natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As Germany has confirmed by Email of 24 October 2017, based on the then applicable ARegV 2011, the losses in revenue incurred in 2011 (that is to say the difference between allowed revenues and actually obtained revenues) could not be recouped by an adaptation of the 2011 network charges given that network charges had to be set in advance in the framework of the ‘Verprobung’ pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the StromNEV and could not be modified over the course of that year.
Kao što je objašnjeno u nastavku, agencija BNetzA donijela je regulatornu odluku kako bi detaljnije uredila sustav dodatne pristojbe, koji se konačno počeo primjenjivati 2012. (vidjeti odjeljak 2.4.2.).
They were actually obliged to set this loss off with profits from other years of the regulatory period.
Za razliku od toga šesta i sedma rečenica članka 19. stavka 2.
This is also why network operators challenged the full exemption and the BNetzA regulatory decision of 14 December 2011.
StromNEV-a iz 2011. nisu se primjenjivale u 2011. i svaki mrežni operater snosio je svoje troškove (vidjeti odjeljak 2.4.3.).
The losses in revenue incurred by the network operators due to the full exemption could also not be recouped through an increase in network charges in 2012 given that network charges for 2012 could only be linked to forecasted costs to be incurred in 2012.
FINANCIRANJE NA TEMELJU „PRISTOJBE IZ ČLANKA 19.”
By contrast, the losses in revenue – if not already compensated by efficiency gains in 2011 – had to be booked on the Regulierungskonto.
OD 2012.
Where, at the end of the first regulatory period, the losses in revenue for 2011 were set off against additional revenues in other years of that regulatory period, no compensation of the losses would occur.
Agencija BNetzA zatim je ODS-ima propisala obvezu mjesečnog prijenosa prihoda od te dodatne pristojbe OPS-ima (kako je utvrđeno i člankom 9. stavkom 5.
Only where the losses could not be set off against additional revenues in the regulatory period ending in 2013 could the loss of revenues in 2011 lead to an indirect compensation over the next regulatory period by leading to a slight increase of the approved maximum revenue level of the next regulatory period.
KWKG-a na koji se upućuje u sedmoj rečenici članka 19. stavka 2.
However, even in that situation, as the ARegV does not compensate full costs, but only costs of an efficient operator, there would normally not be a full compensation.
StromNEV-a iz 2011.).
It follows from the explanatory memorandum to the StromNEV 2011 that the full exemption for baseload consumers had been introduced because of the alleged stabilizing effects that baseload consumers have on the network.
StromNEV-a iz 2011. transparentno i ravnomjerno raspoređuje i posljedično stvaraju jednaki uvjeti za sve potrošače električne energije u Njemačkoj.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Iznos dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19. nije računala agencija BNetzA, već su ga OPS-i trebali izračunati svake godine na temelju metodologije koju je utvrdila agencija BNetzA.
In its Opening Decision, the Commission concluded that the full exemption conferred a selective advantage on such baseload consumers that have an annual electricity consumption exceeding 7000 hours of full use and 10 GWh of consumption.
To je značilo da OPS-i s jedne strane moraju utvrditi predviđene financijske gubitke nastale zbog potpunog izuzeća u usporedbi s punom naknadom za upotrebu mreže, a s druge strane predviđenu potrošnju kako bi mogli odrediti dodatnu pristojbu iz članka 19. po kWh.
Moreover, the Commission found that the Paragraph 19-surcharge, which was introduced in 2012, constituted a State resource and that the TSO had been appointed to administer it while being monitored by the BNetzA through the Regulierungskonto.
No u prvoj godini rada (konkretno 2012.) agencija BNetzA odredila je da se dodatnom pristojbom iz članka 19. mora vratiti iznos od 440 milijuna EUR.
The Commission indicated that the existence of State resources could be derived from the fact that Paragraph 9 of the KWKG entitled the network operators to levy a surcharge from the network users, the proceeds of which would be administered by the TSO.
Od tog iznosa trebalo je vratiti 300 milijuna EUR kako bi se nadoknadili gubitci prihoda nastali zbog potpunog izuzeća.
Also, the Commission considered that the losses in revenue due to the full exemption in 2011 could have been compensated via the Regulierungskonto which the Commission found to be monitored by the BNetzA.
Preostalih 140 milijuna EUR bilo je namijenjeno pokrivanju gubitaka prihoda nastalih zbog pojedinačnih naknada za upotrebu mreže koje su se temeljile na prvoj rečenici članka 19. stavka 2.
