natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The reform of the pension scheme for the electricity and gas industries notified by the French authorities involves State resources.
Elektri- ja gaasitööstuste haru pensionisüsteemi reform, millest Prantsuse ametivõimud on teada andnud, hõlmab riigiressursse.
The cost of the liabilities corresponding to the specific pension rights already acquired at the date of the reform by employees assigned to electricity or gas transport and distribution will be transferred to the National Fund for the Electricity and Gas Industries and will be financed by the tariff-based contribution introduced by the French authorities.
Reformi kuupäevaks elektri- või gaasi transpordi ja jaotusega seotud töötajate poolt juba omandatud pensioni eriõigustele vastavate kohustuste maksumus antakse üle Elektri- ja Gaasitööstuste Riigikassale, ja seda finantseeritakse Prantsuse ametivõimude määratud tariifmaksust.
The chargeable event for the contribution will be the existence of a connection to an electricity or gas transport or distribution network.
Seda tariifmaksu õigustav asjaolu on seotus elektri- või gaasi transpordi- või jaotusvõrgustikuga.
Payment of the contribution will be compulsory.
Selle maksu maksmine on kohustuslik.
It will be introduced by an act which will determine the chargeable event, the arrangements for collection and the allocation of the proceeds.
See seatakse sisse seadusega, mis määratleb õigustava asjaolu, sissenõudmise tingimused ja toote mõjutamise.
The different rates of the contribution will be set by joint order issued by the ministers responsible for the budget and for energy, after consulting the Energy Regulatory Board.
Maksu erinevad määrad on kinnitatud eelarve ja energeetikaministrite ühismäärusega, pärast Energiaregulatsiooni komisjoni arvamust.
In the case in point, although the State is not directly involved in managing the contribution, since it is collected by the entities invoicing the electricity or gas distribution service and paid direct to the new pension fund for the industries, the State nevertheless determines the conditions in which it is collected and the way in which the proceeds are used.
Isegi kui riik ei sekku otseselt maksu haldamisse, kuna see kogutakse üksuste poolt, kes esitavad arve elektri või gaasi suunamise eest ja see makstakse otse tööstusharu uude pensionikassasse, määratleb riik siiski oma sissenõudmise ja toote mõjutamise tingimused.
Accordingly, the resources collected by way of the tariff-based contribution do constitute State resources.
Seetõttu moodustavad tariifmaksu abil kogutud ressursid riigiressursid.
Non-payment by EDF in 1997 of corporation tax on some of the accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network
EDFi poolt aastal 1997 ettevõtte tulumaksu mittemaksmine ühe osa pealt raamatupidamisreservist, mis tekkis maksuvabastusest RAG uuendamise eest
Since Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997 established that EDF was deemed to have been the owner of the high-voltage transmission network (RAG) since 1956, it has to be ascertained whether the Act did not involve a transfer of ownership of the RAG.
Kuna 10. novembri 1997. aasta seadusega nr 97-1026 sätestati, et EDF on RAGi omanik alates aastast 1956, tuleb kontrollida, kas see seadus ei too kaasa RAGi omandi ülekandmist.
According to the information provided by the French authorities, EDF can reasonably be regarded as the owner of the RAG since the initial contractual conditions dating from 1956.
Prantsuse ametivõimude antud informatsiooni kohaselt võib EDFi põhjendatult pidada RAGi omanikuks alates 1956. aasta esimesest tootespetsifikatsioonist.
That conclusion is based on the following evidence: the features of the different types of concession contract under French law; the special features of the original concession granted to EDF, which did not include an explicit retrocession clause; the procedure for the acquisition of the assets concerned, for which EDF had to pay a fee similar to compensation under a compulsory purchase procedure; and the conditions for the financing, maintenance and extension of the RAG at EDF's expense.
See järeldus põhineb järgmistele elementidele: erinevate kontsessioonilepingute omadused prantsuse õigussüsteemis, EDF algse kontsessioonilepingu tingimused, mis ei sisaldanud täpset tagasiandmise klauslit, vastavate töötajate omandamine, kellele EDF pidi välja andma sundvõõrandamise hüvitisele sarnase õiguse, ja RAGi hooldamise ja arendamise rahastamise tingimused EDFi kulul.
