natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
There is thus no need for any aid measure in the form of a full exemption and Germany has not brought forward any element that would show that with network charges based on individual costs (for instance by using the physical path methodology), the beneficiaries would become consumers with a variable and unpredictable consumption profile.
Seega, võttes arvesse, et kõnealuse abi andmisel rikuti aluslepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3 ja see on siseturuga kokkusobimatu, tuleb see abisaajatelt tagasi nõuda, et taastada enne abi andmist turul valitsenud olukord.
Incentive effect
Abi tuleks tagasi nõuda alates kuupäevast, mil abisaaja sai eelise, st alates ajast, mil abi anti abisaaja käsutusse, kuni selle tegeliku tagasimaksmiseni, ning abisaajal tuleb tasuda abisumma pealt alates abi andmisest kuni abi tegeliku tagasimaksmiseni kogunenud viivist.
Further, Germany has not demonstrated that the full exemption from network charges would have an incentive effect.
Mõne huvitatud isiku esitatud väite kohta, et sissenõudmine on vastuolus õiguspärase ootuse kaitse põhimõttega, tuleb märkida, et Euroopa Kohus on korduvalt leidnud, et õigus tugineda õiguspärase ootuse kaitse põhimõttele laieneb kõigile isikutele, kes on olukorras, kus liidu institutsioon on tekitanud talle ootusi, mis on õigustatud talle antud konkreetsete tagatistega.
An aid has an incentive effect when it changes the behaviour of the undertakings concerned in such a way that they engage in an additional activity which they would not carry out without the aid or which they would carry out in a restricted or different manner.
Kui aga ettevaatlik ja mõistlik ettevõtja võib ette näha tema huve mõjutada võiva liidu õigusnormi vastuvõtmist, ei saa ta sellele põhimõttele tugineda, kui see meede vastu võetakse.
Several elements in the file show that in many cases the full exemption was granted to baseload consumers for adopting a consumption pattern that corresponds to their usual consumption pattern given that their production process involves constant electricity consumption.
Seda kohtupraktikat silmas pidades ei saanud PreussenElektra kohtuotsus tekitada õiguspärast ootust, kuna see ei seadnud kahtluse alla võimalust volitada eraettevõtjaid abikava haldama ega käsitada maksulaadseid lõivusid ja tasusid riigi ressurssidena.
Individual network charges for baseload consumers exist since 2005.
See käsitles pigem üht piiratud olukorda, mis oli juba Van Tiggele kohtuotsuses tuvastatud.
Initially those individual network charges were possible only for baseload consumers reaching 7500 hours of full use.
Lisaks sellele on komisjon teinud järelduse riigiabi olemasolu kohta paljudes kavades, mida rahastati riigi kehtestatud lisatasu kaudu.
At least for baseload consumers who were already benefitting from individual network charges under that initial regime, the full exemption did hence not change their behaviour compared with their behaviour during the application of individual network charges and thus had no incentive effect.
Igal juhul täpsustas Euroopa Kohus Essenti kohtuotsuses PreussenElektra kohtuotsuse piire ja kordas oma varasemat kohtupraktikat, mis käsitab riigi ressursina ka ettemakset, mida rahastatakse riigi kehtestatud ja riigi määratud üksuse hallatavast lisatasust.
In addition, the number of baseload consumers obtaining individual network charges in 2014 is very close to the number of baseload consumers having obtained an exemption in 2011 to 2013 and the applicants are often the same.
Käesolevas otsuses kasutatud riigi ressursside tõlgendus on kooskõlas nii Euroopa Kohtu väljakujunenud praktikaga kui ka komisjoni otsustuspraktikaga.
This also confirms that for most of the baseload consumers, the full exemption has not modified their behaviour compared to what they would anyway do based on individual network charges.
Kuna ettevaatlik ja mõistlik ettevõtja oleks võinud seda ette näha, ei ole sissenõudmine õiguspärase ootuse kaitse põhimõttega vastuolus.
The German national courts have made the same observations (see recital 52).
Võttes arvesse eeltoodut, eriti seoses põhjendusega 216, tuleks abi tagasi nõuda, kuna see on siseturuga kokkusobimatu, ning abisaajal tuleb tasuda abisumma pealt viivist, mida arvestatakse alates kuupäevast, mil see anti abisaajate käsutusse, kuni selle tegeliku tagasimaksmise kuupäevani.
