natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this regard, the interested parties explain that the TSO had a discretion as to the use of the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
Naposljetku je Savezni sud potvrdio i da dodatna pristojba iz članka 19. nije bila naknada za upotrebu mreže, nego pristojba koja se dodatno naplaćivala uz naknade za upotrebu mreže.
The interested parties reject the finding that the TSO centralised the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge and thereby acted similarly to a fund.
Ona se nije smatrala cijenom za upotrebu mreže, već se radilo o dodatnoj pristojbi uvedenoj kako bi se pokrili financijski gubitci koje su mrežni operateri pretrpjeli zbog potpunog izuzeća.
It is explained that the joint project group ‘Horizontaler Belastungsausgleich’ (PG HOBA), to which the Opening Decision refers, was created on a voluntary basis and merely served the purpose of a technical coordination between the TSO.
Visoki regionalni sud u Düsseldorfu i Savezni sud oboje su proglasili potpuno izuzeće iz druge rečenice članka 19. stavka 2.
The interested parties also submit that the Paragraph 19-surcharge was not hypothecated to the financing of the exemption from network charges.
StromNEV-a iz 2011. i pojedinačno izuzeće dodijeljeno na tom temelju ništavima.
The compensation mechanism described in section 2.4 of this Decision needed to be regarded independently from the advantage granted to baseload consumers.
Nadalje, kao što je opisano u uvodnoj izjavi 55., u novom članku 32. stavku 7.
Without the compensation mechanism the network operators would have simply taken the losses in revenue into account when calculating the network charges for the non-exempted undertakings as in 2011.
StromNEV-a iz 2014. utvrđeno je da su odluke o izuzeću donesene na temelju druge rečenice članka 19. stavka 2.
The interested parties submit that the exemption from network charges did not distort competition or affect trade between Member States, as it only reduced the financial burden and competitive disadvantage that result from network charges in Germany, which are considered to be significantly higher than in other Member States.
StromNEV-a iz 2011. prestale važiti tek 1. siječnja 2014.
Only a limited number of interested parties argue that the exemption from network charges is compatible with the Internal Market.
Pravilnikom od 14. kolovoza 2013.
Their arguments essentially refer to the contribution of baseload consumers to the stability of the network and hence to security of supply in Europe.
Njemačka je ukinula potpuno izuzeće s početkom od 1. siječnja 2014. i ponovno je od tog datuma uvela pojedinačne naknade za upotrebu mreže za krajnje korisnike s godišnjom potrošnjom električne energije od 10 GWh i najmanje 7000 sati maksimalne upotrebe.
Moreover, they argue that in light of the Union's climate policies the exemption would strengthen the competitiveness of energy-intensive undertakings and therefore prevent them from shifting their activities to outside of the Union, which would result in negative consequences for the Union's economy, as it would e.g. lead to a loss of value chains and increase the Union's dependency on imports.
StromNEV-om, kako je izmijenjen člankom 1.
Finally, a limited number of interested parties claim that any recovery would be in violation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Pravilnika od 14. kolovoza 2013. („StromNEV iz 2014.”), utvrđena je obveza agencije BNetzA da uspostavi detaljna pravila o metodologiji za utvrđivanje pojedinačnih troškova mreže.
To this end, they argue that by finding that the full exemption was financed through State resources, the Commission would deviate from the interpretation of the State aid notion applied prior to the full exemption both in its own case practice as well as the case-law of the European Court of Justice, in particular its interpretation of State resources in the PreussenElektra-judgment.
U tu svrhu agencija BNetzA ponovno je uvela metodologiju fizičke putanje u okviru regulatorne odluke donesene na temelju članka 29.
After expiry of the deadline for interested party comments, the Commission received comments from two additional interested parties (Wacker Chemie AG and Koehler Kehl GmbH).
EnWG-a.
Wacker Chemie AG submitted comments on the physical path methodology developed by the BNetzA to determine individual network charges of baseload consumers as of 2014.
Iako je neznatno izmijenjena, metodologija se u biti poklapa s metodologijom fizičke putanje u obliku u kojem je primijenjena za izračun pojedinačnih naknada za upotrebu mreže na temelju StromNEV-a iz 2010. (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 19. ove Odluke).
Wacker considered that the physical path method was not an adequate way to determine individual charges because the network charge would depend on whether the baseload consumer would be located close to a baseload power plant or not.
Odluka Visokog regionalnog suda u Düsseldorfu od 8. svibnja 2013. i odluka Saveznog suda od 6. listopada 2015. primjenjivale su se samo na stranke u postupku i nisu dovele do općeg poništenja svih odluka o izuzeću.
