natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the measure is, during the period 1 January 2002 until such time as the current system is applied, not in line with the Guidelines and the energy tax Directive.
Zato se tudi v obdobju od 1. januarja 2004 švedski ukrep lahko razglasi kot združljiv le, če so upravičenci zavezani plačati najnižje ravni določene v Direktivi 2003/96/ES. (52) Torej Komisija sklepa, da v obdobju od 1. januarja 2002 do prenehanja uporabe oprostitve v sedanji obliki ukrep ni združljiv niti s smernicami niti z Direktivo 2003/96/ES.
The incompatible aid corresponds to the amount resulting from the application of the minimum levels set out in the energy tax Directive.
Nezdružljiva pomoč ustreza znesku, ki izhaja iz uporabe najnižjih ravni, določenih v Direktivi 2003/96/ES.
Recovery of incompatible aid
Vračilo pomoči, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom
Where unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the common market, it must according to Article 14(1) of the procedural Regulation be recovered from the beneficiary.
Če je nezakonito dodeljena državna pomoč v skladu s členom 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, jo mora upravičenec vrniti.
Through recovery of the aid, the competitive position that existed before it was granted is restored as far as is possible.
Vračilo pomoči mora, kolikor je mogoče, ponovno vzpostaviti konkurenčno stanje, ki je bilo pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
The fact that the aid is provided in accordance with national law — which is generally the case — does not affect a recovery, as Community law overrides national law.
Dejstvo, da je pomoč dodeljena v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo, kakor je ponavadi, v ničemer ne vpliva na vračilo, ker ima zakonodaja Skupnosti prednost pred nacionalno zakonodajo.
However, Article 14(1) of the procedural Regulation states that ‘the Commission shall not require the recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law’.
Vendar člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 pravi, da „Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če je to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom zakonodaje Skupnosti“.
The case-law of the Court of Justice [18] and the Commission’s own decision-making practice have established that, where, as a result of the Commission’s actions, legitimate expectations exist 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.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [18] in prakso odločanja Komisije vračilo pomoči krši splošno načelo zakonodaje Skupnosti, ker upravičenec zaradi ukrepov Komisije upravičeno ocenjuje, da je bila pomoč dodeljena v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
It is the responsibility of a Member State to make national measures compatible with Community State aid rules in order to prevent distortion of competition, to notify any State aid measure to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and to refrain from implementing it pending its examination.
Države članice so odgovorne za usklajevanje nacionalnih ukrepov s pravili Skupnosti na področju državnih pomoči za izogibanje izkrivljanja konkurence; poleg tega morajo v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES obveščati Komisijo o vsaki državni pomoči in se izogibati izvajanju ukrepov med njihovim preverjanjem.
In principle, undertakings cannot claim legitimate expectations in respect of illegal State aid.
Praviloma se podjetja ne morejo sklicevati na zakonita pričakovanja v primeru nezakonite državne pomoči.
If undertakings could successfully base themselves on a national law, even adopted in good faith, but which does not comply with State aid rules and therefore has the effect to distort competition, the aim of Community state aid control could not be fulfilled.
Če se podjetja sklicujejo na nacionalno zakonodajo, sprejeto dobronamerno, vendar neusklajeno s pravili Skupnosti na področju državnih pomoči in takšno, ki izkrivlja konkurenco, se cilja nadzora Skupnosti državnih pomoči ne more doseči.
In the judgment in Case 265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens [19], the Court ruled 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.
V zadevi 265/85, Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV proti Komisiji [19], je Sodišče odločilo, da „[…] ima vsak gospodarski subjekt, ki mu je organ zbudil utemeljena pričakovanja, možnost sklicevanja na načelo zaščite pravno zakonitega pričakovanja.
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.’
Poleg tega, če premišljen in dobro poučen gospodarski subjekt lahko predvidi sprejetje ukrepa Skupnosti, ki bo vplival na njegove interese, se na to načelo ne more sklicevati, če je bil ta ukrep sprejet.“
The Swedish authorities argue that the aid should not be recovered as the Commission did not fulfil its obligations set out in Article 17(2) of the procedural Regulation.