The Commission also noted that Germany had not presented any compatibility ground for the aid and had merely referred to the stabilising impact on networks without quantifying that impact.
StromNEV-a iz 2011.
The Commission therefore opened the formal investigation procedure.
Prije izmjena StromNEV-a uvedenih člankom 7.
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE OPENING DECISION
Zakona od 26. srpnja 2011. gubitci prihoda nastali zbog pojedinačnih naknada za upotrebu mreže netipičnih korisnika mreže nadoknađeni su iz naknada za upotrebu mreže pod uvjetom da je mrežni operater bio učinkovito poduzeće i da je stoga mogao na temelju ARegV-a nadoknaditi sve svoje troškove.
As network operators were not guaranteed that they would recoup the loss of revenues resulting from the full exemption in 2011, several of them challenged exemption decisions of the BNetzA and also directly the regulatory decision of 14 December 2011.
S obzirom na to da su mrežni operateri unaprijed znali da će neki korisnici plaćati manji iznos, to su mogli uzeti u obzir već pri izračunu naknada za upotrebu mreže iz članka 20.
By order of 8 May 2013, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf concluded that the full exemption in place between 2011 and 2013 was illegal and revoked the full exemption granted to the undertaking concerned by the procedure before that Court.
StromNEV-a.
The Higher Regional Court found that the full exemption granted under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 did not respect the limits of Paragraph 24 of the EnWG 2011 which entitled the federal government merely to define the modalities of calculating individual network charges, but not to introduce a full exemption from network charges.
No prema šestoj i sedmoj rečenici članka 19. stavka 2.
The Higher Regional Court further observed that network charges are the price for a service supplied to them (that is to say the access to and the use of the network) and that the full exemption could not be seen as an individual network charge or a price for a service but corresponded to a privilege, an exception to the principle that a proportionate network charge should be paid to network operators for the use of the network.
StromNEV-a iz 2011., gubitci prihoda nastalih zbog pojedinačnih naknada za upotrebu mreže izvanvršnih potrošača i potpuno izuzeće potrošača baznog opterećenja morali su se nadoknaditi posebnom dodatnom pristojbom.
It noted that the stabilising effect of baseload consumers could at most justify a reduced network charge but not a full exemption given that also those baseload consumers were using the network.
Osim toga, regulatornom odlukom od 14. prosinca 2011. utvrđeno je da OPS-i moraju svake godine utvrditi iznos financijskih sredstava koji su im stvarno bili potrebni u prethodnoj godini.
Finally the Higher Regional Court observed that the Paragraph 19-surcharge did not correspond to a network charge but to a surcharge that is collected in addition to network charges; it did not correspond to the price for the use of the network but merely corresponded to a surcharge introduced to cover the financial losses caused to network operators by the full exemption..
Ako su prihodi od dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19. premašivali iznos koji je stvarno potreban kako bi se OPS-ima nadoknadili gubitci prihoda nastali zbog potpunog izuzeća i naknada isplaćenih ODS-ima, dodatna bi se pristojba u narednoj godini trebala smanjiti proporcionalno toj razlici.
The Federal Court of Justice further observed that the first and the third sentence of Paragraph 24(1) of the EnWG 2011 were based on the principle that network operators are entitled to a compensation for the use of their networks and that the stabilising effect of baseload consumers could not be seen as a compensation to the network operator for the use of the network given that this stabilising impact was not a compensation paid in exchange of the use of the network but simply the consequence of the use of the network.
U regulatornoj odluci od 14. prosinca 2011. izričito je navedeno da se na gubitke prihoda nastale 2011. ne primjenjuje mehanizam naknade troškova i prijeboja opisan u uvodnoj izjavi 30.
Reductions will have to take account of the specific impact of each baseload consumer on the network.
ODS-i i OPS-i morali su pokriti te gubitke prihoda iz vlastitih sredstava.
Finally, the Federal Court of Justice also confirmed that the Paragraph 19-surcharge did not correspond to a network charge but to a surcharge that is collected in addition to network charges; it did not correspond to the price for the use of the network but merely corresponded to a surcharge introduced to cover the financial losses caused to network operators by the full exemption.
Te gubitke mogli su uključiti u svoje takozvane regulatorne račune („Regulierungskonto”), koji su uspostavljeni ARegV-om.
Both the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf and Federal Court of Justice declared the full exemption in the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 and the individual exemption granted on that basis for void.