The Commission consequently takes the view that the ‘clarification’ of ownership of the RAG brought about by Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997 does not in itself involve any State aid.
Seega leiab komisjon, et RAG omandiküsimuse “selgitamine”10. novembri 1997. aasta seadusega nr 97-1026 ei sisalda iseenesest riigiabi elemente.
It now has to be examined whether Act No 97-1026 addressed all the tax implications of such ‘clarification’ and, if not, whether a tax concession was thus granted to EDF.
Siiski tuleb analüüsida, kas seadus nr 97-1026 on rakendanud kõik selle “selgitamise” maksualased tagajärjed, ja juhul, kui nii ei ole toimunud, siis kas ei ole tekkinud maksualast eelist EDFi kasuks.
During the period between 1987 and 1996, EDF created tax-free provisions for the renewal of the RAG.
Aastatel 1987–1996 lõi EDF reservi maksuvabastusest RAG uuendamise eest.
Following the 1997 Act declaring that EDF was deemed to have been the owner of the RAG since 1956, those provisions became superfluous and therefore had to be reallocated to other items in the balance sheet.
Kuna 1997. aasta seadus tunnistas EDFi RAG omanikuks alates aastast 1956, kaotas see reserv objekti ja oleks tulnud seega ümber paigutada bilansi teistesse tulpadesse.
The letter from the Minister for Economic Affairs setting out the tax implications of the restructuring of EDF's balance sheet shows that the unused provisions for renewal of the RAG were subjected by the French authorities to corporation tax at 41,66 %, the rate applicable in 1997.
Majandusministri kiri, mis sätestas EDFi bilansi ümberkorraldamise maksunduslikud tagajärjed, näitab, et RAG uuendamise kasutamata reservile määrasid prantsuse ametivõimud ettevõtte tulumaksu 41,66 %, mis oli 1997. aastal kohaldatav määr.
On the other hand, pursuant to Article 4 of Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997, some of those provisions, namely the grantor rights, corresponding to renewal operations already carried out, were reclassified as capital injections amounting to FRF 14.119 billion without being subjected to corporation tax.
Kuid vastavalt 10. novembri 1997. aasta seaduse nr 97-1026 artiklile 4 nimetati osa sellest reservist, kontsessioonitasu, mis vastab juba teostatud uuendustöödele, ümber kapitalisisendiks suurusega 14,119 miljardit FRF, millele ei kohaldata ettevõtte tulumaksu.
The French authorities themselves acknowledge that the transaction was illegal.
Ka prantsuse ametivõimud ise tunnistavad selle tehingu ebaseaduslikkust.
In a memorandum dated 9 April 2002 addressed by the Directorate-General for Taxation to the Commission, the French authorities Stated that ‘the grantor rights in respect of the RAG represent an unowed debt which was unjustifiably exempted from tax by being incorporated into the capital’ and that ‘before this reserve was incorporated into the capital, it should have been transferred from the enterprise's liabilities, where it was incorrectly posted, to a net assets account, thereby resulting in a positive variation in net worth that was taxable under Article 38(2)’ of the General Tax Code.
Maksuameti 9. aprillil 2002. aasta komisjonile adresseeritud teatises märgivad Prantsuse ametivõimud, et “RAGiga seotud kontsessioonitasu kujutab endast maksmata võlga, mille kapitali hulka arvamine vabastas põhjendamatult maksust” ja et “see reserv oleks tulnud enne kapitali hulka arvamist kanda ettevõtte passivast, kus ta ekslikult oli, netoarvele, mis oleks kaasa toonud maksustatava netotulu positiivse muutuse vastavalt üldise maksuseadustiku artiklile 38-2”.
They noted that ‘the tax concession thus obtained [by EDF in 1997] can be estimated at FRF 5,88 billion (14,119 × 41,66 %)’, equivalent to EUR 888,89 million [23].