Finally, the 2015 Evaluation Report also highlights that several network operators had observed that the baseload consumers concerned already had the same consumption pattern before the full exemption had been introduced.
Tagasinõudmine peaks hõlmama ainult ajavahemikus 1. jaanuarist 2012 kuni 31. detsembrini 2013 antud täielikku vabastust võrgutasudest võrreldes individuaalsete võrgutasudega, mida oleks tulnud vabastuse puudumisel maksta, kuna ainult seda osa käsitatakse riigiabina.
Proportionality, negative impact on trading conditions and overall balance
Tagasinõutavad summad võrduvad iga asjaomase aasta puhul individuaalsete võrgutasudega, mida abisaajad oleksid pidanud ilma täieliku vabastuseta maksma.
Even assuming that for some baseload consumers the full exemption was appropriate, and necessary to contribute to an objective of common interest and had an incentive effect, it should be noted that the full exemption was not proportionate and that the negative impact of the aid outweigh its hypothetical positive impact.
Eelmises põhjenduses osutatud individuaalsed võrgutasud tuleks arvutada füüsilise tee meetodil, nagu BNetzA nägi ette oma 26. oktoobri 2010. aasta suunisdokumendis „Leitfaden zur Genehmigung individueller Netzentgeltvereinbarungen nach § 19 Abs. 2 S. 1 und 2 StromNEV“.
In order to be proportionate, the full exemption would have had to be limited to the amount necessary to trigger the change in the behaviour of the concerned baseload consumer that is beneficial for either the security of supply or the promotion of renewable electricity.
Iga asjaomase aasta kohta tagasi nõutav summa võrdub vähemalt 20 %ga summast, mille abisaaja oleks tasunud, kui ta oleks pidanud maksma avaldatud võrgutasusid.
However, Germany has not demonstrated that the full exemption is calibrated to being limited to what would be necessary to incentivize a change in the consumption pattern of baseload consumers, nor that the full exemption is the least distortive tool to keep the baseload consumers' contribution to the stability and security of the network.
Kui abisaaja saadud eelis oli kokku alla 200000 euro ja see eelis vastab kõikidele muudele komisjoni määruste (EL) nr 1407/2013 või (EÜ) nr 1998/2006 kriteeriumidele, ei tohiks sellist abi pidada riigiabiks aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses ning seda ei tohiks seetõttu tagasi nõuda.
In this respect, some interested parties have claimed that in order to be sure that they would reach the 7000 hours of full use, their employees needed to reserve part of their time to the monitoring of the consumption and that a continuous consumption also involved continuous production and thus possibly increased stocks when product demand was decreasing.
Järeldatakse, et Saksamaa on ajavahemikus 1. jaanuarist 2012 kuni 31. detsembrini 2013 andnud aluslepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3 rikkudes õigusvastaselt abi, vabastades täielikult võrgutasudest baaskoormuse tarbijad, kelle elektritarbimine on vähemalt 10 gigavatti tunnis ja 7000 tundi aastas.
However, the same interested party admits that those costs differed for each company.
Riigiabi võrdub võrgukuludega, mille vabastatud baaskoormuse tarbijad tegelikult 2012. ja 2013. aastal tekitasid, või kui need võrgukulud on väiksemad minimaalsetest võrgutasudest, mis on 20 % avaldatud võrgutasudest, siis nende minimaalsete võrgutasudega.
Therefore, even assuming that in order to reach 7000 hours of full use some of the baseload consumers would face additional costs, there was no guarantee that the exemption would in all cases correspond to what would have been necessary to cover those extra costs and Germany did not demonstrate that it had been the case.
Selles osas kaldub 2011. aasta StromNEVi § 19 lõike 2 teise lause alusel antud täielik vabastus kõrvale võrdlussüsteemist, mis oli kasutusele võetud.
It is noted in addition that the measure does not seem to promote security of supply beyond what is already taken into account to compute individual network charges.
Seega võrdub riigiabi nende individuaalsete võrgutasude väärtusega, mida baaskoormuse tarbijad ei maksnud aastatel 2012–2013 ja mis vastab vähemalt 20 %-le asjaomastel aastatel avaldatud võrgutasudest.
