natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
All these elements together are a strong indication that the measure indeed targets energy-intensive users.
Vse to seveda izrecno kaže na to, da je ukrep dejansko usmerjen k podjetjem, ki porabijo veliko energije.
The Commission furthermore does not share the view of Jungbunzlauer GmbH that the criterion of 0,35 % of net production value corresponds to a maximum tax burden and that such a cap is not relevant from a state aid point of view.
Komisija se tudi ne strinja s podjetjem Jungbunzlauer Ges.m.b.H, ki trdi, da ustreza meja 0,35 % neto vrednosti proizvodnje najvišje davčne obremenitve, ter da takšna najvišja meja ni bistvena za pomoč.
Without it being necessary to examine the latter argument in general terms, in this case the criterion does not establish a general maximum tax burden for all undertakings without distinction.
Brez da bi bilo zadnji argument potrebno preveriti, v tem primeru meja ne postavlja nobenih splošnih maksimalnih davčnih obremenitev za vsa podjetja brez razlike.
Undertakings normally have to pay the full tax rates, with the exception of those achieving a threshold that is de facto tailored to apply only to energy-intensive users.
Praviloma morajo podjetja plačevati polne davčne stopnje, z izjemo tistih, ki plačujejo pragovno vrednost, ki pa je dejansko tako prilagojena, da jo plačujejo le podjetja, ki porabijo veliko energije.
The measure gives rise to a different treatment, by establishing objective criteria, in the form of a tax cap only for certain businesses, which in the present case is the specific group of energy-intensive users.
Z določitvijo objektivne najvišje davčne meje za določena podjetja – v tem primeru predvsem za podjetja, ki porabijo veliko energije – ima ukrep za posledico različno obravnavanje.
This is different from the minimum tax burden of EUR 363, to which Jungbunzlauer GmbH refers, and which indeed applies to all undertakings without distinction.
V tem se razlikuje od najnižje davčne obremenitve 363 EUR, na katero je opozorilo podjetje Jungbunzlauer Ges.m.b.H, in katera brez razlik velja za vsa podjetja.
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the widening of the scope would in reality alter the effects of the measure.
Med odločanjem o začetku postopka je Komisija podvomila, ali bo razširitev področja uporabe dejansko spremenila učinek ukrepa.
The Commission notes that neither Austria nor any of the intervening parties submitted information which would have alleviated these doubts.
Komisija je ugotovila, da niti Avstrija niti stranke, ki so posredovale, niso predložile podatkov, ki bi lahko odstranili te dvome.
In particular, Austria did not submit figures demonstrating that significantly more companies in all sectors of the economy benefited from the widened scope.
Predvsem Avstrija ni predložila nobenih podatkov o številkah, ki bi dokazovale, da bi imelo koristi bistveno več podjetij na vseh gospodarskih področjih zaradi razširitve področja uporabe.
In any case, the large number of beneficiaries of a measure is not on its own, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, proof that the measure can be classified as a general measure.
V vsakem primeru pa samo visoko število tistih podjetij, ki jim je bilo zaradi ukrepa povrnitve dajatev odobrena, glede na sodno prakso sodišča ni dokaz, da bi ukrep lahko označili za splošni ukrep.
The Commission also takes into account that in several Member States measures having the same effect are applied, for which Member States sought State aid approval or which the Commission examined ex officio [8].
Komisija je tudi upoštevala, da v več državah članicah veljajo ukrepi z enakim učinkom, katerih odobritev se je zaprosila kot državna pomoč ali katere je Komisija preizkusila na zahtevek urada [8].
The Commission considers that the selectivity of the measure is not justified by the nature and logic of the system because it is not consistent with the internal logic of the tax.
Komisija meni, da selektivnosti ukrepa ni mogoče utemeljiti s pomočjo narave ali logike sistema, saj to ne ustreza kontrolni logiki, ki je lastna sistemu.
On the contrary, the rebate represents a clear deviation from the overall structure and functioning of the tax system.
Nasprotno, povrnitev predstavlja celo jasen odmik od splošne strukture in načina delovanja sistema dajatev.
The Commission further notes that the objective of an energy tax is twofold. First, it is intended to induce undertakings to take energy-saving measures.
Nadalje je Komisija ugotovila, da ima dajatev na energijo dva cilja: prvič, podjetja spodbuditi k temu, da bi podjetja sprejela ukrepe za varčevanje z energijo.