Nad tõdesid, et “niimoodi saavutatud maksusoodustus [aastal 1997 EDF poolt] on hinnanguliselt 5,88 miljardit franki (14,119 × 41,66 %)”, ehk 888,89 miljonit eurot. [23]
The Commission points out, on the one hand, that, in line with the National Accountancy Council Opinion, corrections to accounting errors should be posted in the accounts for the financial year in which they are discovered.
Komisjon tõdeb, et ühelt poolt, vastavalt Riikliku Raamatupidamisnõukogu arvamusele, tuleb veaparandused arvutada selle majandusaasta tulemuste hulka, mille jooksul eksimused avastati.
On the other hand, since the unused provisions amounting to FRF 38,5 billion that had been created free of tax were subjected to corporation tax at the rate of 41,66 % in 1997, the Commission can see no objective reason why the rest of the provisions created free of tax should not have been taxed at the same rate.
Teiselt poolt leiab komisjon, et kui maksuvabastuse läbi loodud kasutamata reservile summas 38,5 miljardit prantsuse franki kohaldati ettevõtte tulumaksu määra 41,66 % aastal 1997, ei ole mingit põhjust, miks ei peaks teisele osale maksuvabastusega loodud reservile kohaldama sama maksumäära.
The Commission takes the view that the grantor rights should have been taxed at the same time and the same rate as the other accounting provisions created free of tax.
Komisjoni hinnangul oleks kontsessioonitasu tulnud maksustada samal ajal ja sama maksumääraga kui ülejäänud maksuvabastusega loodud raamatupidamisreserv.
This means that the FRF 14,119 billion in grantor rights should have been added to the FRF 38,5 billion in unused provisions and taxed at the rate of 41,66 % applied by the French authorities to the restructuring of EDF's balance sheet.
See tähendab, et 14,119 miljardit prantsuse franki kontsessioonitasu oleks lisandunud 38,5 miljardile frangile kasutamata reservist, mis maksustati EDFi bilansi restruktureerimisel Prantsuse ametivõimude poolt määraga 41,66 %.
By not paying all the corporation tax due when it restructured its balance sheet, EDF saved EUR 888,89 million.
Mitte makstes bilansi restruktureerimisel kogu ettevõtte tulumaksu, hoidis EDF kokku 888,89 miljonit eurot.
The Commission considers that the aid was indeed paid in 1997, since the FRF 14,119 billion was at that time a debt to the State, entered under the balance sheet item of grantor rights, which the State waived by means of Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997.
Komisjoni hinnangul on abi makstud aastal 1997, kuna 14,119 miljardi frangine summa oli sel ajal võlg riigile, mis oli bilansis kirjas kui kontsessioonitasu, mille riik loovutas 10. novembri 1997. aasta seadusega nr 97-1026.
The French authorities claim that, even if EDF had not set aside provisions for the renewal of the RAG, it would still not have been liable for payment of corporation tax between 1987 and 1996 because of the carryover of large tax losses.
Prantsuse ametivõimud kinnitavad, et isegi RAG uuendamise reservi dotatsiooni puudumisel ei oleks EDF pidanud aastatel 1987–1996 ettevõtte tulumaksu maksma, seda negatiivsete maksuaruannete tõttu.
The Commission dismisses this argument as irrelevant, since the tax concession dated from 1997 and not previous years.
Komisjon leiab, et see argument ei ole arvestatav, kuna maksusoodustus tuli aastast 1997, mitte varasematest aastatest.
It also notes that, if the provisions had not been set aside, the tax losses carried over would have been gradually absorbed between 1987 and 1996 and the amount of tax payable by EDF in 1997 would have been significantly higher.
Lisaks märgib komisjon, et selle reservi dotatsiooni puudumisel oleksid negatiivsed maksuaruanded aastatel 1987–1996 järkjärguliselt kadunud, ja seega oleks aastal 1997 EDF maksusumma olnud märksa kõrgem.