Such additional contribution has not been demonstrated.
Riigiabi ei vasta ühegi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõigetes 2 ja 3 sätestatud erandi tingimustele ja seda ei saa pidada ühelgi muul põhjusel siseturuga kokkusobivaks.
In any event, both Germany and interested parties admit that it cannot be quantified.
Abi on seega siseturuga kokkusobimatu.
In addition, it is noted that even if it was assumed that baseload consumers would contribute to security of supply beyond the stabilizing effect on networks already taken into account in the determination of individual network charges and would also indirectly contribute to the promotion of renewable electricity, Germany has not demonstrated that the aid is limited to what would be necessary to achieve those positive effects.
Vastavalt määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 16 lõikele 1 peab komisjon nõudma, et asjaomane liikmesriik võtaks kõik vajalikud meetmed, et abisaajalt abi tagasi saada.
In its 2015 Evaluation Report, the BNetzA noted that network operators having baseload consumers connected to their network were split between those finding that baseload consumers had stabilizing effects and those finding that they had no such stabilizing effects (see figures 6 and 7 of the report and the findings on p. 38 of the report).
Seepärast peaks Saksamaa siseturuga kokkusobimatu abi tagasi nõudma,
As the report does not make this distinction, it is unclear whether for those network operators having identified stabilizing effects, the effects concerned would go beyond those already taken into account to calculate individual network charges.
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
One TSO explained that the contribution of baseload consumers to the stability of the networks depended on the specific circumstances of the network: in the event of overload, baseload consumers were threatening network stability while at times of underload, they were contributing to it so that the key to network stability was actually flexible load.
Artikkel 1
However, baseload consumers by definition do not constitute flexible load but stable and inflexible load.
Saksamaa baaskoormuse tarbijate suhtes kohaldatud täielik vabastus võrgutasudest, mille Saksamaa kehtestas ebaseaduslikult 2012. ja 2013. aastal, kujutab endast riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses, kuivõrd need tarbijad olid vabastatud võrgutasudest, mis vastasid nende poolt tekitatud võrgukuludele, või kui need võrgukulud olid väiksemad kui minimaalsed võrgutasud, mis olid 20 % avaldatud võrgutasudest, siis nendest minimaalsetest võrgutasudest.
Indeed, if the baseload consumers were to offer flexibility services (reduction of consumption upon request of the network operator for instance), they would not comply with the definition of baseload consumers anymore as they would not reach the 7000 hours of full use anymore.
Saksamaa andis lõikes 1 osutatud riigiabi ebaseaduslikult, rikkudes aluslepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3, ja see on siseturuga kokkusobimatu.
This confirms at the very least, that — assuming that under certain conditions baseload consumers contribute to network stability beyond what is already taken into account to compute individual network charges — baseload consumers' additional contribution to stability would depend on each case but cannot be automatically presumed for any baseload consumer exceeding 10 GWh of consumption and reaching 7000 hours of full use.
Artikkel 2
Nor can it be presumed that it would warrant a full exemption from network charges in all cases.
Artiklis 1 osutatud kava alusel antavat üksikabi ei käsitata riigiabina, kui see vastab andmise ajal kehtinud tingimustele, mis on sätestatud nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 994/98 artikli 2 kohaselt vastu võetud määruses, mida kohaldati abi andmise ajal.
In addition, as to Germany's and interested parties' argument that the exemption would secure the existence of baseload conventional power plants which are themselves important providers of ancillary services, it should be noted that the argument rests on the assumption that the minimum generation needs identified in the 2012 Study would remain constant irrespective of demand in Germany, which is not the case.
Artikkel 3
On the contrary, as mentioned in recital 93 of this Decision, the 2012 Study underlines on page (i) (part ‘Ergebniszusammenfassung’) that the extent of the minimum generation is highly dependent on the current situation, in particular the renewable production but also the demand load.
Saksamaa nõuab artiklis 1 osutatud abikava alusel antud siseturuga kokkusobimatu abi abisaajatelt tagasi.
Germany has not provided any elements that would demonstrate that the full exemption is limited to the baseload consumption that is allegedly needed to secure the existence of baseload conventional power plants nor that it would over time be calibrated to adapt to changing needs.
