natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tyskland henviser til Domstolens retspraksis, ifølge hvilken »en sådan byrde, som pålægges varer ved grænseoverskridelsen, dog ikke [kan] betegnes som en afgift med tilsvarende virkning som told, der er omfattet af traktatens forbud, såfremt den er et led i en almindelig, intern afgiftsordning, der systematisk og efter samme kriterier anvendes på indenlandsk fremstillede og indførte eller udførte varer, såfremt den udgør et modstykke til en konkret tjenesteydelse, der faktisk og individuelt er præsteret over for den erhvervsdrivende, og afgiftens størrelse står i et rimeligt forhold til denne tjenesteydelse, eller endelig, på visse betingelser, såfremt den vedrører kontrol, der skal udøves for at opfylde fællesskabsretlige forpligtelser« [108].
The starting point is the EEG-surcharge that was actually paid in 2013; it is obtained by multiplying the beneficiary's reduced EEG-surcharge in 2013 by the beneficiary's actual electricity consumption in that same year (the ‘basic surcharge’).
Efter Tysklands opfattelse er det andet og det tredje af de alternative kriterier, som nævnes i Domstolens dom, opfyldt.
According to the adjustment plan, the surcharges for 2013 and 2014 will be readjusted so as not to exceed 125 % and 150 % of the basic surcharge.
For det første hævder Tyskland, at EEG-afgiften udgør et passende modstykke til en præsteret tjenesteydelse, nemlig den omstændighed, at transmissionsnetoperatørerne fraskriver sig den vedvarende karakter af den overførte VE-elektricitet, som elleverandørerne erhverver sig, som forklaret i betragtning 144 [109].
As of 2015, the upward adjustment will be potentially bigger, as the cap is then brought to 200 % of the basic surcharge.
Efter Tysklands opfattelse får elleverandørerne noget igen ved at betale EEG-afgiften til transmissionsnetoperatørerne, nemlig at en del af elektriciteten kommer fra vedvarende energikilder.
In subsequent years up to 2018, the surcharge for year x will be similarly capped at 200 % of the surcharge of the year x – 2.
Tyskland hævder derfor, at EEG-afgiften, i modsætning til Essent-sagen [110], hvor der ikke blev præsteret nogen tjenesteydelse til gengæld for betalingerne, svarer til en præsteret tjenesteydelse.
Concerning the years under examination in this Decision, that is to say, the years 2013 and 2014, the adjustment plan provides for a progressive increase in the EEG-surcharge for all beneficiaries for which the eligibility and proportionality criteria of the 2014 Guidelines were not met.
For det andet pålægges EEG-afgiften angiveligt for at opfylde forpligtelser, som følger af EU-retten, nemlig direktiv 2009/28/EF.
The increase is set to continue after 2014, so that it can be assumed that the levels required by the 2014 Guidelines will be met by 1 January 2019, both for undertakings which are in principle eligible, but did not pay a high enough surcharge, and for undertakings which are not eligible and therefore need to meet the minimum own contribution of 20 % of the additional costs of the surcharge set out in point 197 of the 2014 Guidelines.
Kommissionen kan ikke tilslutte sig Tysklands ræsonnement.
In addition, the Commission notes that the adjustment plan takes all relevant economic factors linked to the renewable policy into account and that Germany notified it within the deadline set out in point 200 of the 2014 Guidelines.
For det første er det korrekt, at EEG-afgiften finansierer etableringen af anlæg til vedvarende energi, men den støtter også produktionen af den elektricitet, der genereres på disse anlæg.
As far as the years 2013 and 2014 are concerned, the adjustment plan is therefore in line with the requirements in Section 3.7.3 of the 2014 Guidelines.
Dette underbygges af den omstændighed, at EEG-afgiften opkræves pr. kilowatt-time af elektricitet, der forbruges.
According to point 194 of the 2014 Guidelines, the reductions as modified by the adjustment plan can therefore be considered to be compatible with the internal market.
For det andet kan der ikke rykkes ved ligheden mellem indenlandsk produceret EEG-el og importeret EEG-el, blot fordi importeret EEG-el ikke medregnes i opfyldelsen af det af direktiv 2009/28/EF fastsatte mål.
Conclusion on compatibility
I henhold til Domstolens retspraksis skal lighed ikke fastlægges »efter et strengt identitetskriterium, men efter et beslægtetheds- og sammenlignelighedskriterium, set i forhold til anvendelsen« [111].