Even if the undertakings concerned take energy-reduction measures already to a large extent in order to reduce their energy costs, it cannot be said that the energy taxation has no additional steering effect.
Tudi če bi večina zadevnih podjetij že uvedla takšne ukrepe za zmanjšanje stroškov energije, ni mogoče reči, da obdavčenje energije ne bi imelo dodatnega učinka krmiljenja.
Energy consumption is in general technology-dependent and hence only fixed in the short term.
Poraba energije je splošno odvisna od tehnologije in je tako določena le za kratek čas.
In the long term, inter alia, through technological progress and innovation, it is to be expected that it is possible to achieve further efficiency gains.
Dolgoročno gledano se zaradi tehničnega napredka in inovacij pričakujejo nadaljnje izboljšanje učinkovitosti.
The Commission notes, furthermore, that Marienhütte GmbH did not substantiate the alleged lack of a steering effect in any way.
Komisija je tudi ugotovila, da podjetje Marienhütte Ges.m.b.H domnevnega neobstoja učinka krmiljenja ni podrobneje pojasnilo.
Second, even where energy consumption cannot be reduced further in the short term, the tax is levied in order to raise State funding for general purposes and also to take account of the fact that the consumption of energy causes costs for society for which the State has to take remedial action.
Drugi cilj pa je, da se bo dajatev povečala, tudi če v kratkem času ne bo mogoče še bolj znižati porabe energije, in sicer zaradi tega, da se priskrbijo državna sredstva za splošne namene, saj povzroča poraba energije stroške za družbo, za katere mora poskrbeti država.
In this respect, any exemption from an energy tax for energy-intensive users, which by definition are also polluters, cannot be in the nature and logic of the system.
Zaradi tega ne moreta biti kriva narava in logika sistema, da so podjetja, ki porabijo veliko energije in so po definiciji povzročitelji onesnaženja, oproščena dajatev na energijo.
The Commission does not share the opinion expressed by Jungbunzlauer GmbH that the measure would not constitute State aid if the legislator had levied the tax at the level of the end user.
Komisija se ne strinja z mnenjem podjetja Jungbunzlauer Ges.m.b.H, da ukrep ne bi predstavljal državne pomoči, če bi zakonodajalec pobiral dajatev pri končnemu odjemalcu.
The administrative design of the measure in this case is without influence on its State aid nature.
Upravna struktura ukrepa v tem primeru nima vpliva na značaj pomoči.
Even if the legislator had levied the tax directly at the level of the end user, and presumably introduced distinct treatments for different types of user, this differentiation would also have constituted State aid.
Tudi če bi zakonodajalec končnemu odjemalcu dajatev povečal neposredno, zraven česar bi najbrž uvedel tudi drugačno obravnavo različnih vrst uporabnikov, bi tudi ta diferenciacija predstavljala državno pomoč.
All the other criteria of a State aid measure within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled.
Vsi drugi kriteriji državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES so izpolnjeni.
The measure relieves undertakings of costs they would otherwise have to bear and by doing so confers an advantage on those undertakings.
Ukrep oprošča podjetja stroškov, ki bi jih drugače morali kriti, ter jim tako prinaša korist.
The measure is imputable to the State and financed by State resources as the State accepts a loss of tax revenue.
Ukrep se pripiše državi in se financira z državnimi sredstvi, saj se je država sama sprijaznila z zmanjšanjem davčnih prihodkov.
By granting a tax rebate only to certain undertakings, the measure favours them in comparison with other undertakings, which has the potential to distort competition.
Ker je povrnitev dajatev zagotovljena le določenim podjetjem, jim zagotavlja ukrep v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji boljši položaj, kar lahko izkrivi konkurenco.
At least some beneficiaries are engaged in sectors where trade between Member States takes place.
Vsaj nekaj tistih, katerim je bila povrnitev dajatev odobrena, so dejavni v sektorjih, v katerih poteka trgovanje med državami članicami.
Therefore the measure is liable to affect trade.
Zaradi tega lahko ukrep ovira trgovino.
By way of conclusion, the measure constitutes a State aid scheme and must be considered new aid because it was established after Austria’s accession to the European Union and was never approved by the Commission.
Kot zadnje pa je mogoče trditi, da ukrep predstavlja državno pomoč in ga je moč razumeti kot novo pomoč, saj je bil uveden po vstopu Avstrije v Evropsko unijo, Komisija pa ga nikoli ni odobrila.