Wacker also criticized the fact that hydro plants were not considered as baseload plants and that the plant in question had to be able to cover the entire potential load of the baseload consumer.
U odluci od 12. travnja 2016.
Wacker considered that the full exemption had been a simpler principle adequately reflecting the contribution of the baseload consumer to the stability of the network.
Savezni sud poništio je regulatornu odluku od 14. prosinca 2011. (vidjeti uvodne izjave od 35. do 39. ove Odluke).
Wacker, however, did not provide any elements describing the stabilizing effects of baseload consumers.
Sud je utvrdio da ta odluka nije dio ovlasti utvrđene člankom 24.
Koehler Kehl GmbH submitted comments on a report published by the BNetzA on 20 March 2015.
EnWG-a.
Koehler Kehl GmbH refers to statements in the report, which confirm the contribution of baseload electricity consumption to the network stability in the period of 2011-2013.
Nakon te presude njemačko zakonodavno tijelo izmijenilo je članak 24.
On that basis, Koehler Kehl GmbH argues that a different treatment of baseload consumers does not amount to a selective advantage.
EnWG-a i time retroaktivno ispravilo nepostojanje ovlasti u pogledu dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19..
To the extent that the evaluation report suggests that stable baseload electricity consumption is becoming less relevant for network stability, Koehler Kehl GmBH however questions the validity of the report.
PRIMJEDBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANA
To this end, its comments challenge the methodology applied to establish the report as being inaccurate, as the report relies e.g. on statements made by low voltage network operators to which, however, no baseload consumer is connected.
Komisija je primila primjedbe poduzetnika Ahlstrom GmbH, AlzChem AG, Aurubis AG, Bender GmbH, Fitesa Germany GmbH, Evonik Industries AG, Hans Adler OHG, Lindes Gas Produktionsgesellschaft, Norske Skog Walsum GmbH, Oxxynova GmbH, Ruhr Oel GmbH, Saalemühle Alsleben GmbH, Sasol Wax GmbH, SETEX-Textil GmbH, Bundesverband der Energieabnehmer e.V., Currenta GmbH & Co. KG, Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH, InfraServ GmbH & Co. KG, Naturin Viscofan GmbH, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Metalle, Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH, Norsk Hydro ASA, Papierfabrik Scheufelen GmbH & Co. KG, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, Trimet Aluminium AG, UPM GmbH, Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V., Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e.V. i Xstrata Zink GmbH/Glencore.
The report therefore would not contain any valid statement that would reject the stabilizing effect of baseload consumption.
U svim primljenim primjedbama navodi se da potpuno izuzeće nije državna potpora.
In addition, the comments highlight the continuous need for baseload generation plants and thus baseload consumption for providing network stabilizing.
Sažeti pregled argumenata iznesenih u različitim primjedbama kako bi se potkrijepila ta tvrdnja navodi se u uvodnim izjavama u nastavku.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
Zainteresirane strane smatraju da potpuno izuzeće nije donijelo prednost izuzetim potrošačima baznog opterećenja.
Germany considers the full exemption subject of the Opening Decision not to be State aid, as it neither conferred a selective advantage nor was financed through State resources.
Zainteresirane strane smatraju da je potpuno izuzeće bilo naknada za doprinos potrošača baznog opterećenja sveukupnoj stabilnosti mreže električne energije.
Alternatively, they consider the exemption to be compatible with the internal market.
Jedna zainteresirana strana smatra da je potpuno izuzeće naknada za uslugu od općeg gospodarskog interesa u smislu presude Altmark.
In this regard, they also stress the need of keeping a level-playing field for energy-intensive industries in Europe while the share of electricity from renewable energies increases.
Konkretno, tvrdi se da je potrošnja baznog opterećenja, koja omogućuje dobivanje potpunog izuzeća, bila preduvjet za neprekidnu proizvodnju električne energije u elektranama opremljenima sinkronim generatorima.
Germany considers that the full exemption was within the logic of the system of network charges in Germany, in particular with the principle that network charges should be proportionate (to costs) and non-discriminatory.
Oni se smatraju neophodnima za stabilnost mreže jer pomažu u izbjegavanju frekvencijskih pomaka.
They submit that the principle of cost-causality enshrined in Paragraph 16(1) of the StromNEV as well as the requirement set out in the second sentence of Paragraph 17(1) of the StromNEV, according to which network charges have to reflect the actual hours of use, made it necessary to treat baseload consumers differently than other end consumers.