The reduced EEG-surcharges for energy-intensive undertakings in 2013 and 2014 are compatible with the internal market only in so far as the following conditions are fulfilled:
Spørgsmålet om lighed må adskilles fra forskellen i behandling: Der foreligger kun en forskel i behandling, for så vidt angår importeret el, der ville have været støtteberettiget i henhold til EEG-loven af 2012, hvis den havde været produceret i Tyskland.
the reduction in the surcharge is granted only in respect of costs resulting from support for energy from renewable sources;
I denne forbindelse er det uvæsentligt, om importeret VE-elektricitet medregnes i opfyldelsen af det af direktiv 2009/28/EF fastsatte mål.
the beneficiaries meet the eligibility criteria laid down in points 185, 186 and 187 of the 2014 Guidelines, as examined in Section 7.3.3 of this Decision; and
Desuden er Kommissionen uenig med Tysklands påstand om, at EEG-afgiften ikke udgør en afgift i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i enten artikel 30 eller artikel 110 i traktaten.
the reduction in the EEG-surcharge is proportionate according to the criteria set out in points 188 and 189 of the 2014 Guidelines, as examined in Section 7.3.4 of this Decision.
For det første er det, som Domstolen konstaterede i Essent-sagen, uvæsentligt med henblik på anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 30 og 110, at afgiften ikke opkræves direkte af staten, men af transmissionsnetoperatørerne [112].
For beneficiaries for which one or more of the conditions described in recital 215 are not met, the Commission exceptionally considers that State aid granted on the basis of the BesAR in 2013 and 2014 can be declared compatible with the internal market, to the extent that it is ensured that beneficiaries pay at least 125 % of the basic surcharge defined in recital 212 for the year 2013 and 150 % of the basic surcharge for the year 2014.
For det andet synes der ikke at foreligge nogen tjenesteydelse eller fordel, som den EEG-afgift, som elleverandørerne betaler, kan udgøre et passende modstykke til.
In order to ensure that result, recovery should take place as follows:
Den vedvarende karakter er i sig selv til ingen nytte for elleverandørerne, da den overføres særskilt fra den egentlige EEG-el.
for the reduction granted in respect of 2013, recovery should correspond to the difference between the surcharge that should have been paid if all conditions in recital 215 had been met and the EEG-surcharge that was actually paid in 2013; however, the total EEG-surcharge, including the amount recovered, of the undertaking subject to recovery must not exceed 125 % of the EEG-surcharge that was actually paid in 2013;
Leverandørernes betalinger er heller ikke proportionale med den præsterede tjenesteydelse, da de afhænger af, hvor mange ikke-privilegerede kunder, de har, hvorimod den tjenesteydelse, der angiveligt præsteres, dvs. elektricitetens vedvarende karakter, er udelelig og ens for alle.
for the reduction granted in respect of 2014, recovery should correspond to the difference between the surcharge that should have been paid if all criteria in recital 215 had been met and the EEG-surcharge that was actually paid in 2014; however, the total EEG-surcharge, including the amount recovered, of the undertaking subject to recovery must not exceed 150 % of the EEG-surcharge that was actually paid in 2013.
For det tredje pålægges EEG-afgiften ikke på baggrund af tilsyn, og den pålægges heller ikke på baggrund af forpligtelser, der udspringer af EU-retten.
Compliance with other Treaty provisions
Direktiv 2009/28/EF forpligter Tyskland til at træffe foranstaltninger, der har til formål at sikre en stigning i andelen af energi fra vedvarende energikilder (direktivets artikel 3, stk. 2).
In accordance with point 29 of the 2014 Guidelines, as the EEG-surcharge has the aim of financing support for EEG electricity, the Commission has examined its compliance with Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty.
Det er op til Tyskland at beslutte, hvordan dette gennemføres, både hvad angår de nærmere foranstaltninger (direktivets artikel 3, stk. 3) og finansieringen heraf.
According to the case-law, a charge which is imposed on domestic and imported products according to the same criteria may nevertheless be prohibited by the Treaty if the revenue from such a charge is intended to support activities which specifically benefit the taxed domestic products.
Som Kommissionen påpegede i sin åbningsafgørelse, forbyder artikel 30 og 110 kun finansiering af en støtteordning for indenlandsk produktion ved hjælp af en diskriminerende afgift, der pålægges importerede produkter.
If the advantages which those products enjoy wholly offset the burden imposed on them, the effects of that charge are apparent only with regard to imported products and that charge constitutes a charge having equivalent effect, contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty.
