natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-206/06 strandede omkostninger for år 2000 med indtil 400 mio. NLG. Det eventuelle overskydende beløb skulle SEP betale til økonomiministeriet, som i henhold til artikel 7 i OEPS skulle anvende det til dækning af strandede omkostninger for årene efter år 2000 (artikel 9, stk. 5, in fine).
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-206/06 to a ceiling of NLG 400 000 000, to cover the nonrecoverable costs for 2000, while any excess was to be paid by SEP to the Minister for the Economy and was intended to finance coverage of the nonrecoverable costs under Article 7 of the OEPS for the years subsequent to 2000 (Article 9(5), in fine).
Inden der kan drages en sådan konklusion, må det dog ifølge den ovenfor anførte retspraksis 38først undersøges, om byrden også er neutral, hvis man ser på, hvad provenuet anvendes til.
However, the caselaw mentioned above provides that, 38before arriving at that conclusion, it is necessary to determine whether that neutrality is lost in the light of the purpose for which the revenue is used.
Hvis den byrde, der påhviler en indenlandsk vare, udlignes fuldt ud af de fordele, som det måtte medføre, at provenuet fra anvendelsen af det omtvistede tillæg tilfalder denne vare, er det således artikel 25 EF og ikke artikel 90 EF, der finder anvendelse, fordi dette tillæg trods det umiddelbare indtryk i virkeligheden kun rammer den indførte vare.
If, in fact, the charge on the domestic product was to be fully offset by the advantages that might accrue to that product as a result of the allocation of the revenue resulting from the application of the contested surcharge, it would be Article 25 EC and not Article 90 EC that would apply, because, appearances notwithstanding, the surcharge would in reality affect only the imported product.
Ifølge denne mekanisme skulle alle opkrævede beløb gå til dækning af strandede omkostninger og udbetales til SEP (eller til EPB’erne) i medfør af henholdsvis artikel 9, stk. 4, i OEPS eller — for så vidt angår de beløb, der oversteg 400 mio. NLG — artikel 7 i OEPS.
On the basis of that mechanism, all of the sums levied were to be used to cover the nonrecoverable costs and had to be paid to SEP (or the EGUs) in accordance with Article 9(4) of the OEPS or, in the case of sums in excess of NLG 400 000 000, Article 7 of the OEPS respectively.
Selv om det efter fast retspraksis påhviler den nationale ret at undersøge dette, mener jeg dog, at det vil være på sin plads, at Domstolen inden for rammerne af sin kompetence kommer med visse anvisninger og i forbindelse hermed tager særligt hensyn til de argumenter, parterne har fremført i den nationale retssag.
Although it is settled caselaw that it is for the national court to make that assessment, I none the less consider it appropriate that the Court should, within the limits of its jurisdiction, provide some guidance on the matter, taking account, in particular, of the arguments submitted by the parties in the national proceedings.
Bemærkningerne i det følgende skal ses i dette perspektiv.
It is with that in mind that I make the following observations.
Hvis det derfor viser sig, at de betalinger, der foreskrives i disse bestemmelser, har fundet sted, og de tilsvarende beløb faktisk og ubeskåret er gået til de indenlandske elproducenter, dvs. at afgifterne opgjort i penge svarer til fordelene, vil det være logisk at konkludere 39, således som Kommissionen har gjort i sit indlæg, at det omtvistede tillæg ikke har haft økonomisk betydning for den nationale elektricitet.
Therefore, were it to be proved that the payments for which those articles provide were actually made and that the relevant amounts were actually used, and used in full, to benefit the national electricity producers — in such a way as to produce pecuniary equivalence between the charges and the advantages — it would seem logical to conclude, 39as the Commission does in its observations, that the economic impact of the contested surcharge on national electricity was entirely neutralised.
Det fremgår af de omhandlede nationale regler og af forelæggelseskendelsen, at systemoperatørerne skulle udbetale de beløb, som de opkrævede i medfør af artikel 9, stk. 1, i OEPS, til SEP.
It is apparent from the national legislation at issue and the order for reference that the sums levied by the net operators pursuant to Article 9(1) of the OEPS had to be paid over by the latter to SEP.
