natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pool price or regulated 'special scheme' price
Cijena na veleprodajnom tržištu ili regulirana cijena „u posebnom sustavu”
Regulated tariffs
Regulirane tarife
No profit margin
Bez profitne marže
Distributors thus conclude that, given the different legal and factual context, free-market suppliers were not in competition with distributors, but rather with the regulated tariffs, which acted as the reference price in the market.
Distributeri stoga zaključuju da, s obzirom na različit pravni i činjenični kontekst, opskrbljivači na slobodnom tržištu nisu predstavljali konkurenciju distributerima, već reguliranim tarifama koje su djelovale kao referentna cijena na tržištu.
Distributors submit that the activity of supplying electricity at the tariff did not bring them profits or advantages of any nature.
Distributeri tvrde da od opskrbe električnom energijom po toj tarifi nisu ostvarivali ni dobit ni prednost bilo koje vrste.
Whereas for pure distribution and commercial management the distributors' remuneration included a profit margin to remunerate invested capital, for supply at regulated tariffs, distributors obtained only a reimbursement of their costs without any profit margin.
Dok je naknada distributerima za čistu distribuciju i komercijalno upravljanje uključivala profitnu maržu za naknadu za uloženi kapital, za opskrbu po reguliranim tarifama distributeri su dobili samo naknadu troškova bez ikakve profitne marže.
In particular, the costs ‘recognised’ to a distributor were based on the average weighted price paid for electricity during the reference period.
Točnije, troškovi „priznati” distributeru temeljili su se na prosječnoj ponderiranoj cijeni električne energije tijekom referentnog razdoblja.
In certain circumstances, these recognised costs could be lower than the actual total costs borne by a distributor.
U određenim okolnostima ti su priznati troškovi mogli biti niži od stvarnih ukupnih troškova distributera.
When the regulated sales activity yielded a surplus, these funds did not stay with distributors but were allocated, during the settlement process, to the financing of other general costs of the system.
U slučaju ostvarivanja viška od regulirane prodaje ta sredstva nisu ostala distributerima, već su tijekom postupka namire raspoređena za financiranje ostalih općih troškova sustava.
The amount recognised by the State equalled the difference between the average weighted price of electricity purchases, multiplied by the quantity of energy transported by each distributor, after correction for standard losses.
Iznos koji je država priznala bio je jednak razlici između prosječne ponderirane cijene nabava električne energije pomnožena s količinom energije koju je prevezao svaki distributer nakon ispravka za uobičajene gubitke.
Distributors further contend that they did not draw any direct or indirect financial benefit from free-market customers switching back to regulated tariffs, as their remuneration for pure distribution and commercial management was entirely independent of the number of customers on regulated tariffs or the quantity of electricity sold at the tariff.
Distributeri su dalje tvrdili da nisu imali nikakve ni izravne ni neizravne financijske koristi od povratka kupaca sa slobodnog tržišta na regulirane tarife jer je njihova naknada za čistu distribuciju i komercijalno upravljanje u cijelosti neovisna o broju kupaca po reguliranim tarifama ili količini električne energije koja je prodana po određenoj tarifi.
First, as explained above, for supply at the regulated tariff there was only a reimbursement of costs.
Kao prvo, kako je prethodno objašnjeno, za opskrbu po reguliranoj tarifi postojala je samo naknada troškova.
Second, the remuneration of pure distribution was also independent of the number of customers on regulated tariffs, as it was based on the volume of ‘transported energy’, which included all electricity transported by distributors on the network, irrespective of whether the energy was sold at the regulated tariffs or at free-market rates.
Kao drugo, naknada za čistu distribuciju isto tako nije ovisila o broju kupaca po reguliranim tarifama jer se temeljila na količini „prevezene energije”, koja je uključivala svu električnu energiju koju su prevezli distributeri u mreži, neovisno o tome je li ona prodana po reguliranim tarifama ili na slobodnom tržištu.
