natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This surcharge had to be transmitted by network operators to SEP which had to collect the proceeds and use them up to a certain amount defined in the law for the purposes of covering stranded costs.
Seda tõendab asjaolu, et § 19 kohase lisatasu suurust kohandati vastavalt täieliku vabastuse tagajärjel tekkinud rahalistele vajadustele.
In this regard, the Court observed that SEP had been appointed by the law to manage a State resource.
Eelkõige tõi igasugune tulu aastal x, mis ületas kõnealuse finantskoormuse hüvitamiseks vajalikku summat, kaasa lisatasu vähendamise aastal x + 2 (vt põhjendus 39).
The Court found that the Dutch system involved State resources.
Seetõttu ei nõustu komisjon Saksamaa ja huvitatud isikute seisukohaga, mille kohaselt võisid võrguettevõtjad kasutada § 19 kohase lisatasu tulusid oma soovi järgi.
On the basis of this case-law, it can be concluded that subsidies financed through parafiscal charges or contributions imposed by the State and managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of the legislation imply a transfer of State resources, even where they are not administered by public authorities but by private entities designated by the State that are separate from the public authorities.
Eeltoodut silmas pidades tuleb märkida, et § 19 kohase lisatasu kehtestamine andis võrguettevõtjatele tagatise, et 2011. aasta StromNEVi § 19 lõike 2 teise lause alusel antud vabastuse tõttu nende saamata jäänud tulu hüvitatakse täielikult; seepärast erineb see juhtum nii PreussenElektra kui ka ENEA kohtuasjast, milles ostukohustusega ettevõtjad pidi seda kohustust rahastama enda rahalistest vahenditest ega saanud kulusid üle kanda oma klientidele.
This has been confirmed by the Court of Justice in the Vent de Colère case where the Court in particular observed that the fact that part of the funds collected were not channelled to the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations but were retained by the undertakings subject to the obligation to purchase renewable electricity at feed-in tariffs was not sufficient to exclude an intervention through State resources.
Selles suhtes ei saa nõustuda huvitatud isikute esitatud seisukohaga, et § 19 kohase lisatasu tulu ei olnud ette nähtud 2011. aasta StromNEVi § 19 lõike 2 teise lause kohase vabastuse rahastamiseks.
The Court of Justice excluded the transfer of State resources in only very specific circumstances: For instance, the Court considered that a decision by which a national authority extends to all traders in a certain sector an agreement which introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement certain promotional and public relations activities, does not constitute State aid.
Tõepoolest, alates 2012. aastast ei saanud vabastust võrgutasude maksmisest rahastada teisiti kui § 19 kohase lisatasu kaudu, mis arvutati nii, et see vastaks täpselt vabastuse andmise tagajärjel tekkinud rahalistele vajadustele.
The Court noted in this respect that the measure was not financed from State resources since it was not the State but the inter-trade organisation that decided how to use the resources stemming from the levy.
Nende asjaolude põhjal jääb komisjon oma järelduse juurde, et baaskoormuse tarbijatele 2012. ja 2013. aastal täieliku vabastuse vormis antud eelist tuleb pidada rahastatuks riigi ressurssidest.
Those resources were entirely dedicated to pursuing objectives determined by that organisation.
Rahastamine riigi ressurssidest enne § 19 kohase lisatasu kehtestamist (2011. aasta)
Hence, the resources were not constantly under public control and were not available to State authorities.
2011. aasta StromNEVi § 19 lõike 2 teise lause kohast täielikku vabastust kohaldati alates 1. jaanuarist 2011, kuid § 19 kohane lisatasu jõustus alles 1. jaanuaril 2012 (vt käesoleva otsuse põhjendus 40).
In PreussenElektra, the Court found that the Electricity feed-in Act (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz), in its version applicable in 1998, did not involve a public or private body established or appointed to administer the aid.
Seepärast küsis komisjon oma algatamisotsuses, kas 2011. aastal antud vabastust rahastati samuti riigi ressurssidest, ja palus Saksamaal esitada lisateavet selle kohta, kuidas täielikku vabastust 2011. aastal rahastati.
This conclusion was based on the observation that the Stromeinspeisungsgesetz put in place a mechanism that was limited at directly obliging electricity supply undertakings and upstream electricity network operators to purchase renewable electricity at a fixed price, without any body administering the stream of payments.
Saksamaa esitatud lisateabe põhjal ja võttes arvesse ka huvitatud isikute märkusi, leiab komisjon, et 2011. aastal kasutatud rahastamismehhanismi puhul ei kaasatud riigi ressursse.