Disse beløb skulle sammen med de beløb, der blev opkrævet i henhold til samme artikels stk. 2, dække
Those sums, along with the sums collected on the basis of Article 9(2), had to be used, subject
39 — Denne konklusion understøttes også af, at der mangler oplysninger om, hvor stort provenuet af det omhandlede tillæg var, og hvor stor en procentdel af elektriciteten der blev indført fra andre medlemsstater, og som — direkte eller indirekte via SEP — blev leveret til de kunder, der var forpligtet til at betale dette tillæg, i det tidsrum, hvor det var gældende.
39 — It seems possible to arrive at that conclusion even in the absence of data concerning the total amount of the sums arising from the application of the contested surcharge or the percentage of electricity imported from other Member States and supplied — either directly or indirectly via SEP — to persons required to pay the surcharge during the period when it was in force.
38 — Jf. punkt 35-38 ovenfor.
38 — See points 34 to 37 above.
For at der kan drages en sådan konklusion, skal den forelæggende ret imidlertid først afgøre, i) om provenuet af det omtvistede tillæg faktisk er bestemt til et formål, der særligt begunstiger den indenlandske vare, og ii) om der er »identitet mellem den beskattede vare og den begunstigede indenlandske vare«.
However, in order to reach that conclusion, the national court will have first of all to determine whether: (i) the sums produced by levying the contested surcharge were in fact destined for a use which gave the national product a specific advantage and (ii) whether ‘the taxed product and the advantaged national product are the same’.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet under i) skal den forelæggende ret afgøre, om og i hvilket omfang de pågældende strandede omkostninger, såfremt de ikke dækkes af provenuet af det omtvistede pristillæg eller af andre offentlige foranstaltninger, direkte eller indirekte har belastet EPB’ernes regnskab.
As regards (i), the national court will have to ascertain whether and to what extent, in the absence of the coverage provided by the revenue from the contested price surcharge or any other form of public intervention, the relevant nonrecoverable costs would have, directly or indirectly, affected the balance sheet of the EGUs.
Det kan i øvrigt ikke afvises, at den forelæggende ret også vil være nødt til at inddrage protokollen i sin vurdering for at undersøge, på hvilke betingelser den omfattende overdragelse af strandede omkostninger til distributionsselskaberne (eller i hvert fald til de brugere, der skulle betale det omtvistede tillæg) fandt sted 42.
Furthermore, the possibility cannot be excluded that, in its assessment, the national court will also have to have regard to the protocol, in order to determine the manner in which it provided for a significant transfer of the nonrecoverable costs to the distribution companies (or, at any event, to the bodies required to levy the contested surcharge).
Jeg skal herved påpege, at Essent, efter hvad SEP har gjort gældende, havde betalt det beløb, som det skulle ifølge protokollen, for år 2000, allerede inden artikel 9 i OEPS var trådt i kraft.
42In that connection, it should be noted that, according to SEP, Essent had undertaken payment of what it was owed under the protocol for 2000 even before Article 9 of the OEPS had entered into force.
Det tillæg, der er fastsat i bestemmelserne i denne artikel, synes således først og fremmest at begunstige distributionssektoren 43, fordi de enkelte selskaber får mulighed for at overvælte de beløb på forbrugerne, som de allerede har betalt eller skal betale til SEP. Det tilkommer derfor den forelæggende ret at undersøge, om disse selskaber også er betalingspligtige ifølge protokollen, hvis en sådan overvæltning ikke er mulig.
The surcharge for which that article provides seems, therefore, primarily to benefit the distribution sector, 43by enabling the individual companies to recover from consumers what they have already paid to or, at any rate, owe to SEP; it is therefore for the national court to assess whether, if it is impossible to effect recovery in that way, those companies are still required to make the payment stipulated for under the protocol.
Da den forelæggende ret tilsyneladende antager, at det kun var SEP, der var ansvarlig for disse omkostninger 40, skal der ved denne vurdering først og fremmest tages hensyn til de finansieringsmekanismer, som dannede grundlag for samarbejdet mellem de
Given that the national court appears to be assuming that liability for those costs lay exclusively with SEP, 40that assessment essentially involves reviewing the financial mechanisms through which the statutory cooperation between the four EGUs was achieved, through the intermediary of SEP,
41 — Parterne har i deres besvarelse af Domstolens skriftlige spørgsmål tilsyneladende ikke bestridt, at de fire EPB’er også i referenceperioden baserede deres samarbejde på aftalen fra 1986, der pålagde SEP at markedsføre den elektricitet, EPB’erne producerede, og navnlig indebar, at produktionsomkostningerne blev samlet i en pulje og fordelt mellem EPB’erne efter procentsatser, der svarede til deres respektive andele af SEP’s kapital.
