natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen støttede sin afgørelse på flere omstændigheder (at organisationen ikke havde fri rådighed over midlerne, at den kun havde til opgave at opkræve bidragene, og at der blev indrømmet en fordel, uden at staten eller den pågældende offentlige organisation skulle betale noget herfor), men den baserede efter min opfattelse især sit ræsonnement på, at initiativet til fremme af den omhandlede
Among the various factors cited by the Court to justify that conclusion (the fact that the funds were not available to the association in question, the latter’s role being limited to levying the contributions, the award of an advantage without an additional burden for the State or the public body concerned), the fact that the initiative to promote the advertising campaign in question and the proposal for allocating the relevant financial burden came
reklamekampagne og forslaget til, hvorledes de tilsvarende udgifter skulle fordeles, stammede fra den berørte branche og ikke fra offentlige myndigheder, hvilket indebar, at den omhandlede foranstaltning ikke kunne tilregnes staten 84.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS from the commercial sector involved and not from the public authorities seems to me to be determinative in the scheme of the Court’s reasoning, since it is apt to exclude any imputation of the contested measure to the State. 84
Jeg skal for det første påpege, at Essent som svar på et skriftligt spørgsmål fra Domstolen har præciseret, at samtlige aktier i selskabet i referenceperioden, dvs. fra den 1. august til den 31. december 2000, tilhørte Essent NV, og at samtlige aktier i dette selskab tilhørte kommuner og provinser og dermed var ejet af offentlige myndigheder.
It should first be pointed out that, in response to a written question from the Court, Essent explained that, during the reference period, that is to say between 1 August and 31 December 2000, it was a whollyowned subsidiary of Essent NV, the shares in which were, in turn, owned as to 100% by municipalities and provinces, and was thus entirely in public hands.
Det følger heraf, at Essent, som Kommissionen med rette har anført i sit indlæg, i denne periode var en offentlig virksomhed i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1, litra b), i Kommissionens direktiv 80/723/EØF af 25. juni 1980 om gennemskueligheden af de økonomiske forbindelser mellem medlemsstaterne og de offentlige virksomheder 85.
It follows that, as the Commission correctly argued in its observations, during that period Essent was a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Direct- ive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings. 85
Dette rejser spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der i de beløb, der blev betalt til SEP i medfør af bestemmelserne i artikel 9, stk. 1, sammenholdt med bestemmelserne i artikel 9, stk. 4, i OEPS, indgik »statsmidler« i artikel 87, stk. 1, EF’s forstand.
In the light of the foregoing, it is necessary to consider whether the payments to SEP which were made in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 9(1) and (4) of the OEPS entail the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Hvad angår den nederlandske regerings indsigelse om, at Essents eneste opgave var at opkræve afgifterne, henviser jeg til min redegørelse i punkt 108-110 ovenfor 87.
As regards the objection raised by the Netherlands Government concerning the fact that Essent acted only as a collector of the charge, I would refer to my comments in points 108 to 110 above. 87
86 — Denne situation synes ikke at være anderledes for de andre systemoperatører, der også ejes af offentlige organer.
86 — The situation does not appear to be different for the other net operators, which were themselves in public ownership.
Mekanismen i de omhandlede nationale bestemmelser indebar som nævnt, at elforbrugerne skulle betale et tillæg til dækning af transport, og at systemoperatørerne skulle opkræve tillægget og overføre provenuet til det »udpegede selskab« (SEP), der skulle føre regnskab med de overførte midler og betale de beløb, der måtte overstige 400 mio. NLG, til økonomiministeriet.
As we have seen, the mechanism put into place by the national rule at issue provided for the imposition of a surcharge for the transmission service to be borne by electricity consumers, the levying of that surcharge by the network operators and transfer of the revenue from that surcharge to the ‘designated company’ (SEP), which was responsible for exercising accounting control over the funds transferred and was required to pay to the Minister for the Economy any sums in excess of NLG 400 000 000.
Den sag, der verserer for den forelæggende ret, vedrører især de beløb, som Aldel, der er en privat bruger, skylder Essent, der er systemoperatør i det område, hvor Aldel har hjemsted, i medfør af det omhandlede tillæg.
