natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Law 80/2005, as interpreted and implemented by the AEEG, also introduced an indexation mechanism whereby, as of 1 January 2006, the preferential tariff would increase yearly in line with price increases recorded on the European Power Exchanges of Amsterdam and Frankfurt, subject to a 4 % cap.
Seadusega nr 80/2005, nagu AEEG seda tõlgendab ja rakendab, kehtestati ka indekseerimismehhanism, mille alusel suureneks soodustariif alates 1. jaanuarist 2006 igal aastal kooskõlas Amsterdami ja Frankfurdi Euroopa elektribörsidel registreeritud hinnatõusudega, arvestades 4 % ülempiiri.
Financing mechanism
Rahastamismehhanism
The Terni preferential tariff was initially managed and paid for by the State-owned company ENEL, which held a monopoly position in the generation, transmission, import, distribution and supply of electricity in Italy.
Algselt haldas Terni soodustariifi ja maksis selle eest riigiosalusega äriühing ENEL, kellele kuulus Itaalias elektri tootmise, edastamise, impordi, jaotuse ja tarnimise monopol.
In 2002, as the electricity market was gradually liberalized and ENEL no longer held a monopoly position, the financial burden arising from the preferential tariff systems was transferred from ENEL to all electricity users [7].
Kui elektriturgu järk-järgult liberaliseeriti ja ENEL ei olnud enam monopoolses seisundis, kanti 2002. aastal ENELi soodustariifisüsteemidest tulenev rahaline koormus üle kõigile elektritarbijatele.
The compensatory components due to the Terni companies were advanced by electricity distributors, who were then reimbursed by the State-owned body Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico (Equalisation Fund for the Electric Sector, hereinafter referred to as ‘Cassa Conguaglio’) by means of a parafiscal levy collected via the A4 component of the electricity tariff, which is one of the cost items that appear on the electricity bill.
Terni äriühingutele ette nähtud hüvituskomponentide eest maksid elektrijaotusettevõtjad, kellele selle omakorda hüvitas riigiosalusega asutus Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico (elektrienergia sektori tasakaalustusfond, edaspidi „Cassa Conguaglio”), rakendades maksutaolist lõivu, mida koguti elektritariifi komponendi A4 kaudu, mis on elektriarve üks kuluelementidest.
In 2004 the AEEG decided to hand over the administrative management of the special tariff schemes entirely to Cassa Conguaglio [8].
aastal otsustas AEEG anda eritariifikavade haldamise täielikult üle Cassa Conguagliole.
As of September 2004, the Terni companies pay the market price for the electricity they purchase (on the liberalized market) and receive from Cassa Conguaglio reimbursement corresponding to the difference between the price paid and the preferential price to which they are entitled (the compensatory component) minus charges for transport, measurement and sales.
Alates septembrist 2004 maksavad Terni äriühingud (liberaliseeritud turult) ostetava elektri eest turuhinda ning saavad Cassa Conguagliolt hüvitist, mis vastab makstud hinna ja nende jaoks ette nähtud soodustariifi vahele (hüvitiskomponent), miinus transpordi-, arvestus- ja müügikulud.
The costs are paid for by electricity consumers in Italy by means of the parafiscal levy mentioned in paragraph (31) above.
Kulud kannavad Itaalia elektritarbijad põhjenduses 31 nimetatud maksutaolise lõivuga.
The guarantee imposed by the AEEG
AEEG määratud garantii
After the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure, the AEEG, by Delibera 190/06, made payments under Law 80/2005 conditional upon the provision, by the Terni companies, of a guarantee to cover the risk of recovery of the aid.
Pärast seda kui komisjon oli algatanud ametliku uurimismenetluse, seadis AEEG otsusega nr 190/06 seaduse nr 80/2005 kohaste maksete tingimuseks garantii, mille Terni äriühingud annavad abi tagasinõudmise riski katmiseks.
In the same Delibera, the AEEG foresaw, as an alternative, the possibility to pay out in 2006 as an advance the amounts of aid which would have become due until the end of the previous arrangement (2007) on the basis of Law 9/1991.