The French authorities also take the view that, even if the creation of provisions for the renewal of the RAG resulted in an advantage, that advantage should be regarded as cancelled out by the increase in corporation tax paid in 1997.
Prantsuse ametivõimud leiavad veel, et kui RAG uuendamise reservi loomist oleks käsitletud soodustusena, tulnuks see lugeda tühistatuks aastal 1997 makstud ettevõtte tulumaksu suurendamise läbi.
The Commission cannot but dismiss this argument.
Komisjon saab selle argumendi vaid tagasi lükata.
As it has demonstrated above and as the French authorities themselves acknowledge in their memorandum dated 9 April 2002, although the unused replacement provisions were correctly taxed, the grantor rights were reclassified as capital injections without being subjected to corporation tax.
Nagu ta just tõestas, ja nagu Prantsuse ametivõimud ka ise oma 9. aprilli 2002. aasta teates märgivad, kui kasutamata uuendamisreserv maksustati nõuetekohaselt, siis kontsessioonitasu suunati ümber kapitalisisendiks ilma selle pealt ettevõtte tulumaksu maksmata.
The tax paid by EDF in 1997 is therefore lower than the tax normally due.
EDFi aastal 1997 makstud maksud olid seega väiksemad kui need oleks pidanud olema.
The French authorities claim, furthermore, that the restructuring of EDF's accounts in 1997 can be regarded as a capital injection of an amount equivalent to the partial tax exemption: it was therefore an investment by them and not an aid measure.
Lisaks väidavad Prantsuse ametivõimud, et 1997. aasta raamatupidamisreform võrdub täiendava kapitalisisendiga summas, mis on võrdne osalise maksuvabastusega. Niisiis on nende poolt tegemist investeeringuga ja mitte abiga.
They also argue that, over the period from 1987 to 1996, EDF paid more to the State overall than the corporation tax that would have been paid by a commercial enterprise which did not create provisions for the renewal of the RAG and which paid its shareholder a dividend equal to 37,5 % of its net result after tax.
Nad kinnitavad ka, et aastatel 1987–1996 maksis EDF riigile kokku suurema summa, kui oleks ettevõtte tulumaksu maksnud kaubandusõiguslik äriühing, mis ei oleks moodustanud reservi RAG uuendamiseks ja mis oleks maksnud oma aktsionäridele dividendideks 37,5 % maksustamisjärgsest netotulemist.
The Commission has to dismiss these arguments, since the private investor principle can be applied only in the context of the pursuit of an economic activity, not in the context of the exercise of regulatory powers.
Komisjon saab selle argumendi vaid tagasi lükata, meenutades, et erainvestori põhimõtet võib rakendada vaid majandustegevuste teostamise raames, ja mitte regulatsioonivolituste teostamise raames.
A public authority cannot use as an argument any economic benefits it could derive as the owner of an enterprise in order to justify aid granted in a discretionary manner by virtue of the prerogatives it enjoys as the tax authority in relation to the same enterprise.
Ametiasutus ei või kasutada võimalikke majanduskasusid, mida ta oleks võinud saada ettevõtte omanikuna, argumendina õigustamaks abi, mis on omistatud suvaliselt, kasutades õigusi, mis tal maksuasutusena selle sama ettevõte suhtes on.
While a Member State may act as a shareholder in addition to exercising its powers as a public authority, it must not combine its role as a State wielding public power with that of a shareholder.
Kui liikmesriik võib lisaks oma avaliku võimu kandja volitustele tegutseda aktsionärina, ei tohi ta ometi kokku segada oma avalikku võimu teostava riigi ülesandeid ja aktsionäri seisust.
Allowing Member States to use their prerogatives as public authorities for the benefit of their investments in enterprises operating in markets that are open to competition would render the Community rules on State aid completely ineffective.
Lubada liikmesriikidel kasutada oma avaliku võimu õiguseid investeeringute huvides ettevõtetesse, mis tegutsevad konkurentsile avatud turul, muudaks täiesti kasutuks ühenduse reeglid riigiabide osas.