The dispute pending before the national court relates, more particularly, to the sums payable by a private consumer, Aldel, in accordance with that surcharge, to the operator of the network for the territory in which it is established, namely Essent.
87 — Jeg skal i øvrigt påpege, at Essent i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 1 og 4, i OEPS alene havde til opgave at opkræve det omhandlede tillæg og udbetale det til SEP, men at selskabet i medfør af artikel 97 i Elektriciteitswet 1998, der gjorde det obligatorisk at gennemføre protokolaftalen, var forpligtet til at betale de beløb til SEP, som det skulle ifølge denne protokol.
87 — I would, moreover, point out that while it is true that, under Article 9(1) and (4) of the OEPS, Essent’s task was solely to collect the surcharge at issue and to pay it over to SEP, under Article 97 of the 1998 Law on electricity — which made the implementation of the protocol compulsory — it was, none the less, statutorily required to make to SEP the payments incumbent upon it in accordance with that protocol.
Den forelæggende ret har ikke nævnt i det præjudicielle spørgsmål, at artikel 97 i Elektriciteitswet 1998 måske kan være en støtteforanstaltning i henhold til artikel 87, stk. 1, EF.
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the national court does not mention the possibility that Article 97 of the 1998 Law on electricity comprises an aid measure within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Det er derfor ikke fornødent at undersøge dette.
It is not, therefore, necessary to embark upon such an analysis.
84 — Jf. i denne retning også generaladvokat Ruiz-Jarabo Colomers forslag til afgørelse.
84 — See also, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer.
Jeg mener for det andet desuden, at det spiller en rolle, at SEP var forpligtet til at føre regnskab med de beløb, der hidrørte fra provenuet af det omhandlede tillæg, og som det skulle redegøre for over for økonomiministeriet.
Secondly, it seems to me to be relevant that SEP was required to carry out accounting checks on the sums derived from the revenue from the surcharge at issue, for which it was answerable to the Minister for the Economy.
Det var formentlig først efter denne kontrol, at SEP fik rådighed over de pågældende beløb, og SEP var under alle omstændigheder forpligtet til at anvende dem til bestemte formål, nemlig til dækning af omkostninger i forbindelse med investeringer, der var iværksat på myndighedernes initiativ.
It was presumably only once those checks were completed that the sums in question were made available to SEP, which was, in any event, required to use them for specific purposes, that is to say to cover the costs resulting from investments made at the instigation of the public authorities.
midlertidigt pålægges forbruget af elektricitet, og betale provenuet til et selskab, der er det fælles datterselskab af nationale elproducenter, og som i medfør af de nævnte bestemmelser skal tilbageholde en del af provenuet af dette tillæg til dækning af strandede omkostninger i forbindelse med investeringer, som dette selskab eller produktionsvirksomhederne foretog, inden markedet blev liberaliseret, og betale det eventuelle overskydende beløb til staten, der også skal anvende det til dækning af disse omkostninger, kan udgøre statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 87, stk. 1, EF.
ily imposed on the consumption of electricity and collected by the net operators is to be paid by them to an undertaking which is the joint subsidiary of the national electricity producers and which is required, under that rule, to retain a part of that revenue to cover the nonrecoverable costs resulting from the investments made by that undertaking or the producer undertakings before the market was opened to competition, as well as to pay over to the State any excess, similarly intended to cover the abovementioned costs, may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Endelig skulle SEP i medfør af artikel 5 og 9 i OEPS betale de beløb, der oversteg 400 mio. NLG, til økonomiministeriet, hvilket også er relevant.
Finally, it is also relevant that, under Article 9(5) of the OEPS, SEP had to pay to the Ministry of the Economy the sums in excess of NLG 400 000 000.
Overholdelse af underretningspligten
Compliance with the obligation to notify
Jeg mener derfor, at det kan konkluderes, at der i de beløb, der blev betalt til SEP i medfør af artikel 9, stk. 1, sammenholdt med artikel 9, stk. 4, i OEPS, indgik »statsmidler« i artikel 87, stk. 1, EF’s forstand.
