natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the operating aid was not calculated on the basis of the external costs avoided (point E.3.3.3 of the 2001 guidelines),
Tegevusabi ei arvutata kokkuhoitud väliskulude alusel (2001. aasta suuniste punkt E.3.3.3).
the operating aid was not limited to five years’ duration, it was not degressive, and its intensity was not limited to 50 % of the extra costs (point E.3.3.4 of the 2001 guidelines).
Tegevusabi andmine ei piirdu viie aastaga, abi ei ole kahanev ja selle osatähtsus ei piirdu 50 %ga lisakuludest (2001. aasta suuniste punkt E.3.3.4).
Secondly, the Commission considered that the exemption from contribution payments granted to large electricity-consuming enterprises prima facie did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the 2001 guidelines: exempted enterprises had not undertaken to achieve environmental protection objectives [17]; such enterprises were not required to pay a significant proportion of the tax [18]; and lastly, the exemptions were not degressive within the meaning of the 2001 guidelines and their intensity was not limited to 50 % [19].
Teiseks leidis komisjon, et elektrienergia suurtarbijatest ettevõtjate osamaksust vabastamine ei vasta 2001. aasta suuniste kriteeriumidele: maksuvabastuse saanud ettevõtjatel ei ole kohustust saavutada keskkonnaalaseid eesmärke; [17] neil ei ole kohustust maksta olulist osa maksust; [18] osamaksust vabastus ei ole 2001. aasta suuniste tähenduses kahanev ja see ei piirdu 50 %ga [19].
Lastly, the Commission questioned the measure’s compatibility with Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty.
Komisjon kahtles ka meetme kokkusobivuses asutamislepingu artiklitega 25 ja 90.
The compensation mechanism did not make provision for any exemption from contribution payments for imported electricity or from the tax on exports.
Hüvitamismehhanismiga ei nähta ette osamaksu tasumisest vabastust imporditud elektri puhul ega vabastust ekspordiaktsiisist.
The measure ultimately benefited only domestic producers of green electricity.
Sellest meetmest saavad seega kasu vaid Luksemburgi taastuvenergia tootjad.
Imported electricity was therefore taxed without ultimately benefiting from the support enjoyed by green electricity produced in Luxembourg.
Imporditud elektrit maksustatakse ja sellele ei anta samasugust toetust nagu Luksemburgis toodetud taastuvenergiale.
The new GDR referred to in paragraph 23, scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2009, amends the compensation mechanism in such a way that it no longer numbers among the reasons for opening the formal investigation procedure.
Uue, punktis 23 nimetatud ja 1. jaanuaril 2009 jõustuva suurhertsogi määrusega muudetakse hüvitamismehhanismi, nii et ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise põhjused selle suhtes enam ei kehtiks.
Consequently, this Decision examines the existence of State aid and the compatibility or otherwise of the compensation mechanism under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty up until 31 December 2008.
Seega hinnatakse käesolevas otsuses riigiabi olemasolu ja hüvitamismehhanismi ühisturuga kokkusobivust EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 3 punkti c alusel kuni 31. detsembrini 2008.
COMMENTS FROM LUXEMBOURG ON THE OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
LUKSEMBURGI MÄRKUSED AMETLIKU UURIMISMENETLUSE ALGATAMISE KOHTA
On the description of the measure
Meetme kirjelduse kohta
Luxembourg pointed out first of all that, under the GDR of 30 May 1994, Cegedel was alone obliged to purchase Luxembourg-produced green electricity.
Kõigepealt rõhutab Luksemburg, et vastavalt suurhertsogi 30. mai 1994. aasta määrusele oli vaid Cegedelil kohustus osta Luksemburgis toodetud taastuvenergiat.
Other, competing distributors had since emerged owing to liberalisation (they were 13 in number in June 2003).
Liberaliseerimise tulemusel ilmusid tarnijatest konkurendid, keda 2003. aasta juuniks oli 13.