Third, the remuneration for commercial management activities was also independent of the number of customers supplied on regulated tariffs, as the law provided for payments based on the number of contracts concluded (for both access tariffs and regulated tariffs) and was therefore unrelated to the number of customers on regulated tariffs.
Kao treće, naknada za djelatnosti komercijalnog upravljanja isto tako nije ovisila o broju kupaca koji se opskrbljuju po reguliranim tarifama jer su zakonom predviđena plaćanja na temelju broja sklopljenih ugovora (za tarife za pristup i regulirane tarife) i stoga nisu povezana s brojem kupaca po reguliranim tarifama.
Distributors were required in any event to manage all customers' requests, such as changes in the type of connection, contracts, invoicing of access tariffs, metering, etc., regardless of the type of supply.
Od distributera se u svakom slučaju zahtijevalo rješavanje svih upita kupaca, poput promjena vrste priključka, ugovora, izdavanja računa za tarife za pristup, očitanja brojila itd., neovisno o vrsti opskrbe.
Distributors thus conclude that the ‘compensation’ they received in respect of supplies at regulated tariffs should be viewed rather as the reimbursement of sums they were required to advance in application of the law, or as compensation for loss and damage.
Distributeri stoga zaključuju da je „naknadu” koju su primili za opskrbu po reguliranim tarifama potrebno smatrati prije povratom iznosa koje su bili dužni platiti unaprijed zbog primjene zakona ili naknadom štete.
Iberdrola specifically contends that it would be legally and economically incorrect to impute the deficit to distributors.
Društvo Iberdrola posebno tvrdi da bi pripisivanje deficita distributerima bilo pravno i ekonomski netočno.
The costs incurred in purchasing electricity for the regulated market were imputable to the electricity system, not to distributors, which merely implemented legal provisions.
Troškovi nastali pri nabavi električne energije za regulirano tržište mogli su se pripisati elektroenergetskom sustavu, a ne distributerima, što samo predstavlja provedbu pravnih odredaba.
The proceeds of sales at regulated prices never became the property of distributors, but belonged to the electricity system as a whole, and therefore the system should be seen as the ‘seller’ of electricity at regulated prices.
Prihodi od prodaje po reguliranim cijenama nikad nisu postali vlasništvo distributera, već su pripali elektroenergetskom sustavu u cjelini pa je stoga sustav potrebno promatrati kao „prodavatelja” električne energije po reguliranim cijenama.
In a system as highly regulated as the Spanish one, it would be unreasonable, according to Iberdrola, to impute to distributors the financial imbalances caused by the regulatory structure or by errors in estimates of future energy costs.
U visoko reguliranom sustavu poput španjolskoga pripisivanje distributerima financijskih neravnoteža uzrokovanih regulatornom strukturom ili pogreškama u procjenama budućih troškova električne energije bilo bi, prema mišljenju društva Iberdrola, neopravdano.
Iberdrola also points out that distributors did not retain the revenue from the surcharge, which, as a ‘specifically earmarked contribution’, was transferred immediately to the deposit account opened by the CNE and passed on to the generators who prefinanced the deficit.
Društvo Iberdrola isto tako naglašava da distributeri nisu zadržali prihod od dodatne naknade koja je, kao „doprinos posebne namjene”, odmah prebačena na depozitni račun koje je otvorio CNE i proslijeđen proizvođačima koji su pretfinancirali deficit.
COMMENTS BY THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ASTURIAS
PRIMJEDBE REGIONALNE VLADE POKRAJINE ASTURIJE
The comments by the Regional Government of Asturias are equivalent to those set out below by the Spanish Government, to which reference is made.
Primjedbe regionalne vlade pokrajine Asturije jednake su primjedbama španjolske vlade navedenima u nastavku na koje se upućuje.