The situation under the Stromeinspeisungsgesetz was characterized by a multitude of bilateral relationships between renewable electricity generators and electricity suppliers.
Nagu Saksamaa selgitas (vt põhjendus 77) ja nagu BNetzA on 14. detsembri 2011. aasta regulatiivses otsuses sõnaselgelt märkinud, ei kasutatud 2011. aastal hüvitus- ja tasaarvestusmehhanismi.
There was no surcharge established by the State to compensate the electricity suppliers for the financial burden resulting from the supply obligation.
Eelkõige ei olnud 2011. aasta StromNEVi § 19 lõike 2 kuues ja seitsmes lause veel kohaldatavad.
Therefore, nobody had been appointed to administer such a surcharge and the corresponding financial flows.
Sellest tulenevalt ei kantud kahjusid, mille tekitas täielik vabastus võrgutasudest 2011. aastal, täieliku hüvitamise mehhanismi või – § 19 kohase lisatasu puudumisel 2011. aastal – riigi kehtestatud kohustusliku makse kaudu üle lõpptarbijatele.
By contrast, the Court indicated in the Vent de Colère case that the French support system was different from the situation examined in the PreussenElektra case in two respects: In PreussenElektra the private undertakings concerned had not been appointed by the Member State concerned to manage a State resource, but were bound by an obligation to purchase by means of their own financial resources.
Selle asemel pidid jaotusvõrguettevõtjad ja põhivõrguettevõtjad vastavalt 14. detsembri 2011. aasta regulatiivsele otsusele kasutama täieliku vabastuse tõttu 2011. aastal saamata jäänud tulu katmiseks omaenda ressursse.
In addition, in PreussenElektra there was no mechanism established and regulated by the State for offsetting additional costs arising from the purchase obligation and through which the State offered the private operators bound by the obligation to purchase the certain prospect that the additional costs would be covered in full.
Saamata jäänud tulu – kui seda ei hüvitatud muude tulude suurenemisega 2011. aasta ehk põhivõrguettevõtjate ja jaotusvõrguettevõtjate enda ressurssidest – tuli kirjendada reguleerimiskontole.
The Court has recently confirmed this differentiated approach to the assessment of State resources.
Kui 2013. aastal lõppeva reguleerimisperioodi lõpus hüvitati 2011. aasta saamata jäänud tulu selle reguleerimisperioodi teistel aastatel saadud täiendava tuluga, siis seda kahju ei hüvitatud, vaid see kaeti põhivõrguettevõtjate ja jaotusvõrguettevõtjate enda ressurssidest.
In the ENEA S.A. case, the Court ruled that a national measure placing an obligation on both private and public undertakings to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration does not constitute an intervention by the State or through State resources when the extra costs resulting from that purchase obligation cannot be passed on entirely to end users and are not financed by a compulsory contribution imposed by the State or by a full offset mechanism.
Ainult siis, kui kahju ei saanud 2013. aastal lõppenud reguleerimisperioodil täiendava tuluga tasaarvestada, hüvitati 2011. aasta saamata jäänud tulu järgmisel reguleerimisperioodil.
In light of those principles, for the purposes of examining whether the financing of the full exemption, as resulting from the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011, involves State resources, it is necessary to differentiate between the financing of the full exemption in 2011 and the financing of that exemption during the years 2012 and 2013, that is to say following the introduction of the § 19-surcharge.
Ometi ei olnud täielik hüvitamine isegi sellisel juhul tagatud.
Financing through State resources after the BNetzA imposed the Paragraph 19-surcharge (years 2012 and 2013)
Hüvitamise tase sõltus pigem muudest teguritest, eelkõige jaotusvõrguettevõtjate ja põhivõrguettevõtjate tõhususest (või ebatõhususest), kuna ARegV ei põhine tegelikel kuludel, vaid tõhusa ettevõtja ideaalsetel kuludel.
Based on the compensation mechanism provided for in the sixth and the seventh sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 described under section 2.4 of this Decision, the BNetzA imposed by regulatory decision of 14 December 2011 on the DSO the obligation to collect from end users the Paragraph 19-surcharge and to transfer the proceeds from this surcharge to the TSO on a monthly basis.
Seepärast ei olnud võrguettevõtjatel mingit tagatist, et täieliku vabastuse tõttu 2011. aastal saamata jäänud tulu neile hüvitatakse.
In recitals 49 to 84 of the Opening Decision, the Commission indicated why it considered that the full exemption had to be regarded as financed from State resources.