Samas otsuses nägi AEEG alternatiivina ette võimaluse maksta 2006. aastal ettemaksena välja abisummad, mida oleks seaduse nr 9/1991 alusel tulnud maksta kuni eelmise korra lõpuni (2007).
For these amounts, the AEEG did not request a guarantee.
Nende summade eest AEEG garantiid ei nõudnud.
This option was taken up by the Terni companies and implemented by the AEEG.
Selle võimaluse valisid Terni äriühingud ning AEEG rakendas seda.
With the exception of the advance payments mentioned in paragraph (34) above, all other payments made to the companies by Cassa Conguaglio under Law 80/2005 are covered by a guarantee.
Kõik muud seaduse nr 80/2005 alusel Cassa Conguaglio poolt äriühingutele tehtud maksed peale põhjenduses 34 nimetatud ettemaksete on kaetud garantiiga.
DECISION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 88.2 OF THE EC TREATY
OTSUS EÜ ASUTAMISLEPINGU ARTIKLI 88 LÕIKE 2 KOHASE MENETLUSE ALGATAMISE KOHTA
The Commission Decision to initiate a formal investigation was based on the grounds described in points (37) to (41).
Komisjoni otsus algatada ametlik uurimismenetlus tugines põhjendustes 37–41 esitatud põhjendustele.
The Commission expressed doubts as to whether the tariff could be considered a compensatory measure, since Società Terni was a State-owned undertaking at the time of nationalization.
Komisjon kahtles, kas tariifi saab pidada kompenseerivaks meetmeks, kuna Società Terni oli riigistamise ajal riigiosalusega äriühing.
Given that the State cannot expropriate itself, the Commission had doubts that the transfer of Società Terni’s assets to ENEL could be construed as an expropriation entitling Società Terni to compensation, and formulated the hypothesis that such transfer could in fact be regarded as a mere restructuring of the State’s own assets.
Kuna riik ei saa midagi iseendalt sundvõõrandada, kahtles komisjon selles, kas Società Terni varade üleandmist ENELile saab pidada sundvõõrandamiseks, mis annab Società Ternile õiguse saada hüvitist ning püstitas hüpoteesi, et sellise üleandmise puhul on tegemist riigi enda varade ümberkorraldamisega.
The Commission took the view that, even if the compensatory nature of the measure were to be conceded, doubts would still persist as regards the proportionality of this compensation with regard to the financial damage suffered by Società Terni.
Komisjon asus seisukohale, et isegi kui ollakse nõus meetme kompenseeriva olemusega, püsiksid kahtlused seoses hüvitise proportsionaalsusega, arvestades Società Ternile tekitatud rahalist kahju.
The Commission in particular expressed doubts that compensation could still be justified after 44 years.
Eelkõige kahtles komisjon selles, kas hüvitamine pärast 44 aastat on ikka veel põhjendatud.
The Commission pointed out that the nature of the tariff appeared to have changed when ENEL stopped administering the scheme and bearing the financial burden arising from it.
Komisjon märkis, et tariifi olemus näis olevat muutunud, kui ENEL lõpetas kava haldamise ja sellest tulenevate kulude kandmise.
The Commission Decision to open the procedure also relied on ECSC Decision 83/396: Commission Decision of 29 June 1983 concerning aid the Italian government intends to grant to certain steel producers [9], which precluded such aid from being granted to Società Terni, and the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C 99/92 [10], where the Court upheld the aforementioned ECSC Decision, as evidence that the Terni tariff had already been found to constitute State aid.
Komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsus tugines ka ESTÜ otsusele nr 83/396: komisjoni 29. juuni 1983. aasta otsus abi kohta, mida Itaalia valitsus kavatseb anda teatavatele terasetootjatele, [9] millega välistati sellise abi andmine Società Ternile, ning Euroopa Kohtu otsusele kohtuasjas C 99/92, [10] milles kohus toetas eelmainitud ESTÜ otsust kui tõendit selle kohta, et Terni tariifi puhul on kord juba leitud, et tegemist on riigiabiga.
