natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ålands Vindkraft ruling does not alter the assessment regarding Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty.
Artikkel 3
First, the sole question in that case was whether a national support system for renewable energy producers needed to be accessible for producers located in other Member States (the Court held that this was not the case).
Riigiabi, mida Saksamaa on andnud ebaseaduslikult Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3 rikkudes taastuvenergiaallikatest toodetud elektri (taastuvenergia) toetuse rahastamiseks energia suurtarbijatele aastatel 2013 ja 2014 (hüvitamise erikord), on siseturuga kokkusobiv, kui see kuulub ühte käesolevas lõikes sätestatud neljast kategooriast.
The judgment was not concerned with the question whether, in addition, such a national support system may be financed through a discriminatory charge imposed also on economic operators located in other Member States.
Kui riigiabi anti ettevõtjale, kes kuulub mõnda 2014.–2020. aasta keskkonna- ja energiaalase riigiabi suuniste (2014. aasta suuniste) 3. lisas loetletud sektorisse, on see kokkusobiv siseturuga, kui ettevõtja on tasunud vähemalt 15 % elektritarnijate lisakuludest, mida need kandsid kohustuse tõttu osta taastuvenergiat ja mis seejärel kantakse edasi nende klientidele.
Secondly, at the request of the Swedish court, the Court provided an interpretation of Article 34 on quantitative restrictions to the free movement of goods; the reference for a preliminary ruling was not concerned with Articles 30 and 110 on discriminatory duties and taxes, in respect of which, consequently, the Court said nothing.
Kui ettevõtja on tasunud vähem kui 15 % neist lisakuludest, on riigiabi sellegipoolest kokkusobiv, kui ettevõtja on tasunud summa, mis vastab vähemalt 4 %-le tema kogulisandväärtusest või vähemalt 20 % elektritarbimise mahuga ettevõtjate puhul vähemalt 0,5 %-le nende kogulisandväärtusest.
Thirdly, the Court found that Sweden's refusal to grant the claimant access to its certificate system, while constituting a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, was justified by grounds of environmental policy and proportionate in achieving that environmental policy objective [114].
Kui riigiabi anti ettevõtjale, kes ei kuulu 2014. aasta suuniste 3. lisas loetletud sektorisse, kuid kelle elektritarbimise maht oli 2012. aastal vähemalt 20 % ja kes kuulus sel aastal sektorisse, mille kaubavahetusmaht ELi tasandil oli vähemalt 4 %, on see kokkusobiv siseturuga, kui ettevõtja on tasunud vähemalt 15 % elektritarnijate lisakuludest, mida need kandsid kohustuse tõttu osta taastuvenergiat ja mis seejärel kanti edasi elektritarbijatele.
However, while maintaining its position that the EEG-surcharge does not infringe Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty, Germany has provided a commitment to invest in interconnectors and similar European energy projects (see description in recital 19).
2013. aasta puhul abi see osa, mis ületab 2013. aastal selle ettevõtja poolt tegelikult makstud taastuvenergia lisatasust 125 %;
Those investments would be equivalent to the estimated amount of alleged discrimination.
2014. aasta puhul abi see osa, mis ületab 2013. aastal selle ettevõtja poolt tegelikult makstud taastuvenergia lisatasust 150 %.
The usual remedy for violations of Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty is reimbursement of the charges imposed.
Kui riigiabi anti teise või kolmanda lõigu alusel ettevõtjale, kes ei ole kokkusobiva riigiabi suhtes rahastamiskõlblik, ning kui see ettevõtja maksis alla 20 % lisatasu lisakuludest ilma vähenduseta, on kokkusobivad järgmised abi osad:
However, the reinvestment of the share of the revenue from a parafiscal levy that was collected from imports into projects and infrastructure that specifically benefits imports has been recognised by the Commission as being a suitable remedy to historical potential discrimination under Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty [115].
Kogu muu abi, mida lõikes 1 ei käsitleta, ei ole siseturuga kokkusobiv.
To determine the share of past revenue from the EEG-surcharge that needs to be allocated to such investments, the first step is to estimate the imports of eligible EEG electricity into Germany.
Artikkel 4
Germany has indicated that in the period of application of the EEG-Act 2012, between January 2012 and July 2014, the share of guarantees of origin corresponding to RES electricity that could be supported under the EEG-Act 2012 amounted to approximately 1349 GWh: 519 GWh in 2012, 283 GWh in 2013 and 547 GWh in 2014.