Nekoliko zainteresiranih strana u tom pogledu upućuje na studiju od 20. siječnja 2012. o minimalnoj količini energije koju konvencionalne elektrane u Njemačkoj moraju proizvesti kako bi se osiguralo sigurno upravljanje mrežom u kontekstu povećanja udjela energije iz obnovljivih izvora („studija iz 2012.”).
They added that the exemption should be viewed as an adequate compensation for the baseload consumers' contribution to the stability of the network.
Isto tako, nekoliko zainteresiranih strana smatra da prednost nije selektivna, nego opravdana logikom i prirodom naknada za upotrebu mreže u Njemačkoj.
Germany explains that baseload consumers are very different from ‘typical consumers’.
U tom pogledu obrazlažu da predvidljivost obrasca potrošnje potrošača baznog opterećenja dovodi do znatnog smanjenja troškova mreže jer se time smanjuje potreba za energijom uravnoteženja i rezervama.
While typical consumers had a volatile consumption that cannot entirely be predicted, baseload consumers were consumers that are constantly withdrawing the same amount of electricity from the grid.
Nadalje, zbog nepromjenjivog obrasca potrošnje čuva se mrežna oprema i time smanjuju materijalni troškovi.
The high predictability of baseload electricity consumption reduced the need for balancing electricity and reserves as well as the need for re-dispatching.
U protivnom te troškove snose OPS-i jer je to jedna od njihovih odgovornosti povezanih s mrežom i utvrđenih u članku 11.
In general, the high predictability facilitates network planning and maximized the use of the generation fleet (provided that the generation fleet is mostly composed of conventional plants).
EnWG-a.
However, if they were subject to the network charges calculated according to Paragraph 16 and Paragraph 17 of the StromNEV, baseload consumers would have to fully contribute to all those costs while they are not causing such costs.
Neke zainteresirane strane tvrde i da potrošači baznog opterećenja pridonose regulaciji napona i sprječavanju nestanka struje te da im se to nadoknađuje potpunim izuzećem.
As baseload consumers were generally located in the vicinity of electricity generation capacities, they were using a smaller portion of the grid and there were less grid losses connected to their consumption.
Naposljetku se u primjedbama navodi da izuzeta potrošnja baznog opterećenja jamči dobavu električne energije proizvedene iz nestalnih obnovljivih izvora.
Moreover, the exempted baseload consumption would not contribute to an increased need for grid development (unless they are themselves the reason for the grid expansion) as only the variation of load on top of the constant baseload consumption were to be taken into account for capacity reinforcement of the grid.
Time se smanjuju troškovi širenja mreže i kompenzacijska plaćanja iz Zakona o obnovljivoj energiji (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, „EEG”).
Finally, baseload consumers also had a positive impact on frequency regulation given that a constant load of a certain size could mitigate frequency disturbances and give the network operator more time to react.
Nadalje, zainteresirane strane smatraju da se potpuno izuzeće ne financira iz državnih sredstava.
Germany further explains that the general system of network charges did not adequately reflect the network costs caused by the exempted baseload consumption in comparison to consumers with variable consumption patterns.
Zainteresirane strane smatraju da je druga rečenica članka 19. stavka 2.
In particular, the simultaneity function was based on historical figures but could not guarantee that variable consumers would consume at the same time as they did in the past.
StromNEV-a iz 2011. bila dio općeg sustava naknada za upotrebu mreže i da se stoga radilo samo o regulaciji cijene.
Hence, while variable consumers with a low amount of hours of full use were empirically also characterized by a low simultaneity factor, their electricity consumption nevertheless could (due to the unpredictability of the consumption) fluctuate around the annual peak load.
Činjenica da dodjela potpunog izuzeća ovisi o odobrenju agencije BNetzA smatra se isključivo formalnosti koja sama po sebi ne bi bila dostatna za zaključak da se potpuno izuzeće financira iz državnih sredstava.
This obliged network operators to build in a safety margin when they develop the network.
Zainteresirane strane posebno tvrde da se ne može smatrati da se potpuno izuzeće financira iz državnih sredstava nakon što je 2012. uvedena dodatna pristojba iz članka 19.
This safety margin was not needed for baseload consumer.
Dodatna pristojba iz članka 19. smatra se dijelom općeg sustava naknada za upotrebu mreže.
As a consequence, the simultaneity function would overestimate the costs caused by baseload consumption in relation to variable consumers.
Stoga zainteresirane strane osporavaju da je dodatna pristojba iz članka 19. bila parafiskalni namet.