The opening decision also pointed out that ThyssenKrupp has not yet repaid a State aid granted by Italy and which was declared incompatible [11], and therefore, pursuant to the Deggendorf [12] case-law, could not receive any further State aid.
Lisaks rõhutati menetluse algatamise otsuses seda, et ThyssenKrupp ei ole veel maksnud tagasi Itaalia antud ja ühisturuga kokkusobimatuks kuulutatud riigiabi [11] ega saa Deggendorfi [12] kohtupraktika kohaselt rohkem riigiabi saada.
Comments from the Terni companies
Terni äriühingute märkused
Most of the observations submitted by the Terni companies on Società Terni’s functioning as ente pubblico economico, the nature of the operation leading to the transfer of the company’s assets, the compensatory nature of the tariff, the interpretation of the ECSC decision and ECJ ruling as well as the role played by Cassa Conguaglio are largely equivalent to those made by Italy, which are summarized in points (52) to (69).
Enamik märkusi, mille on esitanud Terni äriühingud Società Terni toimimise kohta kui ente pubblico economico, äriühingu varade üleandmiseni viinud tehingu, tariifi kompenseeriva olemuse, ESTÜ otsuse ja Euroopa Kohtu otsuse tõlgendamise ning Cassa Conguaglio rolli kohta kattuvad üldjuhul põhjendustes 52–69 kokkuvõtlikult esitatud Itaalia märkustega.
Therefore, only the main thrust of the Terni companies observations and any additional elements submitted will be reported here in points (43) to (51).
Seetõttu kirjeldatakse põhjendustes 43–51 ainult Terni äriühingute märkuste põhisisu ja esitatakse lisakommentaarid.
Nature of the compensation
Hüvitise olemus
According to the Terni companies, the tariff is the legitimate compensation to which Società Terni was entitled following the expropriation of its assets and cannot therefore be qualified as State aid.
Terni äriühingute väitel on tariif õiguspärane hüvitis, mida Società Ternil oli tulenevalt tema varade sundvõõrandamisest õigus saada ja mida ei saa seetõttu käsitleda riigiabina.
Adequacy of the compensation
Hüvitise piisavus
Concerning the adequacy of the compensation, the Terni companies retrace the history of the tariff, pointing out that all the extensions of the Terni tariff beyond 1991 were concomitant with the general renewal of the hydroelectric concessions for other generators, and thus in line with the principle that there should be no discrimination between Terni and other self-producers who had not been expropriated and who could therefore continue to produce and consume electricity at very low cost.
Hüvitise piisavusega seoses tuletavad Terni äriühingud meelde tariifi arenemise protsessi, märkides, et kõik Terni tariifi pikendamised pärast 1991. aastat olid seotud teiste tootjate hüdroelektrikontsessioonide uuendamisega ning olid seega kooskõlas põhimõttega, et Ternit ei tohiks diskrimineerida võrreldes teiste isetootjatega, kelle varasid ei sundvõõrandatud ja kes said seeläbi jätkata elektri tootmist ja tarbimist väga madala hinnaga.
The Terni companies also point out that the financial amounts received in the form of lower electricity tariffs never exceeded the difference between the cost of acquiring energy on the market and the cost of self-produced electricity.
Lisaks märgivad Terni äriühingud, et madalamate elektritariifide kujul saadud rahasummad ei olnud kunagi suuremad kui vahe elektri ostu- ja isetootmiskulude vahel.
Impact on trade
Mõju kaubandusele
The Terni companies claim that the measure has no impact on trade between Member States for the reasons summarized below:
Terni äriühingud väidavad, et allpool kokkuvõtlikult esitatud põhjustel ei mõjutanud meede liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
Cementir: In its Spoleto plant (the plant which benefits from the tariff) Cementir produces and markets mainly cement, which is used the construction industry.
Cementir: oma Spoleto tehases (tariifist kasu saav tehas) toodab ja turustab Cementir peamiselt tsementi, mida kasutatakse ehitussektoris.
Cement is difficult to substitute with other products.
Tsementi on keeruline teiste toodetega asendada.
Since it is uneconomical to transport, the geographic market for cement is regional or multi-regional.