Based on the above considerations, it seems to me to be possible to conclude that the payments made for the benefit of SEP under the combined provisions of Article 9(1) and (4) of the OEPS involved the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
I lyset af det ovenfor anførte foreslår jeg derfor, at Domstolen besvarer det andet præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
On the basis of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling:
Den forelæggende ret har ikke spurgt Domstolen om fortolkningen af artikel 88, stk. 3, EF, fordi den gik ud fra, at Nederlandene ikke overholdt underretningspligten i denne bestemmelse. Jeg skal dog komme med et par korte bemærkninger til de argumenter, den nederlandske regering har fremført vedrørende den overtrædelse, der er foreholdt den.
Although the national court is not asking the Court about the interpretation of Article 88(3) EC, on the assumption that the obligation to notify laid down by that provision was not met by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I none the less consider it useful to make a few brief observations on the arguments advanced by the Netherlands Government to challenge the failure to comply with its obligation which has been imputed to it.
»Nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter systemoperatørerne skal opkræve et pristillæg, der
A national rule pursuant to which the revenue from a price surcharge temporar-
forslaget til OEPS i forbindelse med støttesag nr. N 597/1998.
Commission, in the context of the procedure concerning aid N 597/1998, the whole text of the OEPS draft law.
Dette skete ved skrivelse af 30. august 2000, hvori Nederlandene især henledte Kommissionens opmærksomhed på ordlyden af forslagets artikel 9.
That communication is said to have taken the form of the letter of 30 August 2000, in which the Netherlands specifically drew the Commission’s attention to the text of Article 9 of that draft.
Kommissionen har ikke bestridt, at hele lovforslaget var knyttet som bilag til skrivelsen af 30. august 2000.
The Commission does not dispute that the whole of the draft law was attached to the letter of 30 August 2000.
Det fremgår endvidere af denne skrivelse, som den nederlandske regering har fremlagt efter anmodning fra Domstolen, at regeringen heri udtrykkeligt henviste til artikel 9 i OEPS, men kun i afsnittet med titlen »Yderligere oplysninger om protokollen med henblik på anvendelsen af artikel 24 i direktiv 92/96«.
Moreover, it is clear from the text of that letter, which the Netherlands Government has provided in response to a request from the Court, that that government refers explicitly to Article 9 of the OEPS, albeit solely in the paragraph entitled ‘Supplementary information on the Protocol for the purposes of applying Article 24 of Directive 92/96’.
Sag nr. N 597/1998 blev som bekendt afgjort ved beslutningen af 25. juli 2001.
I should point out that the N 597/1998 procedure came to an end with the decision of 25 July 2001.
I forbindelse med gennemførelsen blev det desuden bestemt, at tillægget i artikel 9, stk. 1, i OEPS skulle opkræves med tilbagevirkende kraft fra den 1. august 2000, dvs. før afsendelsen af den skrivelse, hvorved Kommissionen blev underrettet om foranstaltningerne i denne artikel.
Furthermore, as part of that implementation, there was provision for levying the surcharge under Article 9(1) of the OEPS, with retroactive effect from 1 August 2000, that is to say a date preceding the letter by which the Commission was informed of the measures laid down by that article.
Jeg skal herved erindre om, at Domstolen i dommen i sagen Van Calster m.fl. fastslog, at skattelignende afgifter, der skulle finansiere støtteforanstaltninger til fordel for visse landbrugssektorer, og som blev opkrævet med tilbagevirkende gyldighed for en periode, der lå forud for Kommissionens beslutning om disse foranstaltningers forenelighed, var ulovlige.
In that connection, it may be useful to bear in mind that in its judgment in Van Calster and Others, the Court found to be unlawful parafiscal charges designed to finance support measures to benefit certain agricultural sectors, which had been levied with retroactive effect to cover a period prior to the Commission’s decision on the compatibility of those measures.
Domstolen fastslog, at den berørte stat ved at bestemme, at de pågældende bidrag skulle opkræves med tilbagevirkende gyldighed, havde tilsidesat forpligtelsen til at anmelde støtten, før den blev gennemført.
According to the Court, by giving the imposition of those measures retroactive effect, the State concerned had acted in breach of the obligation to give notification prior to implementing the aid.
Ordningen i OEPS’s artikel 9, der trådte i kraft den 29. december 2000, foreskrev imidlertid, at systemoperatørerne inden den 1. juli 2001 skulle betale provenuet af det tillæg, de opkrævede i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 1, til SEP (artikel 9, stk. 4).