COMMENTS BY SPAIN
PRIMJEDBE ŠPANJOLSKE
In particular, as regards distributors, Spain considers that the compensation they received is in line with the Altmark case-law of the Court of Justice and does not, therefore, constitute State aid.
Točnije, kad je riječ o distributerima, Španjolska smatra da je dobivena naknada u skladu sa sudskom praksom Suda u predmetu Altmark i da stoga ne predstavlja državnu potporu.
NO CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN STATE ACTION AND THE DEFICIT, AND NON-IMPUTABILITY OF THE DEFICIT TO THE STATE
NEPOSTOJANJE UZROČNO-POSLJEDIČNE VEZE IZMEĐU DJELOVANJA DRŽAVE I DEFICITA I NEMOGUĆNOST PRIPISIVANJA DEFICITA DRŽAVI
Spain contends that the deficit was not imputable to the State, in that it was caused by unpredictable external circumstances and not by the State's deliberate intention to subsidise certain activities.
Španjolska tvrdi da se deficit nije mogao pripisati državi jer je on posljedica nepredvidljivih vanjskih okolnosti, a ne namjere države da subvencionira određene djelatnosti.
Therefore, State regulatory intervention was legally valid, as it was the expression of national sovereignty.
Stoga je regulatorna intervencija države bila pravno valjana jer je predstavljala izraz nacionalne samostalnosti.
Distributors collected funds through integral and access tariffs, and then transferred part of this revenue to dedicated accounts (according to percentages set in the annual tariffs decree).
Distributeri su prikupljali sredstva integralnim tarifama i tarifama za pristup i potom prebacivali dio tih prihoda na posebne račune (u skladu s postocima utvrđenima dekretom o godišnjim tarifama).
Afterwards they deducted electricity purchases from the pool and from ‘special scheme’ generators.
Potom su oduzimali nabave električne energije na veleprodajnom tržištu i od proizvođača „u posebnom sustavu”.
If the revenue from integral and access tariffs did not cover the cost of regulated activities, a tariff deficit was generated.
Ako prihodi od integralnih tarifa i tarifa za pristup nisu bili dostatni za podmirivanje troška reguliranih djelatnosti, nastao je tarifni deficit.
Spain submits that the 2005 deficit was caused by a discrepancy between government forecasts of wholesale electricity prices and the actual prices recorded on the pool.
Španjolska tvrdi da je deficit iz 2005. posljedica razlike između predviđanja države u pogledu veleprodajnih cijena električne energije i stvarnih cijena zabilježenih na veleprodajnom tržištu.
The exceptionally high prices of 2005 were driven by unpredictable causes amounting to force majeure (see recital 26).
Iznimno visoke cijene u 2005. posljedica su nepredvidljivih uzroka koji se smatraju višom silom (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 26).
Even assuming that this advantage had existed, it would have been caused by circumstances unrelated to the State's intentions.
Čak i uz pretpostavku da je ta prednost ranije postojala, ona bi bila posljedica okolnosti koje nisu povezane s namjerama države.
The existence of force majeure, according to Spain, breaks the causal link between the administrative decision setting the level of the tariffs and the competitive advantage giving rise to State aid.
Postojanjem više sile, prema mišljenju Španjolske, prekida se uzročno-posljedična veza između administrativne odluke o utvrđivanju razine tarifa i konkurentske prednosti koja je osnova za državnu potporu.
Even assuming that the objective condition of the causal link was met, the subjective condition of intention (imputability) on the part of the State would be absent.
Čak i uz pretpostavku da je ispunjen objektivni uvjet uzročno-posljedične veze, nedostaje subjektivni uvjet namjere (mogućnost pripisivanja) na strani države.
NO STATE RESOURCES
NEPOSTOJANJE DRŽAVNIH SREDSTAVA
First, Spain claims in this respect that the surcharge is not a ‘charge’ within the meaning of the case-law of the European Court of Justice on parafiscal levies, because it is not collected by the State and does not correspond to a fiscal levy.
