsbeføjelser til at råde over de økonomiske midler til hver en tid, hvorimod staten i henhold til EEG-loven af 2012 udelukkende har vedtaget lovgivningen og ikke har nogen skønsbeføjelser.
This is not an entrustment, and such a large number of private operators cannot be considered to be designated by the State to administer a charge.
Ifølge Tyskland har Kommissionen ikke i tilstrækkelig grad skelnet mellem reel udøvende kontrol og lovgivningsmæssige aktiviteter.
As stated in recital 118, the TSOs, and not other operators, are the entities designated to administer the EEG-surcharge.
Statskontrol indebærer, at staten har skønsbeføjelser til at råde over de økonomiske midler.
Moreover, there does not appear to be any legal ground which would prohibit a Member State from entrusting more than one entity with administering State resources.
I præmis 21 i sagen Vent de colère bekræfter Domstolen denne konklusion.
Germany and interested parties also stress the alleged differences between the EEG 2012-Act and the recent judgment in Vent de colère [74]: In France, the relevant contribution was collected from consumers by a State-run fund, while in Germany, the private TSOs collect the EEG-surcharge from private suppliers, which can then pass it on to consumers.
Ifølge Tyskland tydeliggøres fraværet af statskontrol ved, at staten ikke kan bestemme niveauet for EEG-afgiften.
In France, the level of the contribution was determined by ministerial decree, while in Germany, it is calculated by the TSOs on the basis of their actual costs.
Da niveauet for afgiften afhænger af den indtægt, transmissionsnetoperatørerne har fra salget af EEG-elektricitet på spotmarkedet, er det i praksis udelukkende markedet, der bestemmer det.
In France, in the event of a deficit, the State would step in, while in Germany, a deficit will need to be borne by the TSOs before being compensated for by an increase of the surcharge in the following year.
Kommissionen anerkender, at staten ikke altid bestemmer det præcise niveau for EEG-afgiften, men den bestemmer, hvordan det skal beregnes under hensyntagen til elektricitetens salgspris.
By arguing that State resources are only present if the State's executive has the funds at its disposal, Germany is misinterpreting the case-law.
Desuden kan staten indføre markedsmekanismer i finansieringsordningen uden at opgive kontrollen over finansieringen.
As explained in recital 130, the concept of the State is not limited to the executive, as it also encompasses the legislator, nor is it required that the State can dispose of the funds as if they were part of its own budget.
I den forbindelse mener Kommissionen ikke, at der er nogen forskel mellem en offentlig afgift, der er fastlagt af statslige myndigheder, og en retlig forpligtelse, staten pålægger gennem lovgivningen.
As shown in recital 114, it is irrelevant whether the entity administering the State resources is private or public.
I begge tilfælde tilrettelægger staten en overførsel af økonomiske midler ved hjælp af lovgivningen og bestemmer, hvilke formål disse økonomiske midler kan anvendes til.
Moreover, the TSOs calculate the EEG-surcharge on the basis of their costs in a manner that is laid down in the EEG-Act 2012 and the fact that the State has introduced a market-mechanism in the system does not affect the existence of State resources.
Derfor fastholder Kommissionen sin vurdering af, at støtten til producenter af VE-elektricitet og produktionen af elektricitet fra minegas via feed-in-tariffer er finansieret af statsmidler.
The State also determines what is to be done in the event of a deficit.
Fordrejende virkning på konkurrence og handel
Indeed, the State does not pay for the deficit itself, but regulates and controls the manner in which the deficit is covered, ultimately also by the EEG-surcharge.
Endelig virker fordelene til både producenterne af EEG-elektricitet og de energiintensive brugere til at kunne fordreje konkurrencen og påvirke handelen, idet modtagerne opererer i sektorer, hvor markederne er blevet liberaliseret, og hvor der foregår samhandel mellem medlemsstaterne.