They had all been placed under an obligation to purchase green electricity.
Kõikide nende suhtes kehtestati taastuvenergia ostu kohustus.
In actual fact, however, the additional costs still fell largely on one operator, Cegedel.
Sellest hoolimata tekkisid lisakulud alati peamiselt ühel tarnijal, Cegedelil.
Consequently, the compensation fund in reality promoted fair competition between distributors since it divided among them the additional costs associated with the green electricity purchasing obligation.
Luksemburg märgib, et hüvitusfond aitab tegelikkuses kaasa ausale konkurentsile tarnijate vahel, sest sellega jagatakse konkurentide vahel taastuvenergia ostust tingitud lisakulud.
Luxembourg pointed out secondly that the measure produced significant environmental benefits and helped to achieve the environmental protection objectives to which Luxembourg has committed itself in accordance with the Community anti-climate change policy: for Luxembourg, the target was to reduce carbon emissions by 28 % compared with 1990.
Teiseks osutas Luksemburg, et meetmel on märkimisväärne kasulik mõju keskkonnale ja see aitab saavutada Luksemburgi poolt kliimamuutuste mõju vähendamist käsitleva ühenduse poliitika raames võetud keskkonnaalaseid eesmärke: Luksemburgi eesmärk on vähendada süsinikdioksiidi heitkoguseid 28 % võrra võrreldes 1990. aastaga.
The Luxembourg authorities accordingly called on the Commission to assess the potential competition-distorting effects or the effect on intra-Community trade in the light of the environmental benefits of the measure.
Luksemburgi ametiasutused kutsuvad komisjoni selgitama välja võimalikke konkurentsimoonutusi või kahjulikku mõju ühendusesisesele kaubandusele meetme keskkonnamõju alusel.
On the existence of State aid
Riigiabi olemasolu kohta
Luxembourg considered that the creation of the compensation fund did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Luksemburg leiab, et hüvitusfondi loomine ei ole riigiabi EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses.
It maintained first of all that, as the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the Court of Justice) had found in its judgment in PreussenElektra [20], the fund did not involve any State resources.
Kõigepealt väidab Luksemburg, et fond ei sisalda riigi vahendeid kooskõlas Euroopa Ühenduste Kohtu (edaspidi „Euroopa Kohus”) 13. märtsi 2001. aasta otsusega PreussenElektra [20].
Before the fund was introduced, the additional costs associated with the green electricity purchasing obligation had been borne exclusively by the final customers of a private company, Cegedel.
Enne fondi loomist tasusid taastuvenergia ostukohustusega seotud kulud vaid eraettevõtja Cegedeli lõpptarbijad.
Since the introduction of the fund, the additional costs had been divided among all customers of all distributors in Luxembourg, without, however, involving more State resources.
Pärast fondi loomist jagati kõik lisakulud Luksemburgis tegutsevate tarnijate vahel, kuid endiselt ei kaasatud sellega riigi vahendeid.
In support of its argument Luxembourg cited paragraph 66 of the PreussenElektra judgment: ‘a statutory provision of a Member State which, first, requires private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that type of electricity, and, second, distributes the financial burden resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the Treaty’.
Luksemburg tsiteerib väite toetuseks PreussenElektra otsuse punkti 66: „Liikmesriigi õigusakt, mis esiteks kohustab erakapitalil põhinevaid elektrimüügiettevõtjaid ostma oma tarnealal taastuvatest energiaallikatest toodetud elektrit miinimumhindadega, mis on kõrgemad kui sellist liiki elektri tegelik majanduslik väärtus, ning teiseks jaotab sellest kohustusest tuleneva rahalise koormuse kõnealuste elektrimüügiettevõtjate ja turustusahelas eelnevate erakapitalil põhinevate elektrivõrguettevõtjate vahel, ei kujuta endast riigiabi EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 92 lõike 1 tähenduses (muudetuna EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõige 1).”