However, the provisions of Article 9 of the OEPS entered into force on 29 December 2000 and stipulated that the revenue from the surcharge levied in accordance with Article 9(1) was to be paid by the net oper -ators to SEP by 1 July 2001 (Article 9(4)).
Nederlandene gennemførte altså denne ordning uden at afvente, at Kommissionen traf beslutning i den sag, hvorved bestemmelsen om at for at være opfyldt.
The Netherlands thus implemented that regime without waiting for the decision whereby the Commission closed the procedure in the context of which the provision estab-
»1) Et pristillæg som det i hovedsagen omhandlede, der opkræves uden forskel og på samme vilkår for transport af såvel national som importeret elektricitet, udgør en afgift med tilsvarende virkning som told, der er forbudt i henhold til artikel 25 EF, såfremt provenuet af dette tillæg anvendes til finansiering af aktiviteter, der udelukkende er til gavn for den indenlandske vare, og de fordele, det medfører, udligner den byrde, der påhviler denne vare, fuldt ud.
(1) A price surcharge, such as the surcharge at issue in the main proceedings, which is imposed, without discrimination and subject to the same conditions, on the transmission of both national and imported electricity, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty, prohibited by Article 25 EC, where the revenue from that surcharge is intended to finance activities for the benefit of the domestic product alone, and the resulting advantages offset in full the financial burden on that product.
Den nationale ret skal herved undersøge, om og i hvilket omfang de omkostninger, som provenuet af det omhandlede pristillæg er bestemt til at dække, direkte eller indirekte påhviler de nationale elproducenter.
In that context, the national court should consider whether, and to what extent, the costs, whose coverage the revenue from the contested price surcharge is designed to secure, affect, directly or indirectly, the national electricity producers.
2) Nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter systemoperatørerne skal opkræve et pristillæg, der midlertidigt pålægges forbruget af elektricitet, og betale provenuet til et selskab, der er det fælles datterselskab af nationale elproducenter, og som i medfør af de nævnte bestemmelser skal tilbageholde en del af provenuet af dette tillæg til dækning af strandede omkostninger i forbindelse med investeringer, som dette selskab eller produktionsvirksomhederne foretog, inden markedet blev liberaliseret, og betale det eventuelle overskydende beløb til staten, der også skal anvende det til dækning af disse omkostninger, kan udgøre statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 87, stk. 1, EF.
(2) A national rule pursuant to which the revenue from a price surcharge temporarily imposed on the consumption of electricity and collected by the net operators is to be paid by them to an undertaking which is the joint subsidiary of the national electricity producers and which is required, under that rule, to retain a part of that revenue to cover the nonrecoverable costs resulting from the investments made by that undertaking or the producer undertakings before the market was opened to competition, as well as to pay over to the State any excess, similarly intended to cover the abovementioned costs, may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at afgøre, om betingelserne for anvendelsen af denne artikel er opfyldt.«
It is for the national court to assess whether the conditions necessary for Article 87(1) EC to apply are met.
I sag C-206/06, angående en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse i henhold til artikel 234 EF, indgivet af Rechtbank Groningen (Nederlandene) ved afgørelse af 19. april 2006, indgået til Domstolen den 2. maj 2006, i sagen:
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank Groningen (Netherlands), made by decision of 19 April 2006, received at the Court on 2 May 2006, in the proceedings
Essent Netwerk Noord BV støttet af:
Essent Netwerk Noord BV, supported by
DOMSTOLEN (Tredje Afdeling) sammensat af afdelingsformanden, A. Rosas (refererende dommer), og dommerne U. Lõhmus, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Ó Caoimh og A. Arabadjiev,
THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Ó Caoimh and A. Arabadjiev, Judges,
generaladvokat: P. Mengozzi justitssekretær: ekspeditionssekretær M. Ferreira, på grundlag af den skriftlige forhandling og efter retsmødet den 10. maj 2007, efter at der er afgivet indlæg af:
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 May 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
— Essent Netwerk BV, som Essent Netwerk Noord BV’s efterfølger fra den 1. januar 2005 ved advocaten P.E. Mazel og M.E. Hamminga
— Essent Netwerk BV, as universal successor in title as of 1 January 2005 to Essent Netwerk Noord BV, by P.E. Mazel and E. Hamminga, advocaten,
— den nederlandske regering ved H.G. Sevenster samt ved P.P.J. van Ginneken og D.J.M. de Grave, som befuldmægtigede
— the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster, P.P.J. van Ginneken and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents,
— Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved R. Lyal og H. van Vliet, som befuldmægtigede, og efter at generaladvokaten har fremsat forslag til afgørelse den 24. januar 2008,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Lyal and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents.