The Commission assessed the compatibility of the aid under the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (hereinafter called the guidelines).
Komisija je združljivost pomoči preverila z okvirom Skupnosti za državne pomoči za varstvo okolja (v nadaljevanju „okvir Skupnosti“).
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission at that stage considered that no other derogations as provided for in Article 87(2) or (3) of the EC Treaty seemed applicable.
Pri odločitvi o uvedbi postopka je Komisija menila, da pri takratnem stanju očitno ni bilo možno uvesti nobene druge izjemne odločbe člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ES.
During the formal investigation procedure, no new elements were put forward which might have removed the doubts that the Commission expressed in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
V teku formalnega postopka preiskave se niso pojavile nobene oporne točke, ki bi v odločitvi o uvedbi postopka formalne preiskave odpravile omenjene dvome Komisije.
The Commission therefore comes to the following conclusion:
Zaradi tega je Komisija sklenila naslednje.
As regards undertakings to which the Energy Tax Rebate Act was not applicable until 31 December 2001, the modifications made by Law No 158/2002 introduced a new derogation from an existing tax.
Glede podjetij, za katera zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo do 31. decembra 2001 ni veljal, je uvedba 158. zveznega zakona 2002 pripeljala do uvedbe nove izjeme že obstoječe dajatve.
Point 51.2 of the guidelines allows the application of the provisions in point 51.1 in such a case where the tax has an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection and where the derogation has become necessary as a result of a significant change in economic conditions that placed the firms in a particularly difficult competitive situation.
V skladu s točko 51.2 okvira Skupnosti je mogoče predpise pod točko 51.1 uporabiti, če imajo davki občuten pozitiven vpliv na varstvo okolja in če bodo izjeme zaradi velike spremembe gospodarskih pogojev, ki lahko postavijo podjetja v zelo težek konkurenčni položaj, nujne.
Austria has not submitted any information as to whether this was the case.
Avstrija ni dala nobenih podatkov o tem, če se je to zgodilo.
Austria has also not significantly increased the tax, and therefore point 52 of the guidelines is not applicable.
Prav tako Avstrija ni močno povišala dajatev, tako da točke 52 okvira Skupnosti ni bilo potrebno uporabiti.
Under these circumstances, a Member State can grant tax exemptions only in accordance with point 53, second paragraph, which refers to points 45 and 46 of the guidelines.
Pod temi pogoji lahko država članica odobri oprostitev dajatev le v skladu z 2. pododstavkom točke 53, ki se sklicuje na točki 45 in 46 okvira Skupnosti.
These provisions allow operating aid for up to five years if the aid is limited to 50 % of the extra costs or if it is reduced degressively over a period of five years.
V skladu s tem je mogoče odobriti pomoč podjetju za do pet let, kadar je njihova učinkovitost omejena na 50 % dodatnih stroškov, ali kadar jih v obdobju petih let padajoče zmanjšujejo.
The Austrian law neither limits the tax refund to 50 % of the extra costs nor does it require any reduction on a progressively sliding scale.
Avstrijski zakon ne omejuje vračila dajatev na 50 % dodatnih stroškov, niti ne zahteva progresivnega zmanjševanja.
As regards undertakings to which the Energy Tax Rebate Act was applicable before 31 December 2001, the tax refund system remains unchanged.
Za podjetja, za katera je zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo veljal že pred 31. decembrom 2001, ostaja sistem za povrnitev dajatev nespremenjen.
The measure in this respect establishes a derogation from an existing tax which was decided on when the tax was adopted.
Tukaj ukrep predvideva oprostitev obstoječega dajatev, ki je bil sklenjen ob uvedbi.
It falls therefore under point 51.2 of the guidelines, which refer to the compatibility criteria of point 51.1.
Zato ta ukrep spada pod točko 51.2 okvira Skupnosti, ki se sklicuje na kriterije združljivosti v točki 51.1.
Of this latter provision, only point 51.1.b second indent is applicable.
V zadnji določbi se zdi, da je mogoče uporabiti le drugo alineo črke (b) točke 51.1.
This provision requires beneficiary companies to pay a significant proportion of the national tax.
V okviru tega morajo podjetja plačati bistven del državnih dajatev.
Austria did not submit any data for the period under examination which would make it possible to assess the actual proportion of the tax that the undertakings concerned have to pay.
Avstrija za časovno obdobje preiskave ni dala nobenih podatkov, ki bi omogočili ugotovitev dejanskega deleža dajatev, ki ga morajo plačati določena podjetja.