Luxembourg pointed out secondly that the compensation fund did not create any advantage for green electricity producers inasmuch as there was no contractual or financial link between the fund and the producers.
Teiseks märkis Luksemburg, et hüvitusfond ei anna eelist taastuvenergia tootjatele, kuivõrd puuduvad lepingulised või rahalised suhted fondi ja tootjate vahel.
The compensation fund likewise did not create any advantage for large electricity-consuming enterprises compared with enterprises which contributed to the fund.
Hüvitusfondiga ei anta võrreldes fondi osamaksu tasuvate ettevõtjatega eelist elektrienergia suurtarbijatest ettevõtjatele.
The beneficiaries of the exemption — the chemical and steel industries — had no competitors in Luxembourg which should have contributed to the fund.
Osamaksu tasumisest vabastatutel – keemia- ja terasetööstusel – ei ole Luksemburgis konkurente, kes peaksid tasuma osamaksu hüvitusfondi.
Luxembourg considered, moreover, that the beneficiaries of the exemption were not placed at an advantage compared with competitors situated outside of Luxembourg.
Luksemburg leiab ka, et osamaksust vabastatutele ei anta eelist võrreldes väljaspool Luksemburgi asuvate konkurentidega.
Luxembourg considered lastly that the competition-distorting effect and the effect on intra-Community trade associated with the compensation fund were no more than theoretical.
Luksemburg on seisukohal, et fondiga ei moonutata tegelikkuses konkurentsi ega kahjustata ühendusesisest kaubandust.
In particular, it was not proven that the exemptions from which Luxembourg heavy industry benefited affected trade between Member States.
Eelkõige ei ole tõendamist leidnud, et Luksemburgi rasketööstuse osamaksust vabastamine kahjustaks liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
On the infringement of Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty
Asutamislepingu artiklite 25 ja 90 rikkumise kohta
Luxembourg considered that the compensation mechanism did not infringe Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty.
Luksemburg leiab, et hüvitamismehhanismiga ei rikuta asutamislepingu artikleid 25 ja 90.
According to Luxembourg, the system did not treat electricity produced in Luxembourg any differently from imported electricity.
Luksemburgi väitel ei kohelda süsteemi raames Luksemburgis toodetud ja riiki imporditud elektrit erinevalt.
Moreover, green electricity produced in accordance with the GDR of 30 May 1994 was not exported.
Peale selle ei ekspordita suurhertsogi 30. mai 1994. aasta määruse kohaselt toodetud taastuvenergiat.
Therefore, a producer situated in another Member State but having customers in Luxembourg was treated in exactly the same way as a producer situated in Luxembourg and selling in the domestic market.
Seega koheldakse teises liikmesriigis asuvat, kuid Luksemburgis tarbijaid omavat tootjat samamoodi Luksemburgis asuvate ja riigi turul müüvate tootjatega.
The same was true if the customers of the two producers were situated in another Member State.
Järeldus oleks sama, kui nende kahe tootja tarbijad asuksid muus liikmesriigis.
On the compatibility of potential State aid with the Treaty
Võimaliku riigiabi kokkusobivuse kohta asutamislepinguga
Although they challenged the assertion that the exemption from contribution payments for large electricity-consuming enterprises constituted State aid, the Luxembourg authorities maintained that the measure might be deemed compatible with the 2001 guidelines.
Kuigi Luksemburgi ametiasutused on vaidlustanud elektrienergia suurtarbijatest ettevõtjate osamaksust vabastuse kui riigiabi, rõhutavad nad, et seda meedet võib pidada kokkusobivaks 2001. aasta suunistega.
Luxembourg pointed out that the exemption was granted on the basis of a voluntary agreement comprising energy efficiency improvement objectives for signatory companies.