Švedski organi ocenjujejo, da pomoči ni treba povrniti, ker Komisija ni spoštovala obveznosti iz člena 17(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
In this case, in order to adapt existing aid to the new guidelines, the Commission proposed to the Member States to bring all their existing environmental aid schemes in line with the Guidelines by 1 January 2002.
Komisija je državam članicam za sprejem sedanje pomoči v novih smernicah predlagala, da uskladijo sedanje sheme pomoči za okolje s smernicami najpozneje do 1. januarja 2002.
It has been confirmed by case-law that such a proposal made in guidelines constitutes one way of carrying out the regular and periodic cooperation under which the Commission, in conjunction with the Member States, must keep under constant review existing systems of aid and propose to them any appropriate measures [20].
Sodna praksa [20] je potrdila, da je takšen predlog v smernicah način za redno in občasno sodelovanje, v zvezi s katerim Komisija skupaj z državami članicami izvaja stalno preverjanje sedanjih shem pomoči in predlaga vzpostavitev uporabnih ukrepov.
An agreement on a complete list of all existing aid schemes between the Commission and each Member State would be impractical and it is reasonable to leave the responsibility of the adaptation of the schemes to the Member States.
Sporazum med Komisijo in vsako državo članico na celotnem seznamu vseh sedanjih shem pomoči ni praktičen in je zato primerno državam članicam pustiti odgovornost za sprejemanje shem.
This even more so since they are involved in the drafting of new guidelines and are well aware of the implications of these for existing aid schemes before they enter into force.
To je še bolj razumljivo, ker sodelujejo pri oblikovanju novih smernic in se zavedajo njihovih posledic za sedanje sheme pomoči pred začetkom njihove veljavnosti.
In this case, the Swedish authorities claim that Sweden has informed the Commission about the scheme by, for example, submitting the complete Swedish taxation act to the Commission.
V tem primeru švedski organi zatrjujejo, da je Švedska obvestila Komisijo o shemi pomoči, na primer s predložitvijo celotnega besedila švedskega zakona o davku na energijo.
The Commission takes the view that that information was sent and used in other contexts and that these submissions cannot in any case replace a formal notification required by Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija ocenjuje, da so bili ti podatki predloženi in uporabljeni v drugih povezavah ter njihova predložitev v nobenem primeru ne more nadomestiti uradnega obvestila, kot zahteva člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The Confederation of Swedish Enterprises claims that the aid constitutes existing aid and that, therefore, no recovery can be required.
Konfederacija švedskih podjetij potrjuje, da pomoč predstavlja sedanjo pomoč in da se povračila zato ne more zahtevati.
The Commission finds that the measure constituted existing aid only until 31 December 2001.
Komisija meni, da je ukrep predstavljal sedanjo pomoč le do 31. decembra 2001.
From 1 January 2002, the aid became new aid as it should have been brought into line with the Guidelines.
Od 1. januarja 2002 je pomoč postala nova pomoč, ker jo je bilo treba uskladiti s smernicami.
Therefore, the Commission does not agree with the argument brought forward by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprises.
Zato se Komisija ne more strinjati s trditvijo Konfederacije švedskih podjetij.
Thus, the Commission does not find that the arguments made by Sweden provide a ground for a decision without a recovery.
Tako Komisija meni, da trditve Švedske ne omogočajo utemeljitve o odločitvi brez vračila.
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 the procedural Regulation, 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.
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da mora Komisija na lastno pobudo upoštevati izredne okoliščine, ki upravičujejo, v skladu s členom 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, odpoved naročila vračila nezakonito dodeljenih pomoči, če je vračilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti, kot je spoštovanje zakonitega pričakovanja upravičencev.
According to Article 19 of the procedural Regulation, the appropriate measures only become binding for the Member State concerned by the acceptance by the Member State to implement those measures.
V skladu s členom 19 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 so države članice obvezane izvajati uporabne ukrepe le, če so jih sprejele.
This has been confirmed in case-law [21].
To načelo je bilo potrjeno s sodno prakso [21].