Finally, Germany explains that a large and stable load lead to economies of scale that the network charge determination on the basis of the simultaneity function did not take into account.
U svojem objašnjenju zainteresirane strane tvrdile su da iznos dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19. nije utvrđivala država, nego su ga računali mrežni operateri na temelju gubitaka prihoda nastalih zbog potpunog izuzeća.
The network charge determination on the basis of the simultaneity function would therefore overestimate the network charges due by baseload consumers.
Dodatna pristojba iz članka 19. poslužila bi isključivo za ujednačavanje financijskog opterećenja svih korisnika mreže u Njemačkoj koje je nastalo zbog potpunog izuzeća.
Germany concludes on this point that compared to variable consumers baseload consumers lead to a series of cost reductions and cost savings that benefitted all network users.
Prihodi od dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19. usto se ne bi usmjeravali u državni proračun i ne bi bili pod nadzorom države.
Those savings could not be calculated with accuracy but they could be computed indirectly by allocating the individual costs of the baseload consumer (incremental costs).
U tom pogledu zainteresirane strane objasnile su da su OPS-i imali diskrecijsko pravo na upotrebu prihoda od dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19.
In order to reach 7000 hours of use, end users would need to take electricity out of the network corresponding to the maximum annual peak load in every quarter of an hour over a period corresponding to 80 % of the year.
Objasnile su da je zajednička projektna skupina „Horizontaler Belastungsausgleich” (PG HOBA), na koju se upućuje u odluci o pokretanju postupka, uspostavljena dobrovoljno i isključivo radi tehničke koordinacije među OPS-ima.
The 7000 hours of full use were thus not a function of the quantity of electricity consumed but of the stability of the consumption.
Zainteresirane strane tvrde i da ne postoji obvezna namjenska veza između dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19. i financiranja izuzeća od naknada za upotrebu mreže.
In other terms, 7000 hours of full use could be reached only if the consumer had exactly the same take off at least 80 % of the entire year.
Prednost ostvarena izuzećem ostvarila bi se i bez dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19., a u tom bi slučaju gubitke prihoda nastale zbog potpunog izuzeća trebali pokriti mrežni operateri.
Germany also explains that the 10 GWh-requirement has been defined as such because network users would consider leaving the general system of network charges only at a certain level of electricity consumption.
Mehanizam naknade troškova opisan u odjeljku 2.4. ove Odluke trebao se razmatrati odvojeno od prednosti dane potrošačima baznog opterećenja.
With regard to the potential involvement of State resources, Germany considers that the State did not exercise any control over the financing of the exemption.
Da mehanizam naknade troškova nije postojao, mrežni operateri naprosto bi gubitke prihoda uzeli u obzir pri izračunu naknada za upotrebu mreže za neizuzete poduzetnike, baš kao i 2011.
It submits that the mere approval of the exemption by the regulatory authorities was not sufficient to establish such control.
Zainteresirane strane tvrdile su da izuzeće od naknada za upotrebu mreže nije narušilo tržišno natjecanje ili utjecalo na trgovinu među državama članica jer se njime samo smanjilo financijsko opterećenje i poboljšao nepovoljan konkurentski položaj koji se javljaju zbog naknada za upotrebu mreže u Njemačkoj, za koje se smatra da su znatno više nego u ostalim državama članicama.
Furthermore, Germany argues that the Paragraph 19-surcharge did not qualify as a levy within the meaning of the Essent judgment.
Samo je manji broj zainteresiranih strana tvrdio da je izuzeće od naknada za upotrebu mreže spojivo s unutarnjim tržištem.
In support of that argument, Germany submits that the Paragraph 19-surcharge was not determined by the State, but by the TSO, which were mainly private companies.
U njihovim se argumentima uglavnom upućivalo na doprinos potrošača baznog opterećenja stabilnosti mreže i stoga sigurnosti opskrbe u Europi.
Also, contrary to the Essent judgment, no surplus of the Paragraph 19-surcharge would accrue to the State budget.
Nadalje, tvrdile su da bi s obzirom na klimatsku politiku Unije izuzeće povećalo konkurentnost energetski intenzivnih poduzetnika i stoga ih spriječilo u premještanju svojih djelatnosti izvan Unije, što bi negativno utjecalo na gospodarstvo Unije jer bi na primjer dovelo do gubitka vrijednosnih lanaca i povećanja ovisnosti Unije o uvozu.
Finally, the TSO were considered to be free in the use of the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
Naposljetku, manji broj zainteresiranih strana tvrdio je da bi bilo kakav povrat bio povreda načela zaštite legitimnih očekivanja.