Tagasinõutavatelt summadelt arvestatakse viivist alates kuupäevast, mil need anti abisaajate käsutusse, kuni nende tegeliku tagasimaksmise kuupäevani.
Germany has argued that there would be no undue distortion of trading conditions as the impact on competition would be limited given that the measure significantly contributed to security of supply and would hardly have any impact on competition with undertakings from other Member States given the very high electricity prices in Germany compared to other Member States.
Intress arvutatakse liitintressina vastavalt komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 794/2004 V peatükile.
However, as result from the findings under section 5.3.2.1 to 5.3.2.4 it is not demonstrated that the full exemption would be appropriate to achieve security of supply and promotion of renewable electricity, nor that it would be necessary and have an incentive effect.
Saksamaa tühistab alates käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmise kuupäevast kõik artiklis 1 osutatud abikava alusel antud abi väljamaksmata maksed.
Also, as demonstrated under (205)-(211) of this Decision, the aid is not limited to amount needed to reach the objectives and leads to overcompensation.
Artikkel 4
The hypothetical positive impact of the aid is therefore extremely limited, if existing at all.
Artiklis 1 osutatud abikava alusel antud abi nõutakse tagasi viivitamata ja tulemuslikult.
By contrast, the full exemption does not seem to observe Article 32 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009.
Saksamaa tagab käesoleva otsuse täitmise nelja kuu jooksul pärast otsuse teatavakstegemise kuupäeva.
Concerning the distortion of competition with other Member States and contrary to Germany's views, they cannot be considered as being insignificant.
Artikkel 5
First, the measure fully exempts the beneficiaries from network charges while all their competitors remain under the obligation to pay network charges in their respective Member States, in line with the applicable European legislation.
Kahe kuu jooksul pärast käesoleva otsuse teatavakstegemist esitab Saksamaa järgmise teabe:
This can have an important distortive impact on competition given that, as Germany has pointed out itself, most of the beneficiaries are electro-intensive undertakings.
artiklis 1 osutatud abikava alusel abi saanud abisaajate nimekiri koos igale abisaajale abikava alusel antud abi kogusummaga;
Electricity costs are thus an important factor of their competitiveness.
igalt abisaajalt tagasinõutava abi kogusumma (põhisumma ja viivis);
Second, the circumstance that electricity prices would be high in Germany and would heavily burden the production costs of electro-intensive companies in Germany has not been demonstrated.
käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatud meetmete üksikasjalik kirjeldus;
It is noted to the contrary that between 2011 and 2013 electro-intensive users benefitted in Germany from reductions of the electricity tax, of the EEG-surcharge and of the CHP-surcharge
dokumendid, mis tõendavad, et abisaajatele on antud korraldus artiklis 1 osutatud abi tagasi maksta.
Based on those elements, it is concluded that the negative impact of the aid exceeds the hypothetical positive contribution that it might have had in terms of the promotion of renewable electricity or the security of supply.
Saksamaa teavitab komisjoni käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks võetud riiklike meetmete edenemisest seni, kuni artiklis 1 osutatud abikava alusel antud abi on täielikult tagasi makstud.
CONCLUSION
Saksamaa esitab komisjoni taotluse korral viivitamata teabe käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatud meetmete kohta.
The aid granted in 2012 and 2013 is not compatible with the internal market.
Saksamaa esitab ka üksikasjaliku teabe abisaajatelt juba tagasi saadud abisummade ja viivise kohta.
RECOVERY
Artikkel 6
According to the Treaty and the Court's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Saksamaa Liitvabariigile.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a Member State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation.
Brüssel, 28. mai 2018
In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.
Komisjoni nimel
In line with the case-law, Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 stated that ‘where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary […]’.
Margrethe Vestager
Thus, given that the aid in question was implemented in violation of Article 108(3) of the Treaty and is incompatible with the internal market, it must be recovered from the beneficiaries in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to their granting.
ELT C 128, 4.5.2013, lk 43.
Recovery should cover the time from when the advantage accrued to the beneficiary, that is to say when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary, until effective recovery, and the sums to be recovered should bear interest from the date on which they accrued to the beneficiary until effective recovery.