Teisisõnu pidid võrguettevõtjad kasutama 2011. aastal täieliku vabastuse rahastamiseks enda rahalisi vahendeid.
Those reasons can be summarized as follows:
Komisjon leiab seetõttu, et baaskoormuse tarbijatele võrgutasudest täieliku vabastamise vormis 2011. aastal antud eelist rahastati võrguettevõtjate ressurssidest ja seda ei rahastatud riigi ressurssidest.
the full exemption corresponds to a policy of the State;
MÕJU LIIKMESRIIKIDEVAHELISELE KAUBANDUSELE
the network operators are being provided a guarantee in the law that the financial losses resulting from the full exemption will be fully compensated through a surcharge on the electricity consumption of network users; that is to say they do not need to finance the exemption from their own financial means;
Vastavalt Euroopa Kohtu väljakujunenud praktikale ei tule siseriikliku meetme riigiabiks lugemiseks tõendada abi tegelikku mõju liikmesriikidevahelisele kaubandusele, vaid tuleb üksnes uurida, kas abi võib mõjutada seda kaubandust.
the TSO have been entrusted with the management of the financial flows resulting from the exemption and the Paragraph 19-surcharge;
Eelkõige kui liikmesriigi antud abi tugevdab ühe ettevõtja seisundit ühendusesiseses kaubanduses teiste konkureerivate ettevõtjate suhtes, tuleb leida, et abi mõjutab viimaseid.
the TSO are not free to use the proceeds of the surcharge as they wish given that the Paragraph 19-surcharge must be limited to the financial losses resulting from the exemption; any excess revenues resulting from the surcharge must be deducted from the surcharges to be paid in following years;
Nagu eespool märgitud, tegutseb valdav enamik asjaomastest ettevõtjatest keemia- (sh tööstusgaaside tootmise), paberi-, tekstiili-, terase-, värviliste metallide, nafta rafineerimise ja klaasi tootmise tööstuses.
the Paragraph 19-surcharge does not correspond to the payment for a service or a good.
Mõned abisaajad haldavad ka teenuse osutajatena andmekeskusi.
The Commission does not share the view expressed by both Germany and the interested parties that the full exemption could not be regarded as financed through State resources because the financial resources that finance the exemption would not transit through the State budget.
Kõik need tööstusharud on avatud piiriüleseks kaubavahetuseks liikmesriikide vahel.
As recalled in recitals 125 to 129 of this Decision, the Court has repeatedly ruled that the concept of State resources can also be fulfilled if the aid is financed through private means, which are imposed by the State and managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
Vabastades asjaomased ettevõtjad kuludest, mida teistes liikmesriikides samas tööstusharus tegutsevad ettevõtjad peavad tavaliselt kandma (võrgutasud), tugevdab täielik vabastus vabastuse saanud ettevõtjate seisundit võrreldes teiste liidusiseses kaubanduses konkureerivate ettevõtjatega ja seetõttu võib täielik vabastus võrgutasudest mõjutada liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
According to the Court, such a financing scheme implies a transfer of State resources, despite the fact that those resources are not administered by the public authorities but by private entities designated by the State that are separate from the public authorities
KONKURENTSI KAHJUSTAMINE
The Commission considers that the losses in revenue resulting from the full exemption from network charges in 2012 and 2013 were passed on entirely to end users by a full offset mechanism financed by a compulsory contribution imposed on them by the State.
Riigi võetud meedet käsitatakse meetmena, mis moonutab või ähvardab moonutada konkurentsi, kui see võib parandada abisaaja konkurentsiolukorda võrreldes konkureerivate ettevõtjatega.
As described in recitals 35 to 39 of this Decision, the legal framework in place in 2012 and 2013 provided for a financing mechanism that would offset the losses in revenue encountered by the network operator to which the exempted baseload consumers was connected.
Tööstusharud, kus vabastatud ettevõtjad tavaliselt tegutsevad, ja andmekeskuste turg on avatud konkurentsile.
The TSO were obliged to compensate the DSO for their losses in revenue and equalise this additional financial burden amongst them.
Paljudes neis sektorites moodustavad elektrienergia kulud suure osa tootmiskuludest, mida Saksamaa kinnitas 6. detsembri 2013. aasta kirjas, mis käsitleb paberi-, tsemendi-, keemia- ning alumiiniumi- ja muude metallide tööstust.
Pursuant to the regulatory decision of the BNetzA of 14 December 2011 adopted on the basis of Paragraph 29(1) of the EnWG and point 6 of Paragraph 30(2) of the StromNEV 2011, the TSO were compensated for this financial burden through the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
Seoses sellega vähendab täielik vabastus võrgutasudest vabastusega hõlmatud ettevõtjate tootmiskulusid.