Kõigepealt märgib Luksemburg, et vabastus on antud vastavalt vabatahtlikule kokkuleppele, mis sisaldab allakirjutanud ettevõtjatele seatud energiatõhususe parandamise eesmärke.
The voluntary agreement had been concluded between Luxembourg and the Fédération Nationale des Industries (National Industries Federation — FEDIL) in March 1996 and renewed in April 2001.
Vabatahtliku kokkuleppe sõlmisid Luksemburg ja Riiklik Tööstusliit (FEDIL) märtsis 1996 ja seda uuendati aprillis 2001.
While it acknowledged that the agreement did not stipulate any penalties in case of failure to meet commitments, Luxembourg undertook to include such a mechanism in order to bring the agreement into line with point 51.1(a) of the 2001 guidelines.
Teiseks nõustub Luksemburg, et kokkuleppega ei nähta siiski ette sanktsioone kohustuste täitmata jätmise korral, kuid on kavas selline mehhanism luua, et saavutada kooskõla 2001. aasta suuniste punkti 51 alapunktiga 1a.
Only the Netherlands submitted comments following the opening of the formal investigation into the Luxembourg compensation mechanism.
Ainult Madalmaad esitasid märkused pärast ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamist Luksemburgi hüvitamismehhanismi suhtes.
The Netherlands pointed out that aid to domestic green electricity producers was authorised on condition that it did not exceed the unprofitable extra cost of producing such electricity.
Madalmaad tuletavad meelde, et riiklikele taastuvenergia tootjatele antavat abi lubatakse tingimusel, et see ei ületa sellise elektri tootmisel tekkivaid kahjumlikke lisakulusid.
The Dutch authorities were in favour of compensating fully for such unprofitable extra cost in order to develop green electricity production.
Madalmaade ametiasutused pooldavad kahjumlike lisakulude täielikku hüvitamist, et arendada taastuvenergia tootmist.
Such support was necessary to enable Member States to achieve the environmental objectives to which they had committed themselves by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol [21].
Selline toetus on vajalik, et liikmesriigid saaksid Kyoto protokolli [21] ratifitseerimisel võetud keskkonnaalaseid eesmärke saavutada.
The Netherlands pointed out further that each Member State had to be left some latitude when it came to achieving the environmental objectives of the Kyoto Protocol.
Madalmaad rõhutavad lisaks, et igale liikmesriigile tuleb lubada piisavat paindlikkust Kyoto protokolli keskkonnaalaste eesmärkide saavutamiseks.
It suggested, therefore, that the Commission should adopt a case-by-case approach to the green electricity support measures taken by each Member State.
Seepärast soovitavad nad komisjonil läheneda iga liikmesriigi võetud taastuvenergia toetusmeetmetele individuaalselt.
In conclusion, the Netherlands called on the Commission to view the measure proposed by Luxembourg favourably given the current need to further promote green electricity production.
Kokkuvõttes soovitavad Madalmaad komisjonil suhtuda Luksemburgi kavandatud meetmesse positiivselt, arvestades praegust vajadust arendada taastuvenergia tootmist.
LUXEMBOURG’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
LUKSEMBURGI TÄHELEPANEKUD HUVITATUD ISIKUTE MÄRKUSTE KOHTA
Luxembourg did not respond to the comments submitted by the Netherlands.
Luksemburg ei ole esitanud tähelepanekuid Madalmaade märkuste kohta.
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission took the view that the compensation mechanism prima facie constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty [22].
Ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuses leidis komisjon, et hüvitamismehhanism on riigiabi EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses [22].
The two categories of beneficiary of this State aid were green electricity producers and, through the exemption from contributing to the compensation fund, large electricity-consuming enterprises.
Selle riigiabi saajad jagunevad kaheks: taastuvenergia tootjad ja elektrienergia suurtarbijatest ettevõtjad, kes on vabastatud osamaksu tasumisest hüvitusfondi.
In previous decisions, the Commission also took the view that feed-in tariff schemes, financed in a manner similar to the one in the present case, constituted State aid.