Kao prvo, Španjolska u tom pogledu tvrdi da dodatna naknada nije „naknada” u smislu sudske prakse Europskog suda u pogledu parafiskalnih nameta jer ju ne naplaćuje država pa se ona ne smatra fiskalnim nametom.
According to Spain, the surcharge is an integral part of the tariff and is tariff-like in nature.
Prema mišljenju Španjolske dodatna je naknada sastavni dio tarife i ima karakter tarife.
Second, the funds were not collected by the State and were not paid into a fund designated by the State.
Kao drugo, država nije prikupljala sredstva i uplaćivala ih u fond koji je država odredila.
The tariffs were collected by distributors, not by the State, and therefore they were private prices which ensured the equitable remuneration of the players (as laid down in the LSE).
Distributeri su naplaćivali tarife, a ne država, pa su one stoga bile privatne cijene kojima je osigurana primjerena naknada čimbenicima (kako je utvrđeno LSE-om).
They were neither taxes nor public prices.
One nisu predstavljale ni poreze ni javne cijene.
The State did not remunerate anything, since it was the system that provided remuneration by virtue of market forces for non-regulated activities and by virtue of access tariffs set by the State as regards regulated activities.
Država nije ništa nadoknađivala jer je naknada osigurana sustavom na temelju tržišnih sila kod nereguliranih djelatnosti i tarifa za pristup koje je država utvrdila za regulirane djelatnosti.
Since in such a system there is no burden for the State, no State resources would be involved, according to the Sloman Neptune case-law [20].
Budući da u tom sustavu ne postoji opterećenje za državu, nikakva državna sredstva neće biti uključena u skladu sa sudskom praksom u predmetu Sloman Neptune [20].
Furthermore, these funds never flowed into the State coffers, were not mentioned in budgetary laws, were not subject to verification by the Court of Auditors, and could not be recovered from debtors by means of administrative recovery procedures.
Nadalje, ta se sredstva nisu slijevala u državnu riznicu, nisu navedena u proračunskim zakonima, nisu podlijegala nadzoru Revizorskog suda te njihov povrat od dužnika nije bilo moguće izvršiti administrativnim postupcima povrata.
Debts vis-à-vis the electricity system were not subject to the interest rate applicable to debts owed to the State.
Dugovanja unutar elektroenergetskog sustava nisu podlijegala kamatnoj stopi koja se primjenjuje na dugovanja državi.
Spain insists that these funds were handled by the Spanish regulator, the CNE, acting as a mere accounting intermediary.
Španjolska inzistira da je tim sredstvima upravljao španjolski regulator, CNE, isključivo u ulozi računovodstvenog posrednika.
The Spanish authorities point out that in its 2001 decision on the Spanish stranded costs (SA NN 49/99) the Commission had already established that ‘the transit of funds through the CNE is of an essentially accounting nature. The funds transferred to the account in the name of the CNE never became the property of this body, and were immediately paid to the beneficiaries according to a predetermined amount which the CNE is unable to modify in any way’.
Španjolska tijela naglašavaju da je Komisija u Odluci o španjolskim naslijeđenim troškovima iz 2001. (SA NN 49/99) već utvrdila da „je prijenos sredstava CNE-om u osnovi računovodstvenog karaktera. Sredstva koja se prenose na račun CNE-a nisu nikada postala vlasništvom tog tijela te su odmah isplaćena korisnicima u skladu s ranije utvrđenim iznosom koji CNE ni na koji način ne može mijenjati”.
On the basis of this consideration, the Commission came to the conclusion that ‘it [was] not in a position to determine whether the proceeds of the levy established within the framework of the Stranded Costs scheme constitute State resources’.
Komisija je na temelju tog razmatranja zaključila da „ne može utvrditi predstavljaju li prihodi od nameta utvrđenog u okviru sustava naslijeđenih troškova državna sredstva”.