Thus, the change in the status of the measure from existing aid to new aid was a consequence of the acceptance of the Swedish Government of the appropriate measures proposed in the Guidelines.
Tako je sprememba položaja ukrepa, ki je iz sedanje pomoči postal nova pomoč, posledica sprejetja uporabnih ukrepov v smernicah s strani švedske vlade.
On the basis of Article 26(1) of the procedural Regulation, it is conceivable that the fact that the Commission did not publish the acceptance by the Swedish Government of the Guidelines, may have led some beneficiaries to believe in good faith that the national measure at issue was still to be regarded as existing aid.
Na podlagi člena 26(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 se lahko razume, da ker Komisija ni objavila sprejetja smernic s strani švedske vlade, lahko nekateri upravičenci dobronamerno ocenijo, da se zadevni nacionalni ukrepi še vedno obravnavajo kot sedanja pomoč.
In Article 26, it is set out that the Commission shall publish ‘a summary notice of the decisions taken pursuant to Article 18 in conjunction with Article 19(1)’.
Člen 26 določa, da mora Komisija objaviti „kratko sporočilo o odločitvah, ki jih je sprejela ob uporabi […] člena 18, v povezavi s členom 19(1)“.
The Commission did not publish the acceptance by each Member State of the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission for the implementation of the Guidelines.
Komisija ni objavila sprejetja uporabnih ukrepov s strani vsake države članice, ki jih je predlagala za izvajanje smernic.
It is, therefore, difficult for the Commission to show that the beneficiaries were properly informed of the acceptance given by the Swedish Government and of the consequent change in the status of the aid.
Zato je Komisiji težko dokazati, da so bili upravičenci ustrezno obveščeni o sprejetju s strani švedske vlade in o posledičnih spremembah položaja pomoči.
However, at the date of the publication of the Commission’s decision to open the Article 88(2) procedure, it must have been clear for the beneficiaries that the measure is no longer existing aid and that it may be incompatible with the Guidelines.
Vendar je moralo biti na datum objave sklepa Komisije o začetku postopka predvidenega v členu 88(2) upravičencem jasno, da ukrep ni več sedanja pomoč in da bi lahko bil nezdružljiv s smernicami.
In this case, such publication took place on 9 August 2003.
Datum omenjene objave je bil 9. avgust 2003.
Taking all these considerations into account, the Commission concludes that, in the pre-sent case, recovery of aid granted before the date of the publication of the decision to open the investigation procedure would be contrary to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Ob upoštevanju vseh uvodnih izjav Komisija sklepa, da je v tem primeru vračilo pomoči, dodeljenih pred datumom objave sklepa o začetku postopka preverjanja, v nasprotju z načelom zaščite pravno zakonitega pričakovanja.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 14 of the procedural Regulation, the Commission decides that recovery shall not be required for the period 1 January 2002 to 8 August 2003.
Zato se je Komisija v skladu s členom 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 odločila, da ne bo zahtevala vračila za obdobje od 1. januarja 2002 do 8. avgusta 2003.
Thus, aid provided under this scheme since 9 August 2003 should be recovered.
Nasprotno pa je treba pomoči, dodeljene v skladu s shemo pomoči od 9. avgusta 2003, vrniti.
The Commission finds that Sweden has unlawfully kept in force Act (1994:1776) on Tax on Energy and without modification since 1 January 2002 in breach of the obligation arising from its own acceptance of the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission and of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Švedska od 1. januarja 2002 nezakonito in brez spremembe obdržala v veljavi zakon (1994:1776) o davku na energijo, s kršenjem odgovornosti, ki izhajajo iz lastnega sprejetja uporabnih ukrepov, ki jih je predlagala Komisija in člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The scheme constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Shema pomoči predstavlja shemo državnih pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The aid is, since 1 January 2002, incompatible with the Guidelines and in particular point 51.1(b) second subparagraph thereof and any other derogation as provided for by Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty.
Pomoč je od 1. januarja 2002 nezdružljiva s smernicami in zlasti s točko 51.1(b) ter z vsemi drugimi odstopanji iz člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ES.
Since no other reasons of compatibility can be envisaged for the scheme as such, the latter is incompatible with the common market.