Artiklites 1 ja 3 osutatud abikavade raames eraldatud üksikabi ei ole abi, kui andmise ajal vastas see nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 994/98 [119] artikli 2 alusel vastu võetud ja sel ajal kohaldatavas määruses kehtestatud tingimustele.Artikkel 5
The much larger share of guarantees of origin not included in this amount corresponds to large, old hydropower plants, which would not be eligible under the EEG-Act 2012.
Artiklites 1 ja 3 osutatud abikavade kohaselt antud üksikabi, mis andmise ajal vastas määruse (EÜ) nr 994/98 artikli 1 alusel vastu võetud määruses või ükskõik missuguses muus heakskiidetud abikavas kehtestatud tingimustele, on kokkusobiv siseturuga osas, mis vastab maksimaalsele protsendile, mida seda liiki abi puhul kohaldatakse.
However, since guarantees of origin can be traded separately, they are in themselves not sufficient to determine the extent to which EEG electricity is actually imported.
Artikkel 6
The second step is to evaluate the extent to which imported green electricity was discriminated against.
Sissenõutavalt summalt arvestatakse intressi alates summa abisaajate käsutusse andmise kuupäevast kuni selle tegeliku tagasisaamiseni.
The discrimination lies in the fact that, although both domestic EEG electricity production and EEG imports contribute to the EEG-surcharge, it is only domestic EEG electricity production that benefits from it (within the limits of eligibility conditions).
Intressid arvutatakse liitintressina kooskõlas komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 794/2004 [120] V peatükiga.
As such, the discrimination can be measured by the level of the EEG-surcharge faced by imported EEG electricity.
Alates käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmise kuupäevast tühistab Saksamaa kõik artikli 3 lõikes 2 osutatud kava alusel veel tegemata maksed.
However, it must be noted that any reimbursement would not cover the whole surcharge as such, but would be limited to the hypothetical form of support received (feed-in tariffs, market premiums or green electricity privilege).
Artikkel 7
Indeed, given that the domestic EEG electricity producers also pay the surcharge, but receive the EEG-support, a difference in treatment would only arise to the extent that imports have to pay the surcharge without receiving any support.
Siseturuga kokkusobimatu abi, millele on osutatud artikli 3 lõikes 2, nõutakse sisse viivitamata ja tõhusalt.
In essence, discrimination is equivalent to the level of support withheld from imported EEG electricity.
Saksamaa tagab käesoleva otsuse rakendamise nelja kuu jooksul pärast käesolevast otsusest teatamise kuupäeva, esitades kokkusobimatu abi sissenõude.
Concerning the feed-in tariffs and the market premiums, the Commission notes that as these vary from one EEG technology to the other, it would be necessary to establish the different types of EEG electricity that were actually imported, and in what quantities, in order to apply those forms of support to imports.
Kui Saksamaa nõuab sisse vaid III lisa punktis 4 sätestatud algsed sissenõutavad summad, tagab ta III lisa punktis 4 kirjeldatud korrigeerimismehhanismi rakendamise ühe aasta jooksul pärast käesolevast otsusest teatamise kuupäeva.
However, as Germany has explained that data on actual EEG imports was not available, it is not possible to measure discrimination by applying the specific feed-in tariff or market premium to the corresponding amount of imports.
Artikkel 8
In contrast, the advantage resulting from the green electricity privilege can be more easily established: Germany has indicated that the advantage resulting from the green electricity privilege was in practice lower than 4 ct/kWh.
Kahe kuu jooksul pärast käesolevast otsusest teavitamist esitab Saksamaa järgmise teabe:
This is because electricity suppliers which apply for the privilege only receive the 2 ct/kWh reduction on their whole portfolio if they succeed in having at least 50 % of the electricity coming from RES.
artikli 3 lõigetes 1 ja 2 osutatud kava kohaselt abi saanute nimekiri ja igale abisaajale kava kohaselt antud abi kogusumma;
In order to avoid or minimise the risk of narrowly missing the 50 % target (in which case the full EEG surcharge would be due on the whole portfolio), electricity suppliers purchase EEG electricity with a safety margin, that is to say, in excess of the 50 % needed, sometimes up to 60 %.
igalt abisaajalt sissenõutav algne kogusumma (põhisumma ja intress);
In that case, in order to calculate the cost advantage that can potentially be passed on to RES electricity producers, the EEG-surcharge reduction obtained for the whole portfolio, that is to say, 2 ct/kWh, needs to be divided by a higher RES share.
kõnealuse otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatavate meetmete põhjalik kirjeldus, sealhulgas I lisas sätestatud kohustus;
On average, the maximum advantage resulting from the green electricity privilege was 3,8 ct/kWh in 2012, 3,2 ct/kWh in 2013 and 3,9 ct/kWh in 2014.
dokumendid, mis tõendavad, et abisaajatele on antud korraldus abi tagasi maksta ja et I lisas sätestatud kohustus on täidetud.