Kuna selle transport ei ole majanduslikult otstarbekas, on tsemendi geograafiline turg kas vaid ühte või mitut piirkonda hõlmav.
Imports of cements are negligible in Italy, since they account for 5 % of overall demand in Italy and Cementir markets all the production of its Spoleto plant in central Italy;
Tsemendi import on Itaalias ebaoluline, kuna moodustab Itaalia kogunõudlusest 5 % ning Cementir turustab kogu oma Spoleto tehase toodangu Kesk-Itaalias.
Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche: The plant which benefits from the tariff produces ammonia and nitric acid.
Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche: tariifist kasu saav tehas toodab ammoniaaki ja lämmastikhapet.
Ammonia can be economically transported only by sea and provided ports are suitably equipped for its storage.
Ammoniaaki saab majanduslikult transportida ainult meritsi ning tingimusel, et sadamad on selle ladustamiseks sobivalt varustatud.
There are no such storage plants in central Italy.
Selliseid ladustamistingimusi Kesk-Itaalias ei ole.
The same applies to nitric acid.
Sama kehtib ka lämmastikhappe kohta.
Therefore, the Terni companies claim that the geographic market is at best national.
Seetõttu väidavad Terni äriühingud, et geograafiline turg on parimal juhul riigisisene.
National demand is fully met by domestic production and there are no trade flows;
Sisetootmine täidab täielikult riigi nõudluse ning kaubavood puuduvad.
ThyssenKrupp: the Terni companies claim that the market for the distribution (not the production or sale) of steel products is national.
ThyssenKrupp: Terni äriühingud väidavad, et terasetoodete vahendamise(mitte tootmise ega müügi) turg on riigisisene.
In particular, ThyssenKrupp’s Terni plant markets only 6 % of its production in the European Union.
Täpsemalt turustab ThyssenKruppi Terni tehas ainult 6 % oma toodangust Euroopa Liidus.
The Terni companies claim legitimate expectations on two grounds:
Terni äriühingud viitavad õiguspärasele ootusele kahel põhjusel:
firstly, the Italian authorities had explicitly confirmed, in a letter to the AEEG, that the nature of the tariff was compensatory and that the extension of the existing tariff scheme was not subject to prior notification to the Commission under the State aid rules [13];
esiteks, Itaalia ametiasutused olid AEEG-le saadetud kirjas sõnaselgelt kinnitanud, et tariif oli oma olemuselt kompenseeriv ning et olemasoleva tariifsete soodustuste kava pikendamisest ei pea komisjonile vastavalt riigiabi eeskirjade eelnevalt teatama; [13]
secondly, the Commission had not called the measure into question, either when it was first prolonged by Law 9/1991 (approved in the context of case NN 52/1991), or when information on the second extension was submitted in the context of another State aid procedure (C 13/06).
teiseks, komisjon ei olnud meedet kahtluse alla seadnud ei selle esimese pikendamise ajal seaduse nr 9/1991 alusel (mis kiideti heaks seoses juhtumiga nr NN 52/1991) ega pärast selle teistkordset pikendamist teise riigiabi menetluse raames (C 13/06).
State aid clearance of the second extension
Teistkordse pikendamise heakskiitmine riigiabina
The Terni companies further submit, in this context, that when Article 11, paragraph 12 of Law 80/2005 (establishing a preferential tariff for certain energy-intensive companies in Sardinia, case C 13/06) was notified to the Commission, the Italian authorities had submitted information and clarifications also on the Terni tariff, so that the notification might be considered complete within the meaning of Article 4, paragraph 5 of Regulation EC 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [14].
Terni äriühingud märgivad sellega seoses veel, et kui komisjoni teavitati seaduse nr 80/2005 artikli 11 lõikest 12 (millega kehtestati teatavatele energiamahukatele Sardiinia ettevõtjatele elektri soodustariif, juhtum nr C 13/06), esitasid Itaalia ametiasutused teabe ja selgitused ka Terni tariifi kohta, mistõttu võib teatist käsitada lõplikuna 22. märtsi 1999. aasta määruse EÜ 659/1999 (millega kehtestatakse üksikasjalikud eeskirjad EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 93 kohaldamiseks) [14] artikli 4 lõike 5 tähenduses.