Third, Spain contests the Commission's conclusion that regulated sales by distributors were financed via a ‘special tax’ payable by all Spanish electricity end-users.
Kao treće, Španjolska osporava zaključak Komisije da se regulirana prodaja distributera financirala „posebnim porezom” koji su plaćali svi krajnji korisnici električne energije u Španjolskoj.
According to Spain, distributors were not ‘financed by the State’, but received a reasonable and equitable remuneration for the performance of a statutory task which they were obliged to discharge.
Prema mišljenju Španjolske, „država (nije) financirala” distributere, već su oni primili razumnu i pravičnu naknadu za zakonom propisanu zadaću koju su bili obvezni obavljati.
Besides, in selling electricity at regulated tariffs and purchasing it on the ‘pool’ from generators, distributors generated a deficit (which was covered by the prefinancing mechanism laid down by Royal Decree-Law 5/2005) but it was the generators, not the distributors, which would receive the revenue from the surcharge added to the tariff.
Osim toga, pri prodaji električne energije po reguliranim tarifama i njezinoj nabavi na veleprodajnom tržištu od proizvođača distributeri su ostvarili deficit (koji je podmiren mehanizmom pretfinanciranja utvrđenim Kraljevskim zakonskim dekretom 5/2005), ali će proizvođači, umjesto distributera, ostvariti prihode od dodatne naknade dodane tarifi.
NO ADVANTAGE
NEPOSTOJANJE PREDNOSTI
Spain disagrees with the Commission's preliminary conclusion that regulated tariffs conferred an economic advantage on distributors.
Španjolska se ne slaže s privremenim zaključkom Komisije da je reguliranim tarifama distributerima omogućena ekonomska prednost.
As regards distributors, Spain contests the Commission's conclusion that the tariff systems guaranteed a minimum profit margin to distributors.
Kad je riječ o distributerima, Španjolska osporava zaključak Komisije da su tarifni sustavi predstavljali jamstvo minimalne profitne marže za distributere.
Spain submits that supply at regulated tariffs by distributors was justified by the need to guarantee a service of general interest, and that the remuneration of regulated activities was intended exclusively to cover the costs of discharging the obligations linked to these activities.
Španjolska tvrdi da je opskrba po reguliranim tarifama koju obavljaju distributeri bila opravdana potrebom za jamstvom usluge od općeg interesa te da je naknada za regulirane djelatnosti bila namijenjena isključivo za podmirivanje troškova ispunjavanja obveza povezanih s tim djelatnostima.
NO IMPACT ON COMPETITION AND TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
NEPOSTOJANJE UČINKA NA TRŽIŠNO NATJECANJE I TRGOVINU MEĐU DRŽAVAMA ČLANICAMA
According to the Spanish authorities, the regulatory provisions applicable to supply at regulated tariffs did not curtail the freedom of establishment of electricity suppliers and there was no preferential treatment of Spanish suppliers compared with suppliers from other Member States.
Prema mišljenju španjolskih tijela regulatornim odredbama primjenjivima na opskrbu po reguliranim tarifama nije ograničena sloboda osnivanja opskrbljivača električne energije te nije postojao povlašteni tretman španjolskih opskrbljivača u usporedbi s opskrbljivačima iz ostalih država članica.
In 2005 the Iberian Peninsula had such a low interconnection capacity that there was no real internal market for energy.
U 2005. Pirinejski poluotok imao je toliko mali kapacitet međusobnog povezivanja da stvarno unutarnje tržište električne energije nije postojalo.
The Spanish authorities take the view that, given this situation of isolation, it would be disproportionate to conclude — as the Commission does — that the tariff had an impact on competition and trade between Member States.
Španjolska tijela smatrala su da bi, s obzirom na izolaciju, bilo nesrazmjerno zaključiti, kao što je to učinila Komisija, da je tarifa utjecala na tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu među državama članicama.