In addition, Germany argues that Vent de colère requires a discretionary power of the State to dispose of the financial resources at any time, while in the EEG-Act 2012, the State, having merely enacted legislation, has no such discretionary power.
Konklusion vedrørende statsstøtte
According to Germany, the Commission has insufficiently distinguished between true means of executive control and mere legislative activity.
Derfor konkluderer Kommissionen, at EEG-loven af 2012 omfatter statsstøtte som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 107, både til fordel for producenterne af EEG-elektricitet og, i kraft af den særlige kompensationsregel, til fordel for de energiintensive brugere.
State control implies the fact that the State has a discretionary power to dispose of the financial resources.
Eksisterende støtte/ny støtte og støttens lovlighed
In Vent de colère, paragraph 21, the Court reconfirms this finding.
I åbningsafgørelsen anførte Kommissionen, at den havde konstateret, at den tyske lov om vedvarende energi, som trådte i kraft den 1. april 2000 (»EEG-loven af 2000«), forløberen for EEG-loven af 2012, ikke omfattede statsstøtte (Kommissionens beslutning i sag NN 27/2000) [75].
According to Germany, the absence of State control is also evidenced by the fact that the State cannot determine the level of the EEG-surcharge.
Kommissionen fandt imidlertid, at de ændringer, som EEG-loven af 2012 medførte, var omfattende, og at støtte ydet på grundlag af EEG-loven af 2012 udgjorde ny støtte, som ikke var omfattet af Kommissionens tidligere beslutning (betragtning 150 til åbningsafgørelsen).
In fact, given that the level of the surcharge depends on the revenue TSOs generate from selling the EEG electricity on the spot market, it is entirely determined by the market.
Dette er blevet anfægtet af Tyskland og af flere interesserede parter.
The Commission acknowledges that the State does not always determine the exact level of the EEG-surcharge, but it determines the manner in which it is to be calculated taking into account the selling price of the electricity.
Tyskland og de interesserede parter hævder, at de efterfølgende ændringer, som har fundet sted mellem den første udgave af EEG-loven af 2000 og EEG-loven af 2012, ikke har ændret støtteordningen i væsentlig grad, og at EEG-loven dermed udgør eksisterende støtte.
Moreover, the State may introduce market mechanisms in the financing system without relinquishing control over the financing.
Tyskland medgiver ikke desto mindre, at der er to forskelle mellem EEG-loven af 2012 og EEG-loven af 2000:
In that respect, the Commission sees no difference between a public charge set by State authorities and a legal obligation imposed by the State through legislation.
Til gengæld for betalingen af EEG-afgiften for en bestemt mængde el kan elleverandører kategorisere mængden som EEG-el.
Therefore, the Commission maintains its assessment that the support for RES electricity producers and electricity production from mine gas through feed-in tariffs is financed by State resources.
Ifølge Tyskland betyder det, at elleverandørerne erhverver elektricitetens »vedvarende kvalitet« og dermed muligheden for at oplyse forbrugerne om, i hvilket omfang de har betalt afgiften (jf. §§ 53, stk. 1, og 54, stk. 1, i EEG-loven af 2012).
Distortive effect on competition and trade
Den særlige kompensationsregel findes ikke i EEG-loven af 2000.
Finally, the advantages to both EEG electricity producers and EIUs appear to be liable to distort competition and to affect trade, given that the beneficiaries operate in sectors where markets have been liberalised and where trade between Member States takes place.
Kommissionen fastholder dens konklusion om, at den statsstøtte, der er involveret i EEG-loven af 2012, udgør ny støtte, fordi EEG-loven af 2012 udgør en væsentlig ændring sammenlignet med EEG-loven af 2000.
Conclusion on the existence of State aid
De ændringer, Tyskland har anerkendt, dvs. ændringen i udligningsmekanismen og indførelsen af den særlige kompensationsregel, udgør væsentlige ændringer.
The Commission therefore concludes that the EEG-Act 2012 involves State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty both for the benefit of EEG electricity producers and, under the BesAR, for the benefit of EIUs.