The Commission had failed to take a decision within two months, and therefore, even if the tariff was to be considered State aid, quod non, it should be deemed to be authorized on the basis of Article 4, paragraph 5 of Regulation N 659/1999 [15].
Komisjon ei olnud kahe kuu jooksul otsust teinud ning seega tuleks tariif, isegi kui seda käsitataks riigiabina, quod non, lugeda määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 4 lõike 5 alusel lubatud tariifiks. [15]
The Terni companies underline that their good faith is substantiated by the fact that, in case of doubts on the compatibility of the tariff, ThyssenKrupp would certainly not have launched large-scale investments in the Terni area.
Terni äriühingud rõhutavad, et nende tegutsemist heas usus tõendab asjaolu, et kui tariifi kokkusobivuses ühisturuga oleks kaheldud, ei oleks ThyssenKrupp kindlasti hakanud tegema suuremahulisi investeeringuid Terni piirkonnas.
Amounts received
Saadud summad
The Terni companies point out that, in the absence of Law 80/2005, they would have benefited until 31 December 2007 from the preferential tariff on the basis of Article 20, paragraph 4 of Law 9/1991 (approved by the Commission).
Terni äriühingud märgivad, et ilma seaduseta nr 80/2005 oleksid nad kuni 31. detsembrini 2007 saanud kasu soodustariifist (heaks kiidetud komisjonis) seaduse nr 9/1991 artikli 20 lõike 4 alusel.
The AEEG authorized Cassa Conguaglio to pay out in 2006 (as advance payment) only the sums which would have become due in 2007 [16].
AEEG lubas Cassa Conguagliol maksta 2006. aastal (ettemaksena) välja ainult need summad, mida oleks tulnud maksta 2007. aastal [16].
Therefore, the amounts received until 31 December 2006 should be considered authorized.
Seega tuleks kuni 31. detsembrini 2006 saadud summasid lugeda õigustatuks.
According to the companies, the provisions of Decreto-legge No 80/2005 have de facto not been implemented in respect of these amounts.
Äriühingute väitel ei ole Decreto-legge nr 80/2005 sätteid nende summade suhtes de facto rakendatud.
Deggendorf case-law
Deggendorfi kohtupraktika
Concerning the Deggendorf case-law, ThyssenKrupp states its willingness, in principle, to repay the aid, subject to agreement being found on the amount to be recovered.
Lähtudes Deggendorfi kohtupraktikast avaldab ThyssenKrupp oma põhimõttelist valmisolekut abi tagasi maksta, tingimusel et tagasimakstava summa suhtes jõutakse kokkuleppele.
Expropriation of Terni’s assets and its entitlement to compensation
Terni varade sundvõõrandamine ja tema õigus saada hüvitist
Italy submits that Terni’s generating assets were nationalized as an exception to the general rule set out in the nationalization law, according to which self-producers would not be subject to expropriation.
Itaalia on seisukohal, et Terni tootmisvarad riigistati erandina riigistamisseaduses kehtestatud üldreeglist, mille kohaselt isetootjate varasid ei sundvõõrandata.
The nationalization law of 1962 was based on Article 43 of the Italian Constitution, according to which certain undertakings which carry out services of fundamental public interest or in the energy sector may be transferred to the State by way of expropriation, provided compensation is granted.
aasta riigistamisseaduse aluseks oli Itaalia põhiseaduse artikkel 43, mille kohaselt võib anda riigile sundvõõrandamise teel üle teatavaid põhilisi avalikku huvi pakkuvaid teenuseid või energeetikasektori teenuseid pakkuvaid ettevõtjaid, tingimusel et hüvitis tagatakse.
Concerning the Commission’s doubts as to the possibility to expropriate assets belonging to a State-owned company, Italy submits that neither Article 42, nor Article 43 of the Constitution limit the notion of expropriation to privately owned property.
Komisjoni kahtluste kohta seoses riigiosalusega äriühingule kuuluva vara sundvõõrandamisega väidab Itaalia, et nii põhiseaduse artiklite 42 ja 43 kohaselt ei ole sundvõõrandamine piiratud vaid eraomandisse kuuluva varaga.