41 — The answers to the Court’s written questions do not seem to contest the fact that, during the reference period, the four EGUs continued to operate on the basis of the 1986 cooperation agreement, which entrusted SEP with the task of selling all of the electricity produced by the EGUs and involved, among other things, a pooling of production costs as well as their allocation among the EGUs according to percentages that reflected each undertaking’s share in SEP’s capital.
Det fremgår desuden, at SEP mistede sin aktive rolle i elforsyningssektoren efter den 1.1.2001, hvor det blev omdannet til NEA, der kun har til opgave at afslutte de transaktioner, der blev iværksat inden 2001.
It is also apparent that SEP’s active role in the electricity supply sector came to an end when, on 1 January 2001, it was converted into NEA, the sole responsibility of which is to bring to a conclusion the operations set under way before 2001.
42 — Essent har i sin besvarelse af Domstolens skriftlige spørgsmål understreget, at produktionssektoren ifølge protokollen formentlig havde ret til at afkræve distributionssektoren et beløb på 400 mio. NLG for år 2000, selv om distributionsvirksomhederne ikke kunne overvælte disse beløb på transport- eller leveringsprisen.
42 — In its answers to the Court’s written questions, Essent states that, under the protocol, the production sector was entitled to ask the distribution sector for the sum of NLG 400 000 000 for 2000, even, presumably, if it was not possible for the distribution companies to recover those sums through transmission or supply charges.
43 — Det fremgår dog af parternes besvarelse af Domstolens skriftlige spørgsmål, at Essent efter en fusion blev en af de fire aktionærer i NEA (tidligere SEP), og at Essent også er aktiv i produktionssektoren.
43 — I should, however, point out that the parties’ answers to the Court’s written questions indicate that, following the merger, Essent became one of the four shareholders in NEA (formerly SEP) and is also active in the production sector.
40 — Det fremgår dog af Kommissionens beslutning af 25.7.2001 og af den indledende redegørelse i OEPS, at forpligtelserne i fjernvarmeaftalerne udelukkende påhviler den virksomhed, der har indgået aftale herom.
40 — However, both the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 and the introductory report to the text of the OEPS indicate that the obligations arising under the urban heating contracts rested with the undertakings which held the contracts.
Ifølge svarene på Domstolens skriftlige spørgsmål var det imidlertid SEP, der indtil slutningen af år 2000 var ansvarlig for samtlige strandede omkostninger.
But the answers to the Court’s written questions appear to suggest that, until the end of 2000, liability for all of the nonrecoverable costs lay with SEP.
Den 1.1.2001 overtog EPB’erne forpligtelserne i fjernvarmeaftalerne på grundlag af bestemte procentsatser, hvorimod ansvaret for omkostningerne i forbindelse med Demkolec stadig påhvilede SEP (via NV Demkolec, et helejet datterselskab af SEP), der ejede anlægget, indtil det blev overtaget af NUON.
As of 1 January 2001, liability for the obligations arising from the urban heating contracts is said to have been transferred to the EGUs, on the basis of specific percentages, while liability for the costs generated by Demkolec continued to lie with SEP (via NV Demkolec, a 100% subsidiary of SEP), the owner of the plant, until the date on which it was transferred to NUON.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-206/06 som er til gavn for den indenlandske vare, men ikke resulterer i fordele, der vil få umiddelbar betydning for salgsprisen.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-206/06 example, the financing of promotional or research activities which, although benefiting the domestic product, do not involve advantages that are likely to have an immediate impact on its selling price.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet under ii) i punkt 59 tilkommer det først og fremmest den forelæggende ret at afgøre, om der på grund af den måde, det omtvistede tillæg opkræves på, og især på grund af, at det ikke betales af elproducenterne, men udfaktureres til de endelige forbrugere, ikke foreligger den nødvendige identitet mellem den afgiftsbelagte vare og den begunstigede indenlandske vare. Essent og den nederlandske regering mener, at dette forhold bevirker, at der ikke kan være tale om en udligning som omhandlet i Domstolens praksis.
As regards the question set out under (ii) in point 59 above, it is primarily for the national court to determine whether the requisite identity between the taxed product and the advantaged national product is precluded as a result of the method used to collect the surcharge at issue and, in par -ticular, of the fact that it is not paid by the electricity producers but is passed on to the final consumer.