The Spanish authorities maintain that electricity was not exported outside Spain and distributors operating in Spain could not sell Spanish energy outside the national territory.
Španjolska tijela i dalje smatraju da električna energije nije izvezena izvan Španjolske te da distributeri koji posluju u Španjolskoj nisu mogli prodavati španjolsku električnu energiju izvan nacionalnog državnog područja.
On the other hand, any eligible company could take part in the distribution business on an equal footing with Spanish undertakings and enjoy the same legal and economic treatment.
S druge su strane sva prihvatljiva društva mogla obavljati djelatnost distribucije u jednakim uvjetima kao i španjolska poduzeća i uživati jednak pravni i ekonomski tretman.
Spain takes the view that suppliers, by contrast, exercised a free, non-regulated activity.
Španjolska smatra da su opskrbljivači, za razliku od toga, obavljali slobodnu i nereguliranu djelatnost.
They faced the corresponding risks and advantages.
Oni su se suočavali s odgovarajućim rizicima i prednostima.
Taking these risks meant accepting that, under certain unpredictable conditions, their retail activity might not be profitable.
Preuzimanje tih rizika značilo je prihvaćanje da od svoje djelatnosti maloprodaje u određenim nepredvidljivim uvjetima možda neće ostvarivati dobit.
Profitability would nevertheless return as soon as the tariffs allowed or the exceptional circumstances ceased to exist.
Ipak, ponovno bi ostvarivali dobit čim bi to bilo omogućeno zahvaljujući tarifama ili po prestanku postojanja iznimnih okolnosti.
ANALYSIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ALTMARK CASE-LAW
ANALIZA U SMISLU SUDSKE PRAKSE U PREDMETU ALTMARK
Spain submits that in 2005 the existence of regulated tariffs was not contrary to Union law, given that the deadline for opening up the market to all consumers, including households, was 1 July 2007.
Španjolska navodi da u 2005. postojanje reguliranih tarifa nije bilo u suprotnosti s pravom Unije s obzirom na to da je rok za otvaranje tržišta za sve potrošače, uključujući kućanstva, bio 1. srpnja 2007.
According to Spain, the coverage of the costs incurred by distributors in supplying at regulated tariffs complied with the four criteria of the Altmark case-law and therefore this intervention does not fall within the scope of State aid.
Prema mišljenju Španjolske podmirivanje troškova distributera pri opskrbi po reguliranim tarifama u skladu je s četiri kriterija sudske prakse u predmetu Altmark pa stoga ta intervencija nije obuhvaćena područjem primjene državne potpore.
First, the supply of electricity is a service of general interest and the State must intervene to prevent abuses of dominant positions arising from the existence of a single network (natural monopoly).
Kao prvo, opskrba električnom energijom usluga je od općeg interesa i država mora intervenirati radi sprečavanja zloupotreba vladajućih položaja koji proizlaze iz postojanja jedinstvene mreže (prirodni monopol).
Therefore, companies which carry on regulated activities discharge public service obligations.
Stoga društva koja obavljaju regulirane djelatnosti ispunjavaju obveze pružanja javne usluge.
Second, the parameters for setting the tariffs were set in an objective and transparent manner.
Kao drugo, parametri za utvrđivanje tarifa utvrđeni su na objektivan i transparentan način.
The remuneration of regulated activities was objective and transparent.
Naknada za regulirane djelatnosti objektivna je i transparentna.
Other EU undertakings were also able to enter the distribution market.
Ostala su poduzeća iz EU-a isto tako mogla ući na tržište distribucije.
Third, payments for regulated activities covered only the costs of discharging the public service obligation.
Kao treće, plaćanjima za regulirane djelatnosti podmiruju se samo troškovi ispunjavanja obveze pružanja javne usluge.
Distributors could obtain repayment only of the costs related to regulated activities.
Distributeri su mogli dobiti naknadu troškova koji su isključivo povezani s reguliranim djelatnostima.