It appears that the green electricity privilege was slightly higher than the EEG-surcharge in 2012, but lower than the surcharges in 2013 and 2014.
Samuti esitab ta üksikasjalikud andmed abisaajatelt juba tagasi saadud abisummade ja intressi kohta.
It also appears that the green electricity privilege was lower than the advantage included in some of the feed-in tariffs (after deduction of the market price), for instance for solar power, but higher than the advantage included in other feed-in tariffs, for instance wind power.
Artikkel 9
But even if the privilege may to some extent understate the actual magnitude of discrimination, it must be borne in mind that the amounts of guarantees of origin overstate the magnitude of imports.
Saksamaa reinvesteerib 50 miljonit eurot võrkudevahelisse ühendusse ja Euroopa energiaprojektidesse.
Therefore, the Commission's view is that the method used by Germany (described in recitals 238 et seq.) is appropriate.
Saksamaa teavitab komisjoni selle kohustuse täitmise edenemisest.
The advantage arising from the green electricity privilege, taken in conjunction with the figures on imported guarantees of origin, can be viewed as a reasonable proxy for the extent to which imported EEG electricity was discriminated against under the EEG-Act 2012.
Artikkel 10
Using the values for eligible EEG electricity imports set out in recital 237 and the values for the green electricity privilege set out in recital 241, the amount to be reinvested equals EUR 50 million [116].
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Saksamaa Liitvabariigile.
Hence, the Commission views Germany's commitment to investing EUR 50 million (see recital 19) in interconnectors and European energy projects as remedying the historical potential discrimination under Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty.
Brüssel, 25. november 2014
AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE
Komisjoni nimel
As mentioned under Section 1 of this Decision, Germany has waived its right to have the decision adopted in German.
Margrethe Vestager
The authentic language will therefore be English.
ELT C 37, 7.2.2014, lk 73; ELT C 250, 1.8.2014, lk 15.
CONCLUSION AND RECOVERY
Vt joonealune märkus 1.
Given that the historic violation of Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty by the EEG surcharge has been remedied, the Commission concludes that the support for EEG electricity producers, which was found to be compatible in recitals 187 and 200 of the Opening Decision, is also compliant with the internal market in so far as its financing mechanism is concerned.
Määrus nr 1, millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa Majandusühenduses kasutatavad keeled (EÜT I, köide 1952–1958, lk 59).
The Commission concludes that Germany has unlawfully implemented the aid for the support of EEG electricity production and for energy-intensive undertakings in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Riigiabi SA.38632 (2014/N) – Saksamaa: 2014. aasta taastuvenergiaseadus – taastuvenergiaseaduse reform (ELTs veel avaldamata).
The aid should be recovered to the extent that it is incompatible with the internal market.
Ülemmäär on kehtestatud ka raudteeveo-ettevõtjatele.
Recovery should only cover the reductions from the EEG-surcharge granted in respect of the years 2013 and 2014 (hereinafter ‘the years concerned’).
Kõnealust ülemmäära selles otsuses ei käsitleta.
The recoverable amounts should be limited, for each of the years concerned, to the difference between the compatible amount for that year, as determined according to recitals 251, 252 and 253, and the amount of EEG-surcharge that was actually paid by the beneficiary in the year concerned.
ELT C 200, 28.6.2014, lk 1.
The amount of EEG-surcharge that was actually paid by the beneficiary in the year concerned is in principle obtained by applying the reduced surcharge for that year to the beneficiary's electricity consumption in that same year.
Liidetud kohtuasjad T-244/93 ja T-486/93: TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf vs. komisjon, ECLI (Euroopa kohtulahendi tunnus): EU:T:1995; 160.
However, in order to speed up the recovery, and as the consumption data for the years concerned is not yet available for all undertakings concerned by recovery, Germany will, as a first step, use the electricity consumption that was submitted in the applications to calculate a preliminary recovery amount, to be recovered immediately.
Vastavalt AusglMechV paragrahvile 11 võib föderaalne võrguagentuur kehtestada määrusi kokkuleppel keskkonna-, looduskaitse- ja tuumaohutuse ministeeriumiga (nüüd keskkonna-, looduskaitse-, ehitus- ja tuumaohutuse ministeerium) ning föderaalse majandus- ja tehnoloogiaministeeriumiga (nüüd föderaalne majandus- ja energiaministeerium).
Germany will, as a second step, apply the actual consumption data of the years concerned in order to determine the final recovery amounts and take the necessary steps to ensure recovery or repayment on the basis of those final amounts (this second step in the recovery process is referred to as the ‘correction mechanism’).
Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2009/28/EÜ, 23. aprill 2009, taastuvatest energiaallikatest toodetud energia kasutamise edendamise kohta ning direktiivide 2001/77/EÜ ja 2003/30/EÜ muutmise ja hilisema kehtetuks tunnistamise kohta (ELT L 140, 5.6.2009, lk 16).
The first step in determining the compatible amount lies in the application of Section 3.7.2 of the 2014 Guidelines.
Kohtuasi C-379/98: PreussenElektra vs. Schleswag, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160.
The undertaking which benefited from the reduction must belong to the sectors listed in Annex 3 to the 2014 Guidelines (point 185 of the 2014 Guidelines) or, failing this, the undertaking must have an electro-intensity of at least 20 % and belong to a sector with a trade intensity of at least 4 % at Union level, even if it does not belong to a sector listed in Annex 3 to the 2014 Guidelines (point 186 of the 2014 Guidelines).
Kohtuasi C-677/11: Doux Élevage, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348.
For the application of point 186 of the 2014 Guidelines, as explained in recital 202, the data submitted in the applications made in respect of the years concerned may be used.
EÜT C 164, 10.7.2002, lk 5.
Moreover, if the undertaking is eligible on the basis of recital 251, the undertaking must pay at least 15 % of the additional costs without reduction (point 188 of the 2014 Guidelines).
Kohtuasi C-280/00: Altmark Trans, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415.
However, the payable amount can be limited at undertaking level to 4 % of the gross value added of the undertaking concerned.
Kohtuasi C-206/06: Essent Netwerk Noord, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413.
Moreover, for undertakings having an electro-intensity of at least 20 %, the payable amount can be limited to 0,5 % of the gross value added of the undertaking concerned (point 189 of the 2014 Guidelines).
Kohtuasi C-262/12: Association Vent de Colère!, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851.
For the application of point 189 of the 2014 Guidelines, as explained in recital 202, the data submitted in the applications made in respect of the years concerned may be used.
Kohtuasi C-573/12: Ålands Vindkraft, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2037.
If the undertaking is not eligible on the basis of recital 251, the payable amount is, according to Section 3.7.2 of the 2014 Guidelines, in principle equivalent to the EEG-surcharge without reduction, subject to the transit rule in point 197 of the 2014 Guidelines.
Kohtuasi C-280/00: Altmark Trans, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415, punktid 87–93.
For 2014, the compatible amount should not exceed 150 % of the surcharge that was actually paid in 2013 (that is to say, the previous year).
Selle väite toetuseks tsiteerib Saksamaa Euroopa energeetikasektorit reguleerivate asutuste nõukogu 25. juuni 2013. aasta aruannet „Taastuvate ja energiatõhususe toetuskavade ülevaade” (eelkõige tabelid lk 18–20).
As explained in recital 250, the surcharge that was actually paid in 2013 and 2014 may, for the purpose of determining the preliminary recovery amount, be based on electricity consumption data included in the undertaking's application for the reduction in 2013 and 2014.
Kohtuasi C-387/92: Banco Exterior de España, ECLI:EU:C:1994:100, punkt 13; kohtuasi C-156/98: Saksamaa vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:2000:467, punkt 25; kohtuasi C-6/97: Itaalia vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:1999:251, punkt 15; kohtuasi C-172/03: Heiser, ECLI:EU:C:2005:130, punkt 36; kohtuasi C-126/01: GEMO SA, ECLI:EU:C:2003:622, punktid 28–31 jäätmete tasuta kogumise ja käitlemise kohta.
For the purpose of the correction mechanism, the actual electricity consumption data for 2013 and 2014 will be used once it is available.
Kohtuasi 173/73: Itaalia vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, punkt 17.
If the payable amount determined on the basis of recitals 251, 252 and 253 is not higher than the amount that was actually paid by the beneficiary in either of the years concerned, there will be no recovery.
Vt ka kohtuasi T-55/99, CETM vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2000:223, punkt 85.
Where the total amount of aid received by a beneficiary is less than EUR 200000 and where the aid meets all the other criteria of either Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 [117] or Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 [118], such aid should be deemed not to constitute State aid in the sense of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and should therefore not be subject to recovery.
Kohtuasi T-177/10: Alcoa Trasformazioni vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:897, punktid 82–85.
Where the total amount of aid received by a beneficiary is more than EUR 200000, of which an amount of less than EUR 200000 has to be recovered, Regulations (EC) No 1998/2006 and (EU) No 1407/2013 do not apply, because the aid concerns the same eligible costs and cumulation is therefore excluded (Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 and Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006).