Den nederlandske regering har desuden bestridt, at der skulle være en fordel for den indenlandske vare, eftersom betalingerne til SEP i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 4, i OEPS ikke har resulteret i, at prisen på indenlandsk fremstillet elektricitet er blevet sænket.
The Netherlands Government also disputes the existence of an advantage benefiting domestic production, on the ground that the payments to SEP, for which Article 9(4) of the OEPS provides, did not lead to a reduction in the cost of domestically produced electricity.
Jeg skal herved blot bemærke, at det ifølge retspraksis ikke er nødvendigt, at afgiftsprovenuet anvendes til dækning af produktionsomkostninger, da den økonomiske byrde, som afgiften medfører for den indenlandske vare, kan udlignes af, at pengene f.eks. bruges på salgsfremmende foranstaltninger eller forskningsaktiviteter,
In that connection, it is sufficient to point out that, according to the caselaw, it is not necessary that the revenue from the tax should be used to cover production costs, since the pecuniary charges resulting for the domestic product from the application of that tax may certainly be offset through, for
Når der er fri konkurrence, vil et pristillæg eller en forhøjelse af den pris, den endelige forbruger skal betale, således direkte eller indirekte kunne belaste den pågældende vare ved at påvirke dens markedspris.
It is indeed the case that the imposition of a price surcharge or a price supplement which is passed on to the final consumer may, in a system that is open to competition, result in a financial burden on the product that is directly or indirectly affected, because it will affect its market cost.
Det er dog spørgsmålet, om der kan tages hensyn til denne byrde ved vurderingen af, om der er tale om en udligning efter den ovenfor nævnte retspraksis, eftersom denne vurdering, som jeg har nævnt ovenfor, bygger på en sammenligning af omkostninger og fordele af rent pengemæssig art.
It is, none the less, open to question whether that burden can be taken into consideration in assessing whether there is offsetting within the meaning of the abovementioned caselaw, since, as we have seen, that assessment is based on a comparison of expenditure and advantages in exclusively pecuniary terms.
hvor forbrugeren tværtimod er den person, som den afgift, der påhviler producenten og importøren, overvæltes på gennem en forhøjelse af salgsprisen for den afgiftsbelagte vare, eftersom den økonomiske byrde, der er forbundet med afgiften, i begge tilfælde bæres af andre end producenten og importøren.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS the producer and the importer, is passed on, as a result of an increase in the selling price of the affected product, do not seem to me to differ greatly from an economic perspective, since, in both situations, the financial burdens resulting from the tax are borne by persons other than the producer or importer.
Ifølge retspraksis kan der imidlertid være tale om en udligning i det andet tilfælde 44.
None the less, in the latter circumstance, the caselaw acknowledges that offsetting may be possible. 44
Når det omtvistede tillæg påhviler forbrugeren, medregnes i transportprisen og ikke i elprisen og anvendes uden forskelsbehandling, er der desuden grund til at betvivle, at det faktisk kan fastslås, at den indførte vare er pålagt nogen som helst økonomisk byrde, eller at bevægeligheden for denne vare har ændret sig på nogen måde, eller at den som følge af anvendelsen af dette tillæg påføres en konkret konkurrencemæssig ulempe, som adskiller sig fra den, der skyldes, at provenuet af denne byrde går til finansiering af foranstaltninger, der begunstiger indenlandske varer (og som i givet fald kan være i strid med traktatens bestemmelser om statsstøtte).
Furthermore, given that the contested surcharge is levied at the expense of the consumer, is incorporated into the transmission cost rather than the electricity price and is applied according to methods which are not discriminatory, it seems legitimate to question whether it is, in fact, possible to consider that the imported product is affected by any kind of financial burden or that the movement of the product is in some way affected, or indeed that, as a result of the application of the surcharge, that product suffers a real competitive disadvantage, distinct from any disadvantage deriving from the use of the revenue from the surcharge to finance measures to benefit domestic products (which may, if relevant, be challenged on the basis of the Treaty provisions on State aids).
Hvis den forelæggende ret efter sin undersøgelse måtte konkludere, at provenuet af det omtvistede tillæg faktisk var beregnet til finansiering af omkostninger, der direkte eller indirekte var forbundet med den nationale elproduktion, og at det gav elproducenterne mulighed for at anvende dette tillæg til udligning af afgifter, som faktisk påhvilede dem, må den afgøre, om denne udligning var fuldstændig, hvilket synes at fremgå af artikel 9 i OEPS, eller kun delvis.