Eelnevates otsustes on komisjon leidnud, et soodustariifide süsteem, mida rahastatakse sarnaselt praegusele juhtumile, on riigiabi.
This was so, for example, in the decisions in Case N 504/2000 [23] (United Kingdom), Joined Cases N 707/02 and N 708/02 [24], prolonged by measure N 543/05 [25] then by measure N 478/07 [26] (Netherlands), Cases NN 162/03 and N 317/06 [27] (Austria) and Case C 7/05 (Slovenia) [28].
Selle järelduse on ta teinud näiteks otsustes, mis käsitlevad juhtumit N 504/2000 [23] (Ühendkuningriik), ühendatud juhtumeid N 707/02 ja N 708/02, [24] mille järel on vastu võetud meede N 543/05 [25] ja seejärel meede N 478/07 [26] (Madalmaad), juhtumeid NN 162/03 ja N 317/06 [27] (Austria) ja juhtumit C 7/05 [28] (Sloveenia).
It will be examined below whether the compensation mechanism constituted State aid during the period in question, i.e. up to 31 December 2008.
Järgnevalt analüüsitakse, kas hüvitamismehhanism oli riigiabi asjaomase ajavahemiku jooksul, st kuni 31. detsembrini 2008.
Determination of the presence of State resources
Riigi vahendite kasutamise kindlakstegemine
According to case-law, in order to be capable of being categorised as State aid a measure must, first, be granted directly or indirectly through State resources and, second, be imputable to the State [29].
Vastavalt kohtupraktikale peab meede riigiabina kvalifitseerimiseks olema antud otseselt või kaudselt riigi vahenditest ning olema riigiga seostatav [29].
On the question of the existence of State resources, the Court of Justice has held that the financial resources of a measure do not necessarily have to constitute permanent assets of the public sector in order for them to be categorised as State resources; in order for such resources to be so categorised, it is sufficient that they constantly remain under public control and therefore available to the competent national authorities [30].
Seoses riigi vahendite kasutamisega nõustus kohus, et meetme rahastamisvahendid ei pea riigi vahenditeks tunnistamiseks tingimata olema riigisektori alalised varad. Asjaolu, et vahendid on riigi pideva kontrolli all ja seega pädevate riiklike asutuste käsutuses, on riigi vahenditeks tunnistamiseks piisav [30].
Conversely, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice [31], State resources are not involved where the public authorities at no stage enjoy or acquire control over the funds which finance the economic advantage in issue.
Euroopa Kohtu praktika kohaselt [31] ei ole tegemist riigi vahendite kasutamisega, kui ametiasutustel ei ole ega hakka olema kontrolli asjaomast majanduslikku eelist andvate rahaliste vahendite üle.
It must be determined, therefore, whether the State exercised direct or indirect control over the resources in question, despite the fact that the funds did not come directly from the State budget.
Seega tuleb välja selgitada, kas riigil on asjaomaste vahendite üle otsene või kaudne kontroll hoolimata sellest, et fondi raha ei tule otse riigieelarvest.
In the PreussenElektra case, the feed-in tariffs were financed directly by private electricity suppliers who had to purchase electricity from green electricity producers at a price higher than the market price for electricity.
Asjas PreussenElektra rahastasid soodustariife otse eraettevõtjatest elektritarnijad, kes pidid ostma taastuvenergia tootjatelt elektrit turuhinnast kõrgema hinnaga.
In the present case, from January 2001 to December 2008 the State collected from consumers compulsory contributions which were then passed on to green electricity producers via distributors.
Käesoleval juhul kehtestas riik jaanuarist 2001 detsembrini 2008 tarbijatele kohustusliku osamaksu, mille tarnijad edastasid taastuvenergia tootjatele.
The compensation fund, which was set up by the Luxembourg State, saw to the allocation of the compensation among distributors.