Kohtuasi T-177/10: Alcoa Trasformazioni vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:897, punkt 82.
Such amounts should therefore have to be recovered.
Kohtuasi T-177/10: Alcoa Trasformazioni vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:897, punkt 84.
The Commission has further examined whether there are any obstacles to recovery pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Kohtuasi T-177/10: Alcoa Trasformazioni vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:897, punkt 85.
As described in recital 172, some interested parties have argued that the adjustment in 2013 and 2014 should be as small as possible in order to safeguard the beneficiaries' legitimate expectations, and that no recovery should take place.
Kohtuasi C-143/99: Adria-Wien Pipeline, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598, punkt 48.
However, for the reasons stated in recitals 146 et seq., the Commission's decision in case NN 27/00 cannot give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the beneficiaries, given that the EEG-Act 2012 is different from the EEG-Act 2000 and was adopted more than 10 years later and that in particular the BesAR did not exist in the EEG-Act 2000,
Liidetud kohtuasjad C-78/08–C-80/08: Paint Graphos, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, punkt 69.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Kohtuasi C-75/97: Belgia vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:1999:311, punkt 38 jj; kohtuasi C-172/03: Heiser, ECLI:EU:C:2005:130; kohtuasi C-487/06 P: British Aggregates Association vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:2008:757, punktid 86–92; kohtuasi C-143/99: Adria-Wien Pipeline, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598, punktid 43, 52 jj.
Article 1
Kohtuasi C-280/00: Altmark Trans, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415, punkt 87.
Article 3
Liidetud kohtuasjad 67/85, 68/85 ja 70/85: Kwekerij Gebroeders van der Kooy et al., ECLI:EU:C:1988:38, punkt 30.
Where the State aid was granted to an undertaking which does not belong to a sector listed in Annex 3 to the 2014 Guidelines but had an electro-intensity of at least 20 % in 2012 and belonged, in that year, to a sector with a trade intensity of at least 4 % at Union level, it is compatible with the internal market if the undertaking paid at least 15 % of the additional costs faced by electricity suppliers due to obligations to buy renewable energy which were subsequently passed on to electricity consumers.
Kohtuasi C-71/09 P: Comitato „Venezia vuole vivere” et al. vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:2011:368, punkt 92.
Where the State aid was granted to an undertaking eligible for compatible State aid on the basis of the second or third subparagraph, but the amount of the EEG-surcharge paid by that undertaking did not reach the level required by those subparagraphs, the following parts of the aid are compatible:
Kohtuasi C-71/09 P: Comitato „Venezia vuole vivere” et al.vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:2011:368, punkt 95.
for 2013, the part of the aid which exceeds 125 % of the surcharge that the undertaking actually paid in 2013;
Kohtuasi C-71/09 P: Comitato „Venezia vuole vivere” et al.vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:2011:368, punkt 96.
for 2014, the part of the aid which exceeds 150 % of the surcharge that the undertaking actually paid in 2013.
Kohtuasi T-295/12: Saksamaa vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:675, punkt 144; kohtuasi T-309/12: Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:676, punkt 261.
Where the State aid was granted to an undertaking not eligible for compatible State aid on the basis of the second or third subparagraph, and where the undertaking paid less than 20 % of the additional costs of the surcharge without reduction, the following parts of the aid are compatible:
Kohtuasi T-226/09: British Telecommunications et al. vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2013:466, punkt 71.
Individual aid granted on the basis of the aid schemes referred to in Articles 1 and 3 does not constitute aid if, at the time it was granted, it fulfilled the conditions laid down by the regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 [119] which was applicable at the time the aid was granted.Article 5
Kohtuasi C-677/11: Doux Élevage, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, punkt 35.
Individual aid granted on the basis of the aid schemes referred to in Articles 1 and 3 which, at the time it was granted, fulfilled the conditions laid down by the regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98, or by any approved aid scheme, is compatible with the internal market, up to maximum aid intensities applicable to that type of aid.
Kohtuasi C-262/12: Association Vent de Colère!, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851, punktid 16–20.
Article 6
Kohtuasi C-262/12: Association Vent de Colère!, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851, punkt 21.
Germany shall recover the incompatible aid referred to in Article 3(2) from the beneficiaries according to the method described in Annex III.
Kohtuasi C-78/76: Steinike & Weinlig vs. Saksamaa, ECLI:EU:C:1977:52, punkt 21; kohtuasi 173/73: Itaalia vs. komisjon, EU:C:1974:71, punkt 16; kohtuasi 259/85: Prantsusmaa vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:C:1987:478, punkt 23; kohtuasi C-206/06: Essent Netwerk Noord, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413, punkt 66.