The expropriation of Società Terni’s electrical branch was legally required, according to Italy, because Terni was controlled by an ‘ente pubblico economico’, which, unlike an ‘ente pubblico’ was obliged to operate according to market principles.
Società Terni elektritootmisüksuse sundvõõrandamine oli Itaalia arvates juriidiliselt vajalik, kuna Terni kuulus ente pubblico economico kontrolli alla, mis erinevalt ente pubblico’st oli kohustatud tegutsema vastavalt turupõhimõtetele.
The nationalization law did not envisage any compensation for undertakings managed by public entities strictu sensu, but it did for Terni in view of its different status and mode of functioning.
Riigistamisseaduses ei nähtud ette hüvitist avalik-õiguslike isikute hallatavatele ettevõtjatele sõna otseses mõttes, kuid see nähti ette Terni jaoks, arvestades tema teistsugust staatust ja toimimisviisi.
As regards Terni’s ownership structure, Italy underlines that Terni was a joint stock company (società per azioni) where the State had a majority stake, but equity was also owned by a large number of private investors.
Terni omandistruktuuri puhul rõhutab Itaalia, et Terni oli aktsiaselts (società per azioni), kus riigil oli enamusosalus, kuid lisaks olid osanikeks ka suur hulk erainvestoreid.
Italy has provided documentation showing that that Terni’s capital was also partly in private hands and that the company was quoted on the stock exchange.
Itaalia esitas dokumendid, mis tõendavad, et Terni kapital kuulus osaliselt erainvestoritele ning et äriühing oli börsil noteeritud.
According to Italy, depriving Terni of the same right to adequate compensation to which a private company would be entitled would have constituted a breach of the principle of neutrality of ownership enshrined in Article 295 of the EC Treaty.
Kui Terni oleks ilma jäetud eraäriühinguga samaväärsest piisava hüvitise saamise õigusest, oleks see Itaalia sõnul olnud EÜ asutamislepingu artiklis 295 sätestatud omandivormi neutraalsuse põhimõtte rikkumine.
Italy quotes a number of rulings by the Corte di Cassazione and the Consiglio di Stato whereby these Courts confirmed that the logic of the tariff for Terni was to put the company on the same footing as self-producers of electricity from renewable sources of energy, and therefore the tariff could not be raised by means of supplements which would not apply to self-producers.
Itaalia tsiteerib mitut Corte di Cassazione ja Consiglio di Stato otsust, milles kohtud on kinnitanud, et Terni tariifi loogika seisnes selles, et seada see äriühing võrdsesse olukorda taastuvatest energiaallikatest elektri isetootjatega ning seetõttu ei saa tõsta tariifi hinnalisanditega, mis isetootjatele ei kehtiks.
As regards other electricity producers who were also expropriated, Italy submits that, with the exception of Terni, all expropriated producers were undertakings exclusively or primarily active in the production, import or supply of electricity.
Teiste elektritootjate kohta, kelle vara samuti sundvõõrandati, väidab Itaalia, et kõik sellised tootjad peale Terni olid ettevõtjad, kes tegelesid ainult või peamiselt elektri tootmise, impordi, või tarnimisega.
As a general rule, the compensation paid by the State reflected the market value of the assets, which was calculated in different ways according to the type of company.
Üldjuhul kajastas riigi makstud hüvitis varade turuväärtust, mis arvutati erineval viisil olenevalt äriühingu liigist.
The net accounting value of the assets was taken as reference value, but was corrected on the basis of other factors which Italy did not identify in detail.
Kontrollväärtuseks võeti raamatupidamislik netoväärtus, mida korrigeeriti teiste tegurite alusel, mida Itaalia üksikasjalikult ei kirjeldanud.
For hydropower producers, the Italian observations suggest that the residual duration of the concession played a role in the calculation of the compensation.
Hüdroelektritootjate puhul viitavad Itaalia märkused sellele, et hüvitise arvutamisel mängis rolli kontsessiooni allesjäänud kestus.