De tvinger ikke medlemsstaterne til at udvide støtteordningen til også at omfatte importerede produkter.
If, on the other hand, those advantages only partly offset the burden borne by domestic products, the charge in question constitutes discriminatory taxation for the purposes of Article 110 of the Treaty, and the proportion used to offset the burden borne by the domestic products will be contrary to that provision [102].
Ligesom tidligere afgørelser vedrørende nationale støtteordninger for vedvarende energi [113] stiller nærværende afgørelse ikke spørgsmål ved det faktum, at støtte i henhold til EEG-loven af 2012 er forbeholdt den indenlandske produktion.
The Commission has considered, in its long-standing decision practice [103] and in line with the case-law of the Court [104], that the financing of national support schemes for RES by means of a parafiscal levy on electricity consumption may discriminate against imported RES.
Medlemsstaterne må imidlertid ikke lade diskriminerende afgifter som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 30 og 110 indgå i deres støtteordninger.
Indeed, if domestic electricity production is supported by aid that is financed through a charge on all electricity consumption (including consumption of imported electricity), then the method of financing, which imposes a burden on imported electricity not benefiting from that financing, risks having a discriminatory effect on imported electricity from renewable energy sources and thereby infringes Articles 30 and/or 110 of the Treaty [105].
Dommen Ålands Vindkraft ændrer ikke ved vurderingen vedrørende traktatens artikel 30 og 110.
In addition, in its Opening Decision, the Commission observed that the EEG-Act 2012 may prima facie have a discriminatory effect in that § 39 EEG-Act 2012 provides for the rate of the EEG surcharge to be reduced in the case of so-called direct marketing.
Det eneste spørgsmål i denne sag var, om en national støtteordning for producenter af vedvarende energi skulle være åben for producenter i andre medlemsstater (Domstolen fandt, at dette ikke var tilfældet).
The reduced rate applies only when the supplier has purchased 50 % of his electricity portfolio from national EEG electricity producers and seems therefore to constitute a discriminatory charge within the meaning of Article 110 of the Treaty.
Dommen vedrørte ikke spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en sådan national støtteordning desuden kan finansieres ved hjælp af en diskriminerende afgift, som også pålægges økonomiske aktører i andre medlemsstater.
The Commission also considered that where the surcharge was raised on imports that would not have benefited from support under the EEG-Act 2012 if they had been produced in Germany (for instance electricity produced from facilities that have been in operation for more than 20 years), the surcharge would comply with Articles 30 and 110 on the grounds that, in this particular case, there is no difference in treatment between the national production and the imports.
For det andet foretog Domstolen efter anmodning fra den svenske ret en fortolkning af artikel 34 om kvantitative restriktioner for varernes frie bevægelighed.
Germany disputes that the EEG-Act 2012 could result in discrimination within the meaning of Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty, for the following reasons: first, it claims that there is no similarity between the imported products on which the EEG-surcharge is imposed and the domestic products financed by it.
Den præjudicielle anmodning vedrørte ikke artikel 30 og 110 om diskriminerende told og afgifter, hvorom Domstolen ikke udtalte sig.
This is because the EEG-surcharge finances RES installations, whereas it is imposed on the consumption of RES electricity.
For det tredje konkluderede Domstolen, at Sveriges afslag på at give sagsøgeren adgang til certifikatsordningen, som udgjorde en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som en kvantitativ restriktion, var berettiget af miljøbeskyttelseshensyn og proportional i forhold til at indfri det miljøpolitiske formål [114].
Even if the surcharge was to be considered to finance RES electricity, there would still be a difference between the electricity on which the surcharge is imposed and the electricity that the surcharge promotes.
Diskriminerende foranstaltninger, der er i strid med artikel 30 og 110, er derimod ikke berettigede, selv ikke af miljømæssige årsager.
The reason is that Germany's RES target, set by Article 3(3) and part A of Annex I to Directive 2009/28/EC, can only be fulfilled by RES electricity that has either been domestically produced or imported on the basis of a cooperation mechanism with the Member State where the electricity has been produced (Article 5(3) of that Directive).
Kommissionen kan ikke forestille sig et scenarie, hvor miljøbeskyttelse (eller for den sags skyld andre tvingende almene hensyn) kan fremmes ved at pålægge en finansiel forpligtelse, som bevirker, at økonomiske aktører i andre medlemsstater skal betale mere end deres indenlandske konkurrenter.