Furthermore, while in accordance with Article 295 the Treaty is neutral as regards the system of capital ownership, the fact remains that public enterprises must be subject to the same rules as private enterprises.
Lisaks on vastavalt artiklile 295 leping neutraalne kapitali omanduse suhtes, sellest tulenevalt peavad avalik-õiguslikud ettevõtted olema allutatud samadele reeglitele kui eraettevõtted.
Public and private enterprises would no longer be granted equal treatment if the State were to use the prerogatives of public power for the benefit of the enterprises in which it is a shareholder.
Kuid avalik-õiguslike ja eraettevõtete kohtlemine ei oleks võrdne, kui riik kasutaks nende ettevõtete kasuks, mille aktsionär ta on, oma avaliku võimu eelisõiguseid.
Since the provisions for renewal of the RAG became superfluous following Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997, they should have been reclassified in the accounts for the 1997 financial year and therefore taxed at the rate of corporation tax applicable to that year.
RAGi uuendamise reservid kaotasid objekti 10. novembri 1997. aasta seaduse nr 97-1026 tagajärjel, nende ümber liigitamine oleks pidanud toimuma 1997. majandusaasta jooksul, ja seega oleks neid pidanud maksustama sel majandusaastal kehtiva ettevõtte tulumaksu määraga.
The Commission also notes that the French authorities themselves applied the 1997 rate of corporation tax to the share of the provisions that was taxed.
Teiselt poolt tõdeb komisjon, et ka Prantsuse ametivõimud ise kohaldasid reservi maksustatavale osale 1997. aasta ettevõtte tulumaksu määra.
The non-payment by EDF, in 1997, of EUR 888,89 million in tax therefore constitutes an advantage for the group.
EDFi poolt 1997. aastal 888,89 miljoni euro mittemaksmine maksuna on seega kontserni jaoks soodustus.
EDF was able to use the amount of the unpaid tax to increase its capital and reserves without having to raise outside finance.
EDF võis kasutada maksu mittemaksmisele vastava summa omakapitali tugevdamiseks ilma väliseid finantsressursse appi kutsumata.
The advantage is necessarily selective, since the non-payment of corporation tax on some of the accounting provisions constitutes an exception to the tax treatment normally applicable to such a transaction.
Soodustus on kindlasti valikuline, kuna ettevõtte tulumaksu mittemaksmine ühe osa raamatupidamisreservi pealt moodustab erandi tavaliselt sellise toimingu puhul kohaldatavast maksukohtlemisest.
The fact that the advantage was granted to EDF by a specific legislative instrument, Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997, is proof that it is unique and overrides the rules of ordinary law.
Asjaolu, et eelis anti EDFile spetsiaalse seadusandliku aktiga, 10. novembri 1997. aasta seadusega nr 97-1026, tõendab selle ainulaadsust ja pöörasust.
Like EDF's unlimited State guarantee, this advantage it enjoys necessarily strengthens its position in relation to its competitors.
Nagu riigi piiramatu garantii, mis EDFile on omistatud, tugevdab ka see soodustus kindlasti tema positsiooni konkurentide suhtes.
The concept of aid embraces not only positive benefits, such as subsidies, but also interventions by the public authorities which mitigate the charges that are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which have the same effect as subsidies [24].
Abi mõiste katab mitte ainult positiivsed teenused, nagu subventsioonid, vaid ka kõik võimuasutuste sekkumised, mis kergendavad üldiselt ettevõtete eelarvet koormavaid kohustusi ja millel on subventsioonidega sarnane mõju.
The Court has consistently held [25] that the non-collection by the State of a tax which should normally have been collected is equivalent to the consumption of State resources.
Vastavalt pidevale kohtupraktikale [25] on kehtiva maksu sissenõudmata jätmine riigi poolt võrdne riigiressursi tarbimisega.
The non-collection of the full amount of corporation tax due in respect of the 1997 financial year derived directly from a measure adopted by the State, namely Act No 97-1026 of 10 November 1997.