If, on completion of its analysis, the national court concludes that the revenue from the contested surcharge was actually intended to finance costs directly or indir -ectly affecting domestic electricity and that this allowed the producers of the latter to offset financial burdens which they had actually borne as a result of that surcharge, it will have to assess whether those burdens were offset in full, as the wording of Article 9 of the OEPS would seem to indicate, or merely in part.
I det første tilfælde må det omhandlede tillæg kvalificeres som en afgift med tilsvarende virkning i artikel 25 EF’s forstand, hvorimod der i det andet tilfælde vil være tale om en diskriminerende intern afgift i henhold til artikel 90 EF.
In the former case, the contested surcharge could be categorised as a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC, and in the latter as discriminatory internal taxation under Article 90 EC.
Der synes dog ikke at være holdepunkter for Essents og den nederlandske regerings opfattelse i retspraksis, som ikke kræver, at de personer, som har pligt til at betale en afgift, og de personer, som begunstiges af den aktivitet, der finansieres med provenuet af denne afgift, skal være identiske, men kun at der er identitet mellem den (indenlandske) afgiftsbelagte vare og den begunstigede vare, hvilket betyder, at der ikke kan være tale om udligning, når afgiftsprovenuet kommer en anden produktionsaktivitet end den afgiftsbelagte til gode.
However, the argument of Essent and the Netherlands Government does not appear to pass the test laid down in the caselaw, which requires not that the persons obliged to pay the tax and the persons benefiting from the activities financed from the revenue generated by that tax should be the same, but simply that the affected (domestic) product and the advantaged product should be the same, so as to exclude any possibility of offsetting, if the revenue from the levy is used to benefit a productive activity other than the activity on which the burden falls.
Hvis varerne er identiske, synes det ikke at spille nogen rolle, om afgiften pålægges produktionen (og på importen) eller på forbruget af en vare.
Where the products are the same, it therefore seems immaterial whether the levy at issue is imposed on the production (and import) or on the consumption of a product.
Hvis den forelæggende ret imidlertid fastslår, at der ikke er sket nogen udligning, finder ingen af disse artikler anvendelse, fordi det omtvistede tillæg anvendes uden forskel og på ensartede vilkår på såvel indenlandske som importerede varer.
If, conversely, the national court concludes that there has been no offsetting, then neither of those articles will apply, given that the contested surcharge applies, without distinction, to the domestic and the imported product, in accordance with nondiscriminatory procedures.
Jeg mener heller ikke, at der i økonomisk henseende er nogen større forskel mellem en situation, hvor det er forbrugeren, der er afgiftspligtig, og en situation,
Moreover, the situation in which the consumer is liable for a tax and that in which the consumer is in fact the person to whom the tax, collected at the expense of
B — Det andet præjudicielle spørgsmål c) Foreslået besvarelse af det første præjudicielle spørgsmål
B — The second question referred
Jeg foreslår i lyset af det ovenfor anførte, at Domstolen besvarer det første præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
On the basis of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling:
Den nationale ret ønsker med det andet præjudicielle spørgsmål oplyst, om den mekanisme, der er indført ved artikel 9, stk. 1, i OEPS, udgør statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 87, stk. 1, EF.
By its second question, the national court asks whether the arrangements put into place by Article 9(1) of the OEPS constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Jeg skal herved understrege, at en national ret kan være nødt til at fortolke støttebegrebet i artikel 87, stk. 1, EF, eftersom artikel 88, stk. 3, sidste punktum, EF ifølge retspraksis har direkte virkning 45.
In that connection, it is necessary to point out that a national court may be required to interpret the concept of aid under Article 87(1) EC, as a result of the direct effect which the caselaw has conferred on the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC.
Ifølge fast retspraksis påhviler det således de nationale domstole at beskytte de retsundergivnes rettigheder i tilfælde af, at de nationale myndigheder tilsidesætter det forbud mod at gennemføre støtten, der er indeholdt i denne bestemmelse 46.
45It is settled caselaw that it is for the national courts to uphold the rights of individuals in the event of a possible breach by the authorities of the prohibition on putting aid into effect which that provision lays down. 46