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 32., ARegV-om je uspostavljen regulatorni sustav čiji je cilj poticanje mrežnih operatera na učinkovitije upravljanje mrežom i u okviru kojega agencija BNetzA utvrđuje njihovu maksimalnu razinu prihoda.
However, it appears from German Administrative Law that the German State could de facto not ask for reimbursement by the beneficiaries due to prescription rules.
Ta odobrena maksimalna razina prihoda utvrđuje se za regulatorno razdoblje od najviše 5 godina.
Moreover, as described in recital 55, the new Paragraph 32(7) of the StromNEV 2014 provides that the exemption decisions adopted on the basis of the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 stopped being valid only on 1 January 2014.
Kako bi se utvrdila ta maksimalna razina prihoda, mrežni operateri obvezni su dostaviti agenciji BNetzA razne računovodstvene podatke (uključujući troškove i prihode) prije početka regulatornog razdoblja.
By ordinance of 14 August 2013 Germany abolished the full exemption as of 1 January 2014 and reintroduced as of that date individual network charges for end users with an annual electricity consumption reaching 10 GWh and at least 7000 hours of full use.
Osim toga, maksimalna razina prihoda koje mrežni operateri mogu ostvariti od korisnika mreže mijenja se tijekom petogodišnjeg regulatornog razdoblja kako bi se uzela u obzir neučinkovitost mrežnih operatera i na taj ih način potaknula da povećaju učinkovitost.
The BNetzA was required to lay down detailed rules on the methodology for determining the individual network costs under the StromNEV as amended by Article 1 of the ordinance of 14 August 2013 (‘StromNEV 2014’).
To znači da će se odobrena maksimalna razina prihoda smanjiti tijekom regulatornog razdoblja.
To this end, the BNetzA reintroduced the physical path methodology by a regulatory decision adopted on the basis of Paragraph 29 of the EnWG.
Učinkovitost mrežnog operatera mjeri BNetzA prije regulatornog razdoblja usporedbom mrežnih operatera.
Although slightly modified, the methodology corresponds in substance to the physical path methodology as it was applied for the calculation of individual network charges under the StromNEV 2010 (see recital 19 of this Decision).
Pozitivna ili negativna razlika između odobrene maksimalne razine prihoda i stvarno ostvarenih prihoda knjiži se u poseban regulatorni račun, koji je računovodstveni alat kojim upravlja agencija BNetzA (članak 5.
The regulatory decision on the physical path methodology was upheld by order of 13 December 2016 of the Federal Court of Justice.
ARegV-a) kako bi usmjeravala mrežne operatere prema većoj učinkovitosti.
The Federal Court of Justice specifically acknowledged that the physical path methodology ensures an assessment of the network costs caused by baseload consumers in line with the cost-causality principle.
Na kraju petogodišnjeg razdoblja od 2009. do 2013. višak prihoda prebija se viškom smanjenja prihoda.
Both the order of 8 May 2013 of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf and the order of 6 October 2015 of the Federal Court of Justice had an effect only on the parties to the procedure and did not lead to a general revocation of all exemption decisions.
Nastala pozitivna ili negativna bilanca prenosila se u sljedeće regulatorno razdoblje (članak 5. stavak 4.
Paragraph 32(7) of the StromNEV 2014 therefore provides that exemption decisions adopted by a regulator on the basis of the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 would stop to be valid as of 1 January 2014.
ARegV-a iz 2011.) i rasporedila na pet godina drugog regulatornog razdoblja kao smanjenje ili povećanje primjenjive maksimalne razine prihoda.
Pending requests for exemption decisions adopted by a regulator on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 as well as cases in which the exemption decision was revoked by a Court would be subject to the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2014 (with retroactive effect as of 1 January 2012.
No ako bi prihodi ostvareni u određenoj godini regulatornog razdoblja premašivali odobrenu maksimalnu razinu prihoda za više od 5 %, predmetni mrežni operater morao bi prilagoditi svoje naknade za upotrebu mreže (kako bi se izbjeglo ponavljanje iste situacije u sljedećoj godini i kako bi se izbjegla odgoda smanjenja naknada za upotrebu mreže do sljedećeg regulatornog razdoblja).
For 2011 in those same cases, the StromNEV as predating the introduction of the full exemption was applied (i.e. the individual network charges based on the physical path – if relevant).