See kogu ettevõtte tulumaksu sissenõudmata jätmine 1997. majandusaastal tuleneb otseselt riigiaktist, 10. novembri 1997. aasta seadusest nr 97-1026.
Consequently, in 1997 EDF received State aid amounting to EUR 888,89 million in the form of a tax concession.
Niisiis sai EDF aastal 1997 maksusoodustusena riigiabi 888,89 miljonit eurot.
Effect on trade between Member States
Liikmesriikide vahelise kaubavahetuse mõjutamine
From its creation in 1946 until the entry into force of 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 [26], EDF enjoyed a monopoly on the French market, with exclusive rights in respect of the transport, distribution, import and export of electricity.
Alates oma loomisest aastal 1946 ja kuni Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 19. detsembri 1996. aasta elektri siseturu ühiseeskirju käsitleva direktiivi 96/92/EÜ jõustumiseni [26] on EDF Prantsuse turul nautinud monopolistlikku seisundit ainuõigustega elektrienergia transpordile, jaotusele ning ekspordile ja impordile.
It was, however, already in competition with electricity producers in other Member States even before Directive 96/92/EC entered into force, and free competition also existed on related markets where EDF had already diversified its activities beyond its exclusive rights (in both geographic and sectoral terms).
Siiski oli EDF konkurentsis teiste liikmesriikide elektritootjatega juba enne direktiivi 96/92/EÜ jõustumist. Lisaks eksisteeris vaba konkurents seotud turgudel, kus EDF oli juba mitmekesistanud oma tegevust kaugemale oma ainuõigustest (nii geograafilisest kui sektoraalsest vaatepunktist).
Effects on trade did therefore exist well before the liberalisation provided for by Directive 96/92/EC.
Mõju kaubavahetusele oli olemas seega juba enne direktiiviga 96/92/EÜ sätestatud liberaliseerimist.
Electricity was the subject of significant, growing trade between Member States in which EDF was actively engaged.
Elektrienergia oli liikmesriikide olulise ja järjest kasvava kaubavahetuse objektiks, ning EDF osales selles aktiivselt.
This trade, which was given a further boost by the adoption of Council Directive 90/547/EEC of 29 October 1990 on the transit of electricity through transmission grids [27], took place on the basis of commercial agreements between the different operators of the high-voltage transmission networks in the Member States.
See kaubavahetus, mida tugevdas veelgi nõukogu 29. oktoobri 1990. aasta direktiiv 90/547/EMÜ elektri edastamise kohta ülekande- ja jaotusvõrkude kaudu, [27] toimus kaubanduslepete alusel mitmete kõrgepinge elektrivõrkude operaatorite vahel liikmesriikides.
In the European OECD member countries, electricity imports grew at an average annual rate of over 7 % between 1980 and 1990.
OECDsse kuuluvates Euroopa riikides suurenes elektrienergia import vahemikus 1980–1990 keskmiselt enam kui 7 % aastas.
Between 1981 and 1989, EDF multiplied the surplus on its balance of trade in electricity by nine, achieving net exports of 42 TWh, representing 10 % of its total production.
Aastatel 1981–1989 suurendas EDF oma elektrikaubanduse bilansi ülejääki 9 korda, saavutades ekspordi netotaseme 42 TWh, mis moodustab 10 % tema kogutoodangust.
In 1985, EDF already exported 19 TWh to other Member States.
Aastal 1985 eksportis EDF teistesse liikmesriikidesse juba 19 TWh.
In its annual report for 1997, EDF stated that it ranked ‘among the world's leading operators in the electricity industry, with, outside France, more than FRF 13 billion invested, a total installed production capacity equal to nearly 11 % of the figure for France and over 8 million customers’.
Oma 1997. aasta aastaaruandes märgib EDF, et kuulub “elektrisektori suurimate rahvusvaheliste operaatorite hulka, enam kui 13 miljardi FRF kapitaliga väljaspool Prantsusmaad, tootmispargiga, mille võimsus moodustab ligi 11 % kogu prantsuse tootmispargist ja enam kui 8 miljoni kliendiga.”