The Commission therefore cannot conclude that undertakings pay a significant proportion of the national tax.
Zaradi tega Komisija ne more trditi, da podjetja plačujejo bistven del državnih dajatev.
In the light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the Energy Tax Rebate Act 1996, as modified by Article 6 of Law No 158/2002 and extended without further modification until 31 December 2003, does not comply with the requirements of the guidelines and is incompatible with the common market.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj omenjenih navedb je Komisija prišla do sklepa, da zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo iz leta 1996, podaljšan do 31. decembra 2003 s členom 6158. zveznega zakona 2002 brez nadaljnjih sprememb, ne ustreza zahtevam okvira Skupnosti in ni združljiv s skupnim trgom.
Compatibility of the announced modification of the aid [9]
Združljivost načrtovane spremembe pomoči [9]
As regards undertakings to which the Energy Tax Rebate Act was not applicable until 31 December 2001, the measure in the modified form promised by Austria is compatible with points 53 and 45 of the guidelines.
Za podjetja, za katera zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo do 31. decembra 2001 ni veljal, je ukrep o spremembi, ki jo je obljubila Avstrija, združljiv s točkama 53 in 45 okvira Skupnosti.
The aid amounts to 100 % of the extra costs in the first year and will be reduced to 80 % in the second year.
Pomoč znaša 100 % dodatnih stroškov v prvem letu, v drugem letu pa se zmanjša na 80 %.
It will thus fall in a linear fashion over the period under examination.
V obdobju preiskave se bo torej linearno zmanjševala.
In addition, the Commission considers that the tax reduction in the second year will leave the beneficiaries with a tax amount to bear which is still higher than what the energy taxation Directive requires from 2004 onwards.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da znižanje v drugem letu podjetjem prepušča znesek dajatev, ki je še vedno višji od zahtevane pragovne vrednosti, ki jo od leta 2004 predpisuje direktiva o obdavčenju energije.
As regards undertakings to which the Energy Tax Rebate Act was applicable until 31 December 2001, the Commission considers that the aid complies with point 51.1.b second indent of the guidelines.
Za podjetja, za katera je zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo veljal do 31. decembra 2001, je pomoč po mnenju Komisije združljiva z drugo alineo črke (b) točke 51.1 okvira Skupnosti.
Point 51.1.b second indent requires beneficiaries to pay a significant proportion of the national tax.
Po drugi alinei črke (b) točke 51.1 morajo podjetja, ki jim je bilo odobrena povrnitev dajatev, plačati bistven del državnih dajatev.
The reason for this is that they should be left with an incentive to improve their environmental performance.
Razlog za to je, da se podjetja vzpodbudi, da bi izboljšala svojo okoljsko učinkovitost.
The energy taxation Directive takes the objective of environmental protection explicitly into account (see in particular the third, sixth, seventh and twelfth recitals).
Direktiva o obdavčenju energije izrecno omogoča uresničevanje okoljevarstvenih ciljev (glej predvsem uvodne navedbe 3, 6, 7 in 12).
The Commission therefore considers that the compliance with the minimum rates of the energy taxation Directive will provide undertakings with an incentive to improve environmental protection.
Zaradi tega Komisija meni, da upoštevanje temeljnih podlag direktive o obdavčenju energije vzpodbuja podjetja k izboljšanju varstva okolja.
For this reason the Commission can accept the compliance with the minimum rates also as being equal to a significant proportion of the national tax as required under point 51.1.b second indent of the guidelines.
Na upoštevanje najnižjih stopenj je torej mogoče gledati tudi kot na bistveni del državnih dajatev, kakor zahteva druga alinea črke (b) točke 51.1 okvira Skupnosti.
Austria sets the minimum tax burden on companies in a way which complies with the minimum tax rates not only on natural gas and electricity, but also on coal, which has not been subject to energy taxation in Austria.
Avstrija je določila najmanjšo davčno obremenitev podjetjem tako, da temeljne davčne stopnje ne bodo upoštevane le pri zemeljskem plinu in elektriki, temveč tudi pri premogu, za katerega doslej v Avstriji ni bilo potrebno plačevati dajatev.
By doing so, Austria ensures that the minimum tax burden in 2002 and 2003 corresponds to the taxation level, and also has the minimum environmental effect, envisaged by the Directive as a whole.