Therefore, in the absence of a cooperation mechanism, any imported RES electricity does not count towards the target.
Selv om Tyskland fastholder, at EEG-afgiften ikke er i strid med traktatens artikel 30 og 110, har landet afgivet tilsagn om at investere i samkøringsforbindelser og europæiske energiprojekter (jf. beskrivelsen i betragtning 19).
From the perspective of the consumers, such electricity cannot therefore be considered to be similar to domestic RES electricity.
Disse investeringer skal svare til det anslåede beløb, der udgør den påståede forskelsbehandling.
As far as the green electricity privilege is concerned (§ 39 of the EEG-Act 2012), Germany claims that it cannot be considered to be discriminatory because it actually implements Directive 2009/28/EC.
Overtrædelser af traktatens artikel 30 og 110 udbedres som regel ved tilbagebetaling af de pålagte afgifter.
Directive 2009/28/EC sets a national target for the share of energy from renewable sources, and it allows the Member States to set up support schemes and measures of cooperation (Article 3(3)).
Kommissionen har imidlertid anerkendt, at en geninvestering af en del af indtægterne fra en skattelignende afgift, der er blevet pålagt import, i projekter og infrastrukturer, der særligt kommer importen til gode, er en passende udbedring af den potentielle historiske forskelsbehandling i henhold til traktatens artikel 30 og 110 [115].
Under Article 5(3) of the Directive, RES electricity that is produced domestically counts towards the target.
For at bestemme den andel af tidligere indtægter fra EEG-afgiften, der skal tildeles sådanne investeringer, er det for det første nødvendigt at foretaget et skøn af importen af støtteberettiget EEG-el til Tyskland.
RES electricity produced in other Member States does in principle count towards the target when it is covered by a cooperation agreement between the Member States concerned.
Det andet skridt er at fastlægge omfanget af forskelsbehandlingen af den importerede grønne elektricitet.
The conclusion of such agreements is not mandatory, but left to the Member States' discretion.
Forskelsbehandlingen består i, at både den indenlandske produktion af EEG-el og importen af EEG-el bidrager til EEG-afgiften, men kun den indenlandske produktion af EEG-el drager fordel af den (inden for rammerne af vilkårene for støtteberettigelse).
According to Germany, it follows from those provisions of the Directive that Germany is entitled to support domestic RES electricity production only.
Dermed kan forskelsbehandlingen måles ved det niveau for EEG-afgiften, den importerede EEG-el blev pålagt.
It also follows from those provisions that Germany is not compelled either to grant access to its support scheme to RES electricity producers from other Member States, or to let such producers benefit from the green electricity privilege.
Det skal dog bemærkes, at en eventuel tilbagebetaling ikke omfatter hele afgiften, men derimod blot den støtte, der i teorien ville være blevet modtaget (feed-in-tariffer, markedstillæg eller privilegiet for grøn elektricitet).
In addition, Germany claims that if the green electricity privilege was made available to producers located in other Member States, there would be a risk that this would result in overcompensation of such producers, who could begin to cherry-pick between the different national support systems.
Da de indenlandske producenter af EEG-el også betaler afgiften, men modtager støtte til EEG-el, opstår der kun forskelsbehandling i det omfang, at importen pålægges afgiften uden at modtage støtte.
It would also pose a threat to the financing mechanism of the EEG-Act 2012, since more and more non-domestic producers would want to make use of the green electricity privilege, and the amount of electricity on which the EEG-surcharge was actually imposed would continuously decrease, thereby eroding the base of the financing.
I det væsentlige svarer forskelsbehandlingen til det niveau af støtte, som den importerede EEG-el ikke er blevet tildelt.
This would in practice run counter to the objectives of Directive 2009/28/EC, which authorises the establishment of national support systems for the purposes of increasing renewable energy production.
Vedrørende feed-in-tarifferne og markedstillæggene bemærker Kommissionen, at de varierer for de forskellige EEG-teknologier, og at det derfor er nødvendigt at fastlægge, hvilke typer EEG-el der er blevet importeret og i hvilket omfang, for at anvende disse former for støtte på importen.
This interpretation is confirmed, according to Germany, by the recent Ålands Vindkraft ruling [106].
Da Tyskland har forklaret, at der ikke foreligger tal for den reelle import af EEG-el, er det imidlertid ikke muligt at måle forskelsbehandlingen ved at anvende de specifikke feed-in-tariffer eller markedstillæg på de tilsvarende importmængder.