The Paragraph 19-surcharge constituted a parafiscal levy on end users.
Seetõttu võib see parandada abisaajate konkurentsiolukorda võrreldes nende konkurentidega teistes liikmesriikides.
As such, it did not form part of the general system of network charges as suggested by the comments submitted by the interested parties.
See parandab tõenäoliselt ka nende konkurentsiolukorda võrreldes ettevõtjatega, kes tegutsevad küll samas tööstusharus, kuid ei tarbi elektrienergiat 10 gigavatti tunnis ja 7000 tundi aastas.
The BNetzA itself has explained in its decision of 14 December 2011 that the Paragraph 19-surcharge had a special purpose, namely to compensate TSO for their financial losses, and therefore did not correspond to a general network charge but rather constituted ‘another charge’ within the meaning of Paragraph 17(8) of the StromNEV, that has to be collected separately from the general network charges.
Täielik vabastus võib seega konkurentsi moonutada.
The Paragraph 19-surcharge amounts to a compulsory contribution imposed by the State.
2011. aasta StromNEVi § 19 lõike 2 teise lausega anti baaskoormuse tarbijatele täielik vabastus võrgutasudest.
It had been provided for in the StromNEV 2011 and has then been introduced via binding regulatory decision of the BNetzA, a high federal public authority entrusted with administrative and regulatory tasks and acting under the supervision of the Ministry for economic affairs and energy.
Selle tagajärjel ei olnud nendel tarbijatel elektrivõrgu kasutamisel mingisugust finantskoormust, samal ajal kui konkureerivad ettevõtjad teistes liikmesriikides pidid maksma võrgutasusid.
Its president and vice-presidents are nominated by the Minister, while its council is composed of representatives of the Bundesrat and Bundestag.
Peale selle on Euroopa Kohus juba sedastanud, et kui üks liikmesriik püüab ühepoolsete meetmetega ühtlustada ühe kindla majandusvaldkonna konkurentsitingimusi teistes liikmesriikides valdavalt eksisteerivatele konkurentsitingimustega, ei kõrvalda see nende meetmete riigiabi iseloomu.
Furthermore, the network operators had been appointed to levy and administer the Paragraph 19-surcharge in accordance with the legal framework in place.
JÄRELDUS ABI OLEMASOLU KOHTA
In this regard, it is to be recalled that the Court has repeatedly ruled that also a private entity can be appointed with the administration of State resource.
Eeltoodut silmas pidades on selliste baaskoormuse tarbijate täielik vabastamine võrgutasudest 2012. ja 2013. aastal, kelle energiatarbimine oli üle 10 gigavati tunnis ja vähemalt 7000 tundi aastas, riigiabi, kuna sellega vabastati need tarbijad võrgukuludest, mille tekitas nende elektritarbimine, ja miinimumtasust, mis oli 20 % avaldatud võrgutasust.
Also, it follows from the Essent-judgment that more than just one entity can be appointed to carry out the administration of the surcharge.
2011. aastal antud vabastust võrgutasudest ei rahastatud riigi ressurssidest ja seetõttu ei olnud see riigiabi.
First, the DSOs and the TSOs were obliged to levy and collect the Paragraph 19-surcharge from the end users and DSOs were obliged to transfer the Paragraph 19-surcharge to the TSO.
EBASEADUSLIKKUS
Second, the TSO could use the proceeds from the Paragraph 19-surcharge for the sole purpose of compensating for the losses in revenue stemming from the exemption for baseload consumers under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) StromNEV 2011 and the equalisation mechanism described in recital 35 of this Decision.
Saksamaa, kes jättis meetmest enne selle kehtestamist teatamata, ei täitnud oma aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikest 3 tulenevaid kohustusi.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the amount of the Paragraph 19-surcharge was adapted to the financial needs triggered by the full exemption.
Seega on abimeetme näol tegemist ebaseadusliku riigiabiga.
In particular, any proceeds in year x in excess of the amount required to compensate for that financial burden led to a reduction of the surcharge in year x + 2 (see recital 39).
KOKKUSOBIVUS SISETURUGA
The Commission therefore does not share the view of Germany and the interested parties according to which the network operators could use the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge as they wish.
Alljärgnev kokkusobivuse hinnang hõlmab baaskoormuse tarbijatele 2012. ja 2013. aastal antud täielikku vabastust üksnes niivõrd, kuivõrd tegemist on riigiabiga (vt põhjendus 160).