Germany also contends that the mere fact that the Paragraph 19-surcharge had been introduced by the BNetzA was not in itself sufficient to establish State control.
U tom smislu tvrdile su da bi Komisija, kada bi utvrdila da se potpuno izuzeće financiralo putem državnih sredstava, odstupala od tumačenja koncepta državne potpore koji se primjenjivao u njezinoj praksi i u sudskoj praksi Suda Europske unije prije potpunog izuzeća, a posebno od svojeg tumačenja državnih sredstava iz presude u predmetu PreussenElektra.
In this regard, Germany explains that the Paragraph 19-surcharge was introduced in order to allow for an equalisation of the losses in revenue following the exemption.
Nakon isteka roka za podnošenje primjedbi zainteresiranih strana Komisija je primila primjedbe još dviju zainteresiranih strana (Wacker Chemie AG i Koehler Kehl GmbH).
Such equalisation across Germany was necessary due to the regulatory specificities in Germany, where the transmission network is divided into four geographical areas and four TSO.
Wacker je prigovorio na izostavljanje hidroelektrana iz kategorije elektrana baznog opterećenja te napomenuo da takva elektrana mora imati kapacitet za čitavo potencijalno opterećenje potrošača baznog opterećenja.
The alternative would have consisted in increasing the network charges for the non-exempted end users within a concerning network area, which however would have led to geographically different cost burdens in Germany.
Wacker je smatrao da je potpuno izuzeće bilo jednostavnije načelo koje je na prikladan način odražavalo doprinos potrošača baznog opterećenja stabilnosti mreže.
The amount of the cost burden thus depended on the amount of exemptions within the respective network area.
No Wacker nije iznio argumente u kojima je opisao stabilizirajuće učinke potrošača baznog opterećenja.
As regards 2011, Germany explains that the losses in revenues that occurred in 2011 could not be recouped through network charges in 2011 as network charges had to be established in advance.
Koehler Kehl GmbH dostavio je primjedbe na izvješće koje je agencija BNetzA objavila 20. ožujka 2015..
They could also not be recouped in 2012 as network charges have to be calculated based on the forecasted network costs.
Koehler Kehl GmbH uputio je na tvrdnje u izvješću koje potvrđuju da je potrošnja bazne električne energije pridonosila stabilnosti mreže od 2011. do 2013.
If then the losses in revenue would have led to a negative difference between the obtained revenues and the authorized maximum revenue level, this difference would be booked on the regulatory account.
U skladu s time izvješće ne bi sadržavalo nijednu valjanu izjavu kojom bi se pobio stabilizirajući učinak potrošnje baznog opterećenja.
If at the end of the regulatory there was still a negative balance, it might translate into an increase of the maximum authorized revenue levels in the next regulatory period.
Osim toga, u primjedbama je istaknuta stalna potreba za elektranama za proizvodnju baznog opterećenja, a tako i potrošnjom baznog opterećenja kako bi se osigurala stabilnost mreže.
In this regard, Germany explains furthermore that the competent regulatory authority neither had ownership of the Regulierungskonto nor control over it.
PRIMJEDBE NJEMAČKE
The Regulierungskonto served the mere purpose of offsetting the proceeds from network charges that exceed the approved maximum revenue level over the course of specific regulatory period under the system described in recital 41.
Njemačka smatra da potpuno izuzeće koje je predmet odluke o pokretanju postupka nije državna potpora jer njime nije dana selektivna prednost i jer se nije financiralo putem državnih sredstava.
Accordingly, no liquid assets were registered on the Regulierungskonto that could be used to finance the losses in revenue resulting from the exemption.
Usto, smatra da je izuzeće spojivo s unutarnjim tržištem.
Germany also considers the full exemption not to be creating an additional burden on the State budget.
U tom pogledu ističe i potrebu da se očuvaju jednaki uvjeti za energetski intenzivne industrije u Europi i istodobno poveća udio električne energije iz obnovljivih izvora.
In particular, the TSO could not be assimilated to the State.
Njemačka smatra da je potpuno izuzeće u skladu s logikom sustava naknada za upotrebu mreže u Njemačkoj, posebno s načelom da naknade za upotrebu mreže moraju biti proporcionalne (troškovima) i nediskriminirajuće.
By coordinating their procedures as to the administration of the Paragraph 19-surcharge for the purpose of efficiency and transparency, they would not have acted similarly to a fund.
Tvrdi da se zbog načela stvarnog troška iz članka 16. stavka 1.