Luksemburgi riigi loodud hüvitusfond jagab hüvitise tarnijate vahel.
In its judgment in Stardust Marine [32], the Court of Justice held that, once resources came under State control, they remained State resources.
Otsuses Stardust Marine [32] kinnitas kohus, et riigi kontrolli alla kuuluvad vahendid on alati riigi vahendid.
The Commission considers, therefore, that the aid was granted directly or indirectly through State resources.
Komisjon on seega seisukohal, et abi on antud otse või kaudselt riigi vahenditest.
As regards imputability, the ILR calculated the aid and distributed it to each beneficiary according to a formula laid down by law.
Riigiga seostatavuse küsimuses arvutas ja jagas Luksemburgi Reguleeriv Instituut abi igale abisaajale vastavalt õigusaktides sätestatud valemile.
The State thus exercised control, through the law, not only over the amounts distributed and the beneficiaries, but also over the granting of the aid.
Nii kontrollis riik lisaks jagatavatele summadele ja abisaajatele õigusaktide kaudu ka abi andmist.
The Commission considers, therefore, that the aid was imputable to the State.
Komisjon leiab, et abi on riigiga seostatav.
The compensation mechanism was directed only at some electricity producers, namely green electricity producers in Luxembourg.
Hüvitamismehhanism on suunatud teatavatele elektrienergia tootjatele – Luksemburgi taastuvenergia tootjatele.
The mechanism provided for exemption from compensation payments or, as from 1 January 2006, a reduced contribution for one category of consumer only, namely large electricity consumers [33].
Mehhanismiga nähakse ette ka vabastus osamaksu tasumisest või alates 1. jaanuarist 2006 vähendatud osamaksu tasumine vaid ühele tarbijakategooriale – elektrienergia suurtarbijatele [33].
The compulsory contribution imposed by the compensation mechanism manifestly conferred an advantage on green electricity producers, since the very aim of the scheme was to enable such producers to sell their electricity at a price higher than the market price.
Hüvitamismehhanismiga kehtestatud kohustuslik osamaks annab ilmselgelt eelise taastuvenergia tootjatele, sest mehhanismi eesmärk on võimaldada neil tootjatel müüa elektrit turuhinnast kõrgema hinnaga.
Large electricity-consuming enterprises manifestly enjoyed an advantage due to the exemption from — or, from 1 January 2006, the reduction in — the contribution to the compensation mechanism.
Elektrienergia suurtarbijatest ettevõtjad saavad ilmselge eelise hüvitamismehhanismi osamaksu tasumisest vabastusest või alates 1. jaanuarist 2006 kehtivast vähendatud osamaksust.
Distortion of competition and effect on intra-Community trade
Konkurentsi moonutamine ja ühendusesisese kaubanduse mõjutamine
The measure affected economic operators in sectors open to competition, be they the electricity production sector or sectors in which large electricity-consuming enterprises operate (including chemicals and steel) and which engage in trade with other Member States.
Meede mõjutab konkurentsile avatud valdkonna ettevõtjaid nii elektrienergia tootmise valdkonnas kui ka nendes valdkondades, kus tegutsevad elektrienergia suurtarbijatest ettevõtjad (keemia- ja terasetööstus), ja kus osaletakse kaubavahetuses teiste liikmesriikidega.
Consequently, the aid was liable to distort competition and affect intra-Community trade.
Seega võib abi moonutada konkurentsi ja mõjutada liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
Conclusion on the existence of State aid
Järeldus riigiabi olemasolu kohta
On the basis of these elements, the Commission considers that the version of the compensation mechanism that was in place between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2008 constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Eelnevat arvesse võttes leiab komisjon, et 1. jaanuarist 2001 kuni 31. detsembrini 2008 kehtinud hüvitamismehhanism on riigiabi asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Assessment of the compatibility of the aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty
Abi kokkusobivus ühisturuga EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 3 punkti c alusel