S tem je Avstrija zagotovila, da je najnižja davčna obremenitev v letih 2002 in 2003 v skladu z davčno ravnijo ter da vključuje tudi načelo najmanjšega učinka na okolje, za katerega si direktiva prizadeva.
Legitimate expectations
Varstvo zakonitih pričakovanj
Where unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the common market, it must be recovered from the beneficiary.
Če se oceni, da je nezakonito priznana državna pomoč nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, jo mora prejemnik zahtevati nazaj.
Through recovery of the aid, the competitive position that existed before it was granted is restored as far as is possible.
Po zahtevi za vračilo te pomoči je treba vzpostaviti konkurenčno stanje, čim bolj podobno tistemu pred priznano pomočjo.
However, Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [10] states that ‘the Commission shall not require the recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law’. The case-law of the Court of Justice and the Commission’s own decision-making practice have established that, where, as a result of the Commission’s actions, a legitimate expectation exists on the part of the beneficiary of a measure that the aid has been granted in accordance with Community law, then an order to recover the aid would infringe a general principle of Community law.
Vendar pa člen 14(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o predpisih glede uporabe člena 93 Pogodbe ES [10] določa: „Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi to bilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.“ V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča in odločitvijo Komisije je odločitev o vračilu v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti, če bi zaradi ukrepov Komisije prejemnik pomoči upravičeno predvideval, da je bila pomoč odobrena v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
It is the responsibility of a Member State to make national measures compatible with Community State aid rules in order to prevent distortions of competition, to notify any State aid measures to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and to refrain from implementing it pending its examination.
Država članica je odgovorna za to, da so državni ukrepi v skladu s pravili konkurence Skupnosti, da bi se izognili izkrivljanju konkurence in da se ukrepi v zvezi s pomočjo priglasijo Komisiji v skladu s členom 88, odstavkom 3 Pogodbe ES ter da se začnejo izvajati šele po preiskavi.
In principle, undertakings cannot claim legitimate expectations in respect of illegal State aid.
Načeloma podjetja ne morejo imeti upravičenih pričakovanj od nezakonitih pomoči.
If undertakings could successfully base themselves on a national law, even adopted in good faith, but which does not comply with the State aid rules and therefore has the effect of distorting competition, the aim of Community State aid control could not be attained.
V primeru, da bi se podjetja lahko uspešno opirala na državni zakon, četudi sprejet z dobrim namenom, ki pa ne ustreza predpisom o pomoči in tako izkrivlja konkurenco, cilja skupnosti o kontroli pomoči ni mogoče doseči.
In its Judgment in Van den Bergh en Jurgens [11], the Court of Justice held:
Sodišče je v sodbi Van den Bergh en Jurgens [11] razsodilo:
‘The Court has consistently held that any trader in regard to whom an institution has given rise to justified hopes may rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectation.
„Po stalni sodni praksi sodišča se lahko vsak gospodarski subjekt, pri katerem je institucija Skupnosti vzbudila utemeljena pričakovanja, sklicuje na načelo varstva zakonitih pričakovanj.
On the other hand, if a prudent and discriminating trader could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted.’
Če lahko preudaren in trezno razmišljajoč gospodarski subjekt predvidi sprejetje ukrepa Skupnosti v zvezi z njegovimi interesi, se v primeru sprejetja tega ukrepa ne more sklicevati na omenjeno načelo.“
Austria has not presented the Commission with any argument based on the existence of legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries under the scheme.
Avstrija Komisiji ni predložila nobenega argumenta o obstoju upravičenega zaupanja podjetij, ki jim je bila odobrena povrnitev dajatev.
However, it transpires from the Court’s case-law that the Commission is required to take into consideration on its own initiative the exceptional circumstances that provide justification, pursuant to Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, for it to refrain from ordering the recovery of unlawfully granted aid where such recovery is contrary to a general principle of Community law, such as respect for the legitimate expectation of beneficiaries.
V sodni praksi sodišča se je izkazalo, da je dolžna Komisija samodejno upoštevati izredne okoliščine, ki po členu 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 upravičujejo odpoved vračilu nezakonitih pomoči, če bi bilo vračilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti, kot npr. načelom o varstvu zakonitih pričakovanj.
In the present case, on the one hand, the Commission notes that the national measures at issue imposed a significant burden on Austrian undertakings in the interests of environmental protection.
V obravnavanem primeru se je Komisija seznanila, da predstavlja obravnavani ukrep znotraj države veliko breme za avstrijska podjetja v interesu varstva okolja.