Ako bi prihodi ostvareni u određenoj godini regulatornog razdoblja bili niži od odobrene maksimalne razine prihoda za više od 5 %, predmetni mrežni operater imao bi pravo prilagoditi svoje naknade za upotrebu mreže (kako bi se izbjeglo ponavljanje iste situacije u sljedećoj godini i kako bi se izbjeglo iznenadno povećanje naknada za upotrebu mreže u sljedećem regulatornom razdoblju).
By order of 12 April 2016, the Federal Court of Justice annulled the regulatory decision of 14 December 2011 (see recitals 35 to 39 of this Decision).
No mrežni operater u posljednjem je slučaju mogao odabrati želi li prilagoditi naknade za upotrebu mreže ili ne..
The Court found that that decision was not covered by the empowerment laid down in Paragraph 24 of the EnWG.
U tom je okviru mrežnim operaterima trebalo nadoknaditi gubitke prihoda nastale 2011. zbog potpunog izuzeća.
In the aftermath of that judgment the German legislator amended Paragraph 24 of the EnWG and thereby retroactively remedied the lack of an empowerment for the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
Upravo zato su mrežni operateri osporavali potpuno izuzeće i regulatornu odluku agencije BNetzA od 14. prosinca 2011.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Ako su se na kraju prvog regulatornog razdoblja gubitci prihoda za 2011. prebili dodatnim prihodima iz ostalih godina tog regulatornog razdoblja, tada se ti gubitci nisu nadoknađivali.
The Commission received comments from 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. and Xstrata Zink GmbH/Glencore.
Samo kada se nisu mogli prebiti dodatnim prihodima u regulatornom razdoblju koje je završilo 2013., gubitci prihoda u 2011. mogli su se neizravno nadoknaditi u sljedećem regulatornom razdoblju blagim povećanjem odobrene maksimalne razine prihoda u sljedećem regulatornom razdoblju.
All comments received argue that the full exemption does not constitute State aid.
No čak i u tom slučaju ne bi se radilo o potpunoj naknadi jer ARegV-om nije predviđena naknada svih troškova, nego samo troškova učinkovitog operatera.
The arguments put forward by the various comments in order to support this view are summarized in the following recitals.
CILJ POTPUNOG IZUZEĆA
The interested parties consider that the full exemption did not confer an advantage on the exempted baseload consumers.
Prema obrazloženju StromNEV-a iz 2011. potpuno izuzeće potrošača baznog opterećenja uvedeno je zbog navodnih stabilizacijskih učinaka koje potrošači baznog opterećenja imaju na mrežu.
According to the interested parties, the full exemption was a compensation for the baseload consumers' contribution to the overall stability of the electricity network.
RAZLOZI ZA POKRETANJE POSTUPKA
One interested party considers that the full exemption corresponds to the compensation of a service of general economic interest within the meaning of the Altmark judgment.
U odluci o pokretanju postupka Komisija je zaključila da je potpuno izuzeće omogućilo selektivnu prednost potrošačima baznog opterećenja čija godišnja potrošnja električne energije premašuje 7000 sati maksimalne upotrebe i 10 GWh.
In particular, it is put forward that the baseload consumption qualifying for the full exemption was a prerequisite for a continuous electricity generation from power plants equipped with synchronous generators.
Nadalje, Komisija je utvrdila da se dodatna pristojba iz članka 19. uvedena 2012. smatra državnim sredstvima te da je upravljanje njome povjereno OPS-ima, a njezin nadzor agenciji BNetzA u okviru regulatornog računa.
The latter are considered necessary for the stability of the network as they help to avoid frequency shifts.
Kad je riječ o 2011., Komisija je izrazila zabrinutost da se potpuno izuzeće moglo financirati iz državnih sredstva i prije uvođenja dodatne pristojbe iz članka 19.
Several interested parties refer in this respect to a study of 20 January 2012 into the minimum generation by conventional power plants needed in Germany to ensure a secured network management in the context of high renewable penetration (the ‘2012 Study’).
Komisija je ukazala na to da se postojanje državnih sredstava može izvesti iz činjenice da se člankom 9.
Alternatively, several interested parties consider the advantage not to be selective but to be justified by the logic and nature of network charges in Germany.
KWKG-a mrežnim operaterima dodijelilo pravo na naplatu dodatne pristojbe od korisnika mreže, a prihodima od tih pristojbi upravljali bi OPS-i.
They explain in this respect that the predictability of the consumption pattern of the baseload consumers leads to a significant reduction of network costs as it would reduce the need for balancing energy and reserves.