Ændring i udligningsmekanismen
Existing aid/new aid and lawfulness of the aid
Som en indledende bemærkning påpeger Kommissionen, at den i 2002 konstaterede, at EEG-loven af 2000 ikke omfattede overførsel af statslige midler, men at denne vurdering blev foretaget kort efter, der blev afsagt dom i PreussenElektra-sagen.
In its Opening Decision, the Commission stated that the German renewable energy law that had entered into force on 1 April 2000 (‘EEG-Act 2000’), the precursor of the EEG-Act 2012, had been considered not to involve State aid by the Commission (Commission Decision in case NN 27/2000) [75].
Ikke desto mindre har senere domme fra Domstolen i mellemtiden præciseret og endda indskrænket PreussenElektra-dommen: På baggrund af dommene i sagerne Essent, Vent de colère og Elcogás virker det til, at staten i forbindelse med den oprindelige udligningsmekanisme allerede havde overdraget forvaltningen af en støtteordning til transmissionsnetoperatørerne, og at finansieringen af ordningen skete ved hjælp af en afgift, der blev opkrævet af elleverandørerne.
However, the Commission considered that the changes introduced by the EEG-Act 2012 had been substantial and that aid granted on the basis of the EEG-Act 2012 constituted new aid, not covered by the previous Commission decision (recital 150 of the Opening Decision).
Det springende punkt er, at udligningsmekanismen er blevet ændret i væsentlig grad.
This has been contested by Germany and by several interested parties.
Den består ikke længere af en række af forpligtelser om køb af fysisk elektricitet (netoperatører fra producenter af EEG-el, transmissionsnetoperatører fra netoperatører, elleverandører fra transmissionsnetoperatører).
Germany and the interested parties argue that the successive changes that have occurred between the initial version of the EEG-Act 2000 and the EEG-Act 2012 have not substantially altered the aid scheme, so that the EEG-Act 2012 constitutes existing aid.
Nu afbrydes den fysiske overførsel ved transmissionsnetoperatørerne, som skal markedsføre EEG-elektriciteten.
Germany nevertheless concedes that there are two differences between the EEG-Act 2012 and the EEG-Act 2000:
Markedsføringen er blevet taget ud af udligningsmekanismen.
there has been a change in the equalisation mechanism: the original physical flow of EEG electricity to suppliers is replaced by the TSOs' obligation to sell the EEG electricity themselves on the spot market.
Sidstnævnte handler udelukkende om den økonomiske fordeling af omkostningerne mellem de forskellige operatører.
In exchange for the payment of the EEG-surcharge for a given amount of electricity, the electricity suppliers may label that amount as EEG electricity.
Transmissionsnetoperatørerne er af staten blevet tildelt ansvaret for at centralisere og beregne disse omkostninger og opkræve dem fra elleverandørerne.
According to Germany, that means that the electricity suppliers acquire the ‘renewable quality’ of electricity, and thus the ability to indicate to consumers to what extent they have paid the surcharge (cf. §§ 53(1) and 54(1) EEG-Act 2012).
Desuden sagde EEG-loven af 2000 intet om, hvorvidt elforbrugerne også skulle tage del i omkostningerne til fremstilling af EEG-el.
the BesAR does not exist in the EEG-Act 2000.
Denne beslutning blev truffet af den kompetente lovgiver, som på daværende tidspunkt stadig havde beføjelserne til at regulere elpriserne for slutbrugerne.
Apart from those two differences, the mechanism described in recitals 7, 8 and 9 is according to Germany identical to what was provided in the EEG-Act 2000.
EEG-loven af 2012 giver udtrykkeligt leverandørerne tilladelse til at vælte omkostningerne over på deres kunder, og i praksis vælger alle leverandører at gøre dette.
In particular, it argues that the essential feature, namely that electricity suppliers compensate the TSOs' additional costs from purchasing EEG electricity by using their own financial resources was already part of the EEG-Act 2000.