Komisjoni 6. märtsi 2013. aasta otsus riigiabi SA.34045 (2012/C) kohta – Saksamaa – Elektrienergia suurtarbijate vabastus võrgutasudest (§ 19 StromNEV) – Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõikele 2 (ELT C 128, 4.5.2013, lk 43).
As regards the claim put forward by some interested parties that the recovery would be in violation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, it should be pointed out that the Court of Justice has repeatedly held that the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person in a situation where a Union institution has caused him to entertain expectations which are justified by precise assurances provided to him.
I, lk 1554.
However, if a prudent and alert economic operator could have foreseen the adoption of a Union measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted.
I, lk 1786.
In light of that case-law, the judgment in PreussenElektra could not create any legitimate expectations because it has not put into question the possibility to mandate private bodies to administer an aid scheme and to qualify parafiscal levies and charges as State resources.
Võrguettevõtja on ettevõtja, kes vastutab elektrivõrgu toimimise ja ohutu haldamise eest.
Rather, it concerned one narrow situation already identified in Van Tiggele.
Võrguettevõtjad jaotatakse tavaliselt põhivõrguettevõtjateks ja jaotusvõrguettevõtjateks vastavalt sellele, kas nad haldavad põhivõrke või jaotusvõrke.
In addition, the Commission has concluded on the existence of State aid in a big number of schemes financed on the basis of a surcharge imposed by the State.
StromNEV kehtestati algselt 2005. aastal ja seda on mitu korda muudetud.
In any event, the Court clarified in Essent the boundaries of the PreussenElektra judgment and repeated its earlier case law that also qualifies as State resource an advantage financed from surcharge imposed by the State and managed by an entity designated by the State.
Kui asjaomaseid sätteid ei ole varasemate muudatustega muudetud, viidatakse käesolevas otsuses üldiselt StromNEVile.
The interpretation of State resources adopted in this decision is in line with the well-established case law of the Court as well as the decisional practice of the Commission.
Kui aga viidatud sätet on muudetud, osutatakse käesolevas otsuses sõnaselgelt StromNEVi asjakohasele versioonile:
As it could have been foreseen by any prudent and alert economic operator, recovery would not be in violation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
„2010. aasta StromNEV“ on StromNEVi 3. septembri 2010. aasta seaduse (BGBl.
In light of the above, especially with respect to recital 216, the aid should be recovered as it is incompatible with the internal market and the sums to be recovered should bear interest from the date on which they accrued to the beneficiary until effective recovery.
I, lk 2074) artikliga 6 muudetud versioon;
Recovery should only cover the full exemption from network charges granted during the period from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013 by comparison of the individual network charges that would have been due absent the exemption, as only that part qualifies as State aid.
„2011. aasta StromNEV“ on StromNEVi 26. juuli 2011. aasta seaduse (BGBl.
The recoverable amounts are for each of the years concerned, the individual network charges that the beneficiaries would have had to pay without the full exemption.
I, lk 1554) artikliga 7 muudetud versioon;
The individual network charges referred to in the previous recital should be calculated on the basis of the physical path methodology as it was set out by the BNetzA in its guidance document ‘Leitfaden zur Genehmigung individueller netzentgeltvereinbarungen nach § 19 Abs. 2 S. 1 und 2 StromNEV’ issued on 26 October 2010.
„2014. aasta StromNEV“ on StromNEVi 14. augusti 2013. aasta määruse (BGBl.
The recoverable amount, for each of the years concerned, equals at least 20 % of the amount that the beneficiary would have paid if he had had to pay the published network charges.
I, lk 3250) artikliga 1 muudetud versioon.
Where the total amount of advantage received by a beneficiary is less than EUR 200000 and where the advantage meets all the other criteria laid down in either Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 or Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, such advantage should be deemed not to constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and should therefore not be subject to recovery.
Elektrivõrgus peavad toodetud ja tarbitud elektrienergia olema alati tasakaalus.
It is concluded that Germany has unlawfully put into effect during the period 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013 aid in the form of a full exemption from network charges for baseload consumers reaching an annual electricity consumption of at least 10 GWh and 7000 hours of full use in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Tasakaalustamatus võib tekkida prognoositust erineva tarbimise või elektrijaama rikke või tuule- või päikeseenergia järsu vähenemise korral.