Anmodningen om præjudiciel afgørelse vedrører fortolkningen af artikel 25 EF, artikel 87, stk. 1, EF og artikel 90 EF.
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 25 EC, 87(1) EC and 90 EC.
Anmodningen er blevet indgivet i en sag mellem Essent Netwerk Noord BV (herefter »Essent Netwerk«), der er elektricitetssystemoperatør, og Aluminium Delfzijl BV (herefter »Aldel«), der er elektricitets- og transmissionstjenestekunde, vedrørende et pristillæg for elektricitetstransmission i perioden fra den 1. august 2000 til den 31. december 2000.
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Essent Netwerk Noord BV (‘Essent Netwerk’), an electricity net operator, and Aluminium Delfzijl BV (‘Aldel’), a purchaser of electricity and transport services, regarding a price surcharge for the transmission of electricity in the period from 1 August 2000 to 31 December 2000.
I forbindelse med en intervention og sager om adcitation deltager endvidere Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV, tidligere Samenwerkende Elektriciteits-Produktiebedrijven NV (herefter »SEP«), som er et selskab udpeget i henhold til lov, den nederlandske stat og selskabet Saranne BV, datterselskab af SEP og operatør af et højspændingsnet.
In connection with an intervention and with indemnification proceedings, the dispute also involves Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV, formerly Samenwerkende ElektriciteitsProduktiebedrijven NV (‘SEP’), a statutorily-desig-nated company, the State of the Netherlands and Saranne BV, a subsidiary of SEP and a high-voltage net operator.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 96/92/EF af 19. december 1996 om fælles regler for det indre marked for elektricitet (EFT L 27, s. 20, herefter »direktivet«) fastsætter fælles regler for produktion, transmission og distribution af elektricitet.
Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ 1997 L 27, p. 20) (‘the Directive’) sets out common rules relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity.
Direktivets kapitel IV, VI og VII vedrører henholdsvis drift af transmissionssystemer, elektricitetssektorens virksomheders regnskaber samt tilrettelæggelse af systemadgangen.
Chapters IV, VI and VII of the Directive deal respectively with transmission system operation, the accounts of electricity undertakings and the organisation of access to the system.
Direktivets artikel 24, stk. 1 og 2, bestemmer:
Article 24(1) and (2) of the Directive provides:
Medlemsstater, i hvilke forpligtelser eller driftsgarantier, som er givet inden dette direktivs ikrafttræden, ikke vil kunne opfyldes på grund af bestemmelserne i dette direktiv, kan anmode om en overgangsordning, som kan indrømmes dem af Kommissionen under hensyn til bl.a. det berørte systems størrelse, systemets sammenkoblingsgrad og den berørte elektricitetsindustris struktur.
Those Member States in which commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of this Directive may not be honoured on account of the provisions of this Directive may apply for a transitional regime which may be granted to them by the Commission, taking into account, amongst other things, the size of the system concerned, the level of interconnection of the system and the structure of its electricity industry.
Kommissionen underretter under iagttagelse af kravet om fortrolighed medlemsstaterne om sådanne anmodninger, inden den træffer afgørelse.
The Commission shall inform the Member States of those applications before it takes a decision, taking into account respect for confidentiality.
Overgangsordningen skal være tidsbegrænset og skal være kædet sammen med gyldighedsperioden for de pågældende forpligtelser og garantier, jf. stk. 1.
The transitional regime shall be of limited duration and shall be linked to expiry of the commitments or guarantees referred to in paragraph 1.
Overgangsordningen kan omfatte undtagelser fra kapitel IV, VI og VII i dette direktiv.
The transitional regime may cover derogations from Chapter IV, VI and VII of this Directive. Applications