Desuden har forbundsnetagenturet, som ikke spillede en rolle i EEG-loven af 2000, fået beføjelser til at overvåge disse kapitalstrømme og sikre overholdelse af EEG-loven af 2012 med henblik på at beskytte forbrugerne.
The Commission maintains its finding that the State aid involved in the EEG-Act 2012 constitutes new aid, because the EEG-Act 2012 constitutes a substantial alteration compared to the EEG-Act 2000.
Forbundskontoret, som ligeledes ikke spillede nogen rolle i EEG-loven af 2000, træffer afgørelse om at nedsætte EEG-afgiften for bestemte virksomheder på baggrund af de i EEG-loven af 2012 fastlagte kriterier.
Indeed, the changes acknowledged by Germany, namely the change in the equalisation mechanism and the introduction of the BesAR, constitute substantial alterations.
Den særlige kompensationsregel (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung)
Change in the equalisation mechanism
Nedsættelsen af afgiften for energiintensive brugere er en logisk følge af, at elforbrugerne nu skal bære en del af byrden.
As a preliminary remark, the Commission points out that, while it considered in 2002 that the EEG-Act 2000 did not involve the transfer of State resources, this assessment was made shortly after the PreussenElektra judgment.
I henhold til EEG-loven af 2012 er forbundskontoret, som ikke spillede nogen særlig rolle i EEG-loven af 2000, ansvarlig for ved hjælp af administrative afgørelser at kontrollere, at de energiintensive brugere opfylder betingelserne for den særlige kompensationsregel.
However, further Court rulings have since clarified and even restricted PreussenElektra: Based on the rulings in Essent, Vent de colère and Elcogás, it would seem that under the initial equalisation mechanism, the TSOs had already been entrusted by the State with the administration of an aid scheme, which was financed by means of a surcharge levied from the electricity suppliers.
Nogle af de interesserede parter har påstået, at den omstændighed, at nogle elforbrugere drager fordel af en begrænset afgift, ikke kan påvirke det faktum, at de økonomiske midler, de tilvejebringer, er af privat karakter.
The decisive point is that the equalisation mechanism has been substantially altered.
Kommissionen mener imidlertid, at det faktum, at den særlige kompensationsregel findes, er et yderligere bevis for, at EEG-loven af 2012 ikke længere bygger på købsforpligtelser, der omfatter private midler, men derimod på et omfattende system til fordeling af omkostninger, der til en vis grad bygger på betragtninger vedrørende en retfærdig fordeling, som er tilrettelagt af staten og overvåget af statslige myndigheder.
It is no longer composed of a chain of obligations for physical electricity purchases (network operators from EEG electricity producers; TSOs from network operators; electricity suppliers from TSOs).
De adskillige forskelle mellem EEG-loven af 2000 og EEG-loven af 2012 opsummeres i den følgende tabel.
Now, the physical transfer is interrupted at the level of the TSOs, which have to market the EEG electricity.
De viser, at EEG-loven af 2012 alt i alt udgør en ny ordning.
That marketing has been decoupled from the equalisation mechanism.
Element
The latter is purely about the financial allocation of costs between the different operators.
EEG-loven af 2000
The TSOs have been given responsibility by the State for centralising and computing those costs, and collecting them from the electricity suppliers.
EEG-loven af 2012
Further, the EEG-Act 2000 was silent as to whether electricity consumers should also be made to participate in the costs for producing EEG electricity.
Overvæltning af afgiften
That decision was left to the competent regulator, which at the time still had the power to regulate electricity prices for final customers.
Successive forpligtelser hos operatørerne til at købe EEG-el.
The EEG-Act 2012 explicitly allows suppliers to pass on costs to their customers, and de facto they all pass them on.
Overvæltningen af omkostninger sker uafhængigt af overførslen af EEG-el.
In addition, the BNetzA, which had no role under the EEG-Act 2000, is given powers to monitor those financial flows and to enforce compliance with the EEG-Act 2012, in particular for purposes of consumer protection.