Komisija je smatrala i da su se gubitci prihoda nastali zbog potpunog izuzeća u 2011. mogli nadoknaditi putem regulatornog računa, za koji je Komisija utvrdila da je bio pod nadzorom agencije BNetzA.
Moreover, the continuous consumption pattern would conserve the network equipment longer and thereby reduce material costs.
Komisija je navela i da Njemačka nije iznijela nijedan temelj spojivosti potpore i samo je uputila na stabilizacijski učinak na mreže bez njegove kvantifikacije.
The aforementioned costs would otherwise have to be borne by the TSO as part of their network responsibilities defined in Paragraph 11 of the EnWG.
Stoga je Komisija pokrenula službeni istražni postupak.
Some of the interested parties also argue that baseload consumers contribute to voltage control and the prevention of black-outs and that the full exemption compensates them for that.
DOGAĐAJI NAKON ODLUKE O POKRETANJU POSTUPKA
Finally, the comments consider the exempted baseload consumption to guarantee the feed-in of electricity produced from intermittent renewable energy sources.
Visoki regionalni sud utvrdio je da potpuno izuzeće koje se dodjeljuje na temelju druge rečenice članka 19. stavka 2.
Thereby, both grid expansion costs and compensation payments under the Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, ‘EEG’) would be reduced.
StromNEV-a iz 2011. nije u skladu s ograničenjima iz članka 24.
Furthermore, the interested parties consider the full exemption not to be financed through State resources.
EnWG-a iz 2011., kojim je saveznoj vladi isključivo dodijeljeno pravo na utvrđivanje načina izračuna pojedinačnih naknada za upotrebu mreže, a ne i na uvođenje potpunog izuzeća od njih.
According to the interested parties, the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 was part of the overall system of network charges and therefore constituted a mere price regulation.
Visoki regionalni sud nadalje je naveo da su naknade za upotrebu mreže cijene za uslugu koja se isporučuje (tj. pristup mreži i upotreba mreže) i da se potpuno izuzeće nije moglo smatrati pojedinačnom naknadom za upotrebu mreže ili cijenom za uslugu, nego povlasticom, iznimkom od načela da se za upotrebu mreže mrežnim operaterima treba plaćati proporcionalna naknada.
The fact that the full exemption is dependent on an authorization to be delivered by the BNetzA is considered to be a purely formal act which in itself would not suffice to establish that the full exemption is financed through State resources.
Naveo je da bi stabilizirajući učinak potrošača baznog opterećenja eventualno mogao opravdati smanjenu naknadu za upotrebu mreže, no ne i potpuno izuzeće jer i ti potrošači baznog opterećenja upotrebljavaju mrežu.
The interested parties argue in particular that the full exemption could not be regarded to be financed through State resources following the introduction of the Paragraph 19-surcharge in 2012.
Naposljetku je Visoki regionalni sud naveo da dodatna pristojba iz članka 19. nije bila naknada za upotrebu mreže, nego pristojba koja se dodatno naplaćivala uz naknade za upotrebu mreže.
The Paragraph 19-surcharge is considered to be part of the overall system of network charges.
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.
Accordingly, the interested parties reject the qualification of the Paragraph 19-surcharge as a parafiscal levy.
Savezni sud nadalje je naveo da su se prva i treća rečenica članka 24. stavka 1.
By way of explanation, the interested parties submit that the amount of the Paragraph 19-surcharge was not determined by the State, but was rather calculated by the network operators on the basis of the losses in revenue resulting from the full exemption.
EnWG-a iz 2011. temeljile na načelu da mrežni operateri imaju pravo na naknadu za upotrebu njihovih mreža i da se stabilizirajući učinak potrošača baznog opterećenja ne može smatrati naknadom koja se mrežnom operateru plaća za upotrebu mreže jer taj stabilizirajući učinak nije bio naknada plaćena u zamjenu za upotrebu mreže, nego naprosto posljedica upotrebe mreže.
The Paragraph 19-surcharge would serve the mere purpose of equalising the financial burden resulting from the full exemption for all network users in Germany.
Savezni sud naveo je i da se, iako bi taj stabilizirajući učinak mogao biti od gospodarskog interesa mrežnim operaterima i opravdati smanjene naknade za upotrebu mreže, ne može automatski pretpostaviti da taj stabilizirajući učinak opravdava potpuno izuzeće samo na temelju broja sati maksimalne upotrebe, posebno jer potrošači baznog opterećenja pridonose vršnom opterećenju mreže.