In light of the above, it is noted that the introduction of the Paragraph 19-surcharge gave a guarantee for the network operators that their losses in revenue resulting from the exemption granted under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 were fully compensated and is therefore different from both the PreussenElektra and the ENEA cases in which the undertakings on which the purchase obligation rested had to finance the obligation through their own financial means and could not pass on the costs to their customers.
Komisjon avaldas oma algatamisotsuses kahtlust, kas baaskoormuse tarbijate täielikku vabastamist võrgutasudest saab pidada siseturuga kokkusobivaks.
In that respect, the view presented by the interested parties that the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge were not hypothecated to the financing of the exemption under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 cannot be accepted.
Sellest tulenevalt kutsus komisjon Saksamaad üles esitama täiendavaid märkusi täieliku maksuvabastuse kokkusobivuse kohta siseturuga.
Indeed, as of 2012, the exemption from network charges could not be financed differently than via the Paragraph 19-surcharge which was calculated so as to correspond exactly to the financial needs created by the exemption.
Saksamaa väitis, et täielikku vabastust võib pidada kokkusobivaks aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti b või c alusel, kuna sellel olid järgmised eesmärgid:
Based on those elements, the Commission maintains its conclusion that the advantage granted to baseload consumers in the form of the full exemption in 2012 and 2013 must be considered as financed through State resources.
tagada elektrienergia varustuskindlus;
Financing through State resources before the Paragraph 19-surcharge was imposed (year 2011)
aidata kaasa taastuvelektri kasutamise edendamisele;
While the full exemption under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) StromNEV 2011 was applicable as of 1 January 2011, the Paragraph 19-surcharge only entered into force on 1 January 2012 (see recital 40 of this Decision).
rakendada võrkudele juurdepääsu süsteemi, vahet tegemata erinevatel võrgukasutajatel, nagu on nõutud direktiivi 2009/72/EÜ artiklis 32;
In its Opening Decision, the Commission therefore questioned whether the exemptions granted in 2011 were equally financed through State resources and invited Germany to provide additional information on how the full exemption was financed in 2011.
tagada, et võrgutasud kajastavad tegelikke kulusid, nagu on nõutud määruse (EÜ) nr 714/2009 artiklis 14.
On the basis of the additional information provided by Germany, but also taking into account the comments made by interested parties, the Commission does not consider the financing mechanism in place in 2011 to involve State resources.
Saksamaa leidis üldiselt ka, et täielik vabastus tugevdaks Euroopa tööstuse konkurentsivõimet ja oleks kooskõlas liidu eesmärgiga Euroopa taasindustrialiseerida.
As Germany has explained (see recital 77) and as the BNetzA has explicitly stated in the regulatory decision of 14 December 2011, no compensation and set-off mechanism was in place in 2011.
KOKKUSOBIVUS ARTIKLI 107 LÕIKE 3 PUNKTI b ALUSEL
In particular, the sixth and the seventh sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 were not yet applicable.
Saksamaa väidetud esimese kokkusobivuse aluse kohta tuleb märkida, et täielik vabastus ei ole seotud ühegi konkreetse „üleeuroopalist huvi pakkuva tähtsa projektiga“.
Accordingly, the losses incurred due to the full exemption from network charges in 2011 were not passed on to the end users by a full offset mechanism or – in the absence of the Paragraph 19-surcharge in 2011 – by a compulsory contribution imposed by the State.
Saksamaa ei ole kirjeldanud ühtegi sellist projekti, mille elluviimist edendatakse võrgutasudest täieliku vabastamise kaudu.
Instead, as the regulatory decision of 14 December 2011 establishes, the DSO and the TSO had to cover the losses in revenues encountered due to the full exemption in 2011 from their own resources.
Samuti ei ole Saksamaa esitanud mingisugust teavet, mis tõendaks, et täielik vabastus kõrvaldab Saksamaa majanduses tõsise häire.
They were entitled to include those losses as costs in their regulatory accounts established under the ARegV 2011.
Täielikku vabastust ei saa seega põhjendada aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti b alusel.
However, as set out in recital 47, the losses in revenue incurred in 2011 could not be recouped by an adaptation of the 2011 network charges given that those charges have to be set in advance and cannot be modified in the course of the year.
KOKKUSOBIVUS ARTIKLI 107 LÕIKE 3 PUNKTI c ALUSEL
The loss in revenues – if not compensated by other increases in revenues, and hence own resources of the TSO and DSO, for 2011 – had to be booked on the Regulierungskonto.
Aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 1 on sätestatud liidus riigiabi keelustamise üldpõhimõte.