Udligningsmekanismen på det tredje niveau.
The BAFA, which also had no role under the EEG-Act 2000, takes the decision to grant a reduction from the EEG-surcharge to certain undertakings on the basis of the criteria laid down in the EEG-Act 2012.
Udligningen af omkostninger er knyttet til købet af EEG-el.
The Besondere Ausgleichsregelung (BesAR)
Udligningen af omkostninger sker som følge af salget af EEG-el på spotmarkedet.
The logical corollary to the inclusion of electricity consumers in the burden-sharing is the reduction in the surcharge granted to energy-intensive undertakings.
De endelige forbrugere bærer omkostningerne, men nogle drager fordel af en begrænset afgift.
Under the EEG-Act 2012, the BAFA, which had no particular role to play under the EEG-Act 2000, is responsible for certifying, by way of administrative decisions, that the EIUs satisfy the conditions of the BesAR.
Indgår ikke.
Some interested parties have argued that the mere fact that some electricity consumers benefit from a capped surcharge cannot affect the private nature of the financial resources contributed by them.
Den særlige kompensationsregel: Energiintensive brugere kan anmode om nedsættelse af deres afgift.
However, the Commission considers that the existence of the BesAR constitutes additional evidence for the fact that the EEG-Act 2012 is no longer based on purchase obligations involving private resources, but on a comprehensive system of cost allocation, based to a certain degree on considerations of distributive justice, organised by the State and monitored by State authorities.
Forbundsnetagenturets rolle
In conclusion, the numerous differences between the EEG-Act 2000 and the EEG-Act 2012 are summarised in the following table.
Ingen.
They demonstrate that the EEG-Act 2012 constituted a new system altogether.
Overvågning og håndhævelse af fastlæggelsen af afgiften.
Feature
Forbundskontorets rolle
EEG-Act 2000
Godkender nedsættelser af afgiften.
EEG-Act 2012
Niveauet for afgiften
Passing on of the surcharge.
0,2 cent/kWh (2000)
Successive obligations of the operators to purchase the EEG electricity.
6,24 cent/kWh (2014)
The passing on of costs is decoupled from the transfer of the EEG electricity.
Feed-in-tariffer på EEG-el
Equalisation mechanism on the third level.
Mindre end 1 mia. EUR (2000).
Cost equalisation is coupled with the purchase of EEG electricity.
Mere end 20 mia. EUR (2013).
Equalisation of the costs resulting from the spot market sales of the EEG electricity.
Idet EEG-loven af 2012 kun gør sig gældende for nedsættelser af EEG-afgiften for 2013 og 2014, udgør kun nedsættelser, der er indrømmet for disse to år, statsstøtte [76].
Final consumers have to bear the costs, but some benefit from a cap.
Forenelighed med det indre marked
Not provided for.
I åbningsafgørelsen konkluderede Kommissionen, at statsstøtten til producenter af EEG-el kunne betragtes som værende forenelig med det indre marked.
BesAR: EIUs can ask for reductions in their surcharge.
Den tvivler derimod på, hvorvidt tildelingen af støtten kan vurderes uafhængigt af dens finansieringsordning, dvs. EEG-afgiften.
Role of the BNetzA.
I åbningsafgørelsen gav Kommissionen også udtryk for en tvivl om, hvorvidt den særlige kompensationsregel kan anses for at være forenelig med det indre marked på grundlag af traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3.
Supervision and enforcement of the determination of the surcharge.
Retsgrundlag og omfanget af vurderingen af den særlige kompensationsregels forenelighed
Role of the BAFA.
Denne afgørelse omfatter ikke jernbanevirksomheders nedsatte betalinger af EEG-afgiften.
Authorises the reduction of the surcharge.
Kommissionen forbeholder sig retten til at vurdere § 42 i EEG-loven af 2012 i en særskilt procedure.
Level of the surcharge.