In that case, concerning a national system which provided for the award of tradable certificates to producers of green electricity solely in respect of green electricity produced in the territory of that Member State, the Court of Justice held that such a system constituted a measure having equivalent effects to quantitative restrictions on imports, in principle incompatible with the obligations resulting from Article 34 of the Treaty.
For at undgå eller mindske risikoen for netop ikke at nå målet på 50 % (hvor den fulde EEG-afgift pålægges hele porteføljen) køber elleverandører EEG-elektricitet med en sikkerhedsmargen, dvs. mere end de påkrævede 50 %, i visse tilfælde op til 60 %.
Rather, it is a mere refund claim which the TSOs have against electricity suppliers, given that the TSOs are considered to perform services for the suppliers.
For at beregne den omkostningsfordel, der potentielt kan videregives til producenter af VE-elektricitet, skal den nedsættelse af EEG-afgiften, som indrømmes for hele porteføljen, dvs. 2 cent/kWh, i sådanne tilfælde deles med en højere andel af VE-elektricitet.
Germany refers to the case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which ‘a charge which is imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier may escape classification as a charge having equivalent effect as prohibited by the Treaty, if it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products, and imported or exported products alike, if it represents payment for a specific service actually and individually rendered to the trader of a sum in proportion to that service or, in certain circumstances, if it is levied on account of inspections carried out for the purpose of fulfilling obligations imposed by Community law’ [108].
Den gennemsnitlige fordel ved privilegiet for grøn elektricitet var 3,8 cent/kWh i 2012, 3,2 cent/kWh i 2013 og 3,9 cent/kWh i 2014.
Germany considers the second and the third of the alternative criteria mentioned in the Court judgment to be fulfilled.
Men selv hvis privilegiet i et vis omfang underdriver det faktiske omfang af forskelsbehandlingen, bør det bemærkes, at antallet af oprindelsesgarantier overdriver omfanget af importen.
First, Germany claims that the EEG-surcharge constitutes an adequate payment for a specific service rendered, namely the fact that the TSOs relinquish the renewable quality of the RES electricity transmitted, which is acquired by the electricity suppliers, as explained in recital 144 [109].
Kommissionen er derfor af den opfattelse, at den metode, Tyskland benytter (beskrevet i betragtning 238 ff.) er hensigtsmæssig.
From Germany's point of view, by paying the EEG-surcharge to the TSOs, the electricity suppliers receive something in return, that is the fact that a share of the electricity comes from renewable energy sources.
Den fordel, som følger af privilegiet for grøn elektricitet, sammenholdt med antallet af importerede oprindelsesgarantier, kan betragtes som en passende indikator for omfanget af forskelsbehandlingen af importeret EEG-el i henhold til EEG-loven af 2012.
Germany therefore argues that, contrary to the situation in the Essent case [110], where there was no service in return for the payments, the EEG-surcharge does correspond to a service rendered.
Ved at anvende tallene for støtteberettiget importeret EEG-el, jf. betragtning 237, og tallene for privilegiet for grøn elektricitet, jf. betragtning 241, udgør det beløb, der skal geninvesteres, 50 mio. EUR [116].
Secondly, the EEG-surcharge is allegedly imposed in order to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law, namely by Directive 2009/28/EC.
Dermed er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at Tysklands tilsagn om at investere 50 mio. EUR (jf. betragtning 19) i samkøringsforbindelser og europæiske energiprojekter udbedrer den potentielle historiske forskelsbehandling i henhold til traktatens artikel 30 og 110.
The Commission cannot agree with the reasoning provided by Germany.
AUTENTISK SPROG
First, while it is true that the EEG-surcharge finances the setup of renewable energy installations, it supports the production of the electricity generated in those installations.
Som nævnt i denne afgørelses afsnit 1 har Tyskland givet afkald på sin ret til at få denne afgørelse vedtaget på tysk.
This is evidenced by the fact that the EEG-surcharge is levied per kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed.
Det autentiske sprog er derfor engelsk.
Secondly, the similarity between domestically produced EEG electricity and imported EEG electricity cannot be altered by the mere fact that imported EEG electricity does not count towards the target set by Directive 2009/28/EC.
KONKLUSION OG TILBAGEBETALING
According to the case-law of the Court, similarity has to be assessed ‘on the basis not of the criterion of the strictly identical nature of the products but on that of their similar and comparable use’ [111].