Ker ni nobenega drugega razloga za dokaz združljivosti sheme pomoči, je ta nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
In accordance with Article 14(1) of the procedural Regulation, the unlawfully paid aid should be recovered.
V skladu s členom 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 se mora nezakonito plačano pomoč vrniti.
In this case, the recovery period should start on the date of the publication of the decision by the Commission to open the Article 88(2) procedure regarding the case and end on the date when the new energy tax system enters into force, i.e. aid provided during the period 9 August 2003 to 30 June 2004 should be recovered.
V tem primeru se obdobje vračila začne na datum objave sklepa Komisije o začetku postopka iz člena 88(2) in se konča na datum začetka veljave nove sheme davka na energijo, torej se mora pomoč, dodeljeno v obdobju od 9. avgusta 2003 do 30. junija 2004, vrniti.
This Decision concerns the aid scheme in question and must be implemented immediately, in particular as regards the recovery of all individual aid granted under the scheme.
Ta sklep velja za zadevno shemo pomoči in se ga mora začeti izvajati takoj, zlasti v zvezi z vračilom vseh posameznih pomoči, dodeljenih v okviru te sheme.
The Commission also notes that a decision on an aid scheme is without prejudice to the possibility that individual aid may be deemed, wholly or partially, compatible with the common market on its own merits (for instance, because the individual grant of aid is covered by the de minimis rules or in the context of a future Commission decision or by virtue of an exemption regulation),
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da odločba v zvezi s shemo pomoči ne izključuje posamezne pomoči kot v celoti ali delno združljive s skupnim trgom zaradi svojih značilnosti (na primer na podlagi pravil de minimis, v okviru kasnejše odločbe Komisije ali v skladu z uredbo o oprostitvi) –
The tax exemption granted by Sweden since 1 January 2002 under the Act on Tax on Energy (1994:1776) is a State aid scheme, unlawfully put into effect by Sweden in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Člen 1 Davčna oprostitev, ki jo je dodelila Švedska od 1. januarja 2002 v skladu z zakonom (1994:1776) o davku na energijo, je shema državne pomoči in Švedska jo je uporabljala nezakonito ter s tem kršila člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
Such aid is incompatible with the common market to the extent that beneficiaries are not required to pay the minimum rates set by Council Directive 2003/96/EC.
Te pomoči so nezdružljive s skupnim trgom tako, da upravičenci niso obvezani plačati najnižje ravni določene z Direktivo 2003/96/ES.
Sweden shall abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 in so far as it is continuing to produce effects.
Švedska bo odpravila shemo pomoči iz člena 1 tako, da bo še vedno učinkovita.
Sweden shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1.
Švedska bo sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe za vračilo pomoči iz člena 1 s strani upravičencev.
Sweden shall cancel all payment of outstanding aid with effect of the date of the present decision.
Švedska preneha z izvajanjem ukrepov pomoči in prekliče še neizplačane pomoči z dnem začetka veljave tega sklepa.
Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under national law, provided these allow the immediate and effective implementation of this Decision.
Vračilo pomoči mora biti izvedeno takoj in v skladu s postopki nacionalnega prava, če to omogoča takojšnje in učinkovito izvajanje tega sklepa.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest throughout the period running from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.
Pomoči, ki morajo biti vrnjene, vključujejo tudi obresti od datuma, ko so bile na voljo upravičencem, do datuma vračila.
The interest shall be calculated in conformity with the provisions laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [22].
Obresti se računajo v skladu z določbami iz členov od 9 do 11 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [22].
Sweden shall inform the Commission, within two months following notification of this Decision, of the measures planned and already taken to comply with it.
Švedska bo Komisijo v roku dveh mesecev od datuma notifikacije tega sklepa obvestila o ukrepih, ki so bili predvideni in izvedeni za skladnost s to odločbo.
It shall provide this information using the questionnaire attached in Annex 1 of this Decision.
Te podatke bo posredovala na obrazcu, priloženemu Prilogi.
In line with Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time-limits (OJ L 124, 8.6.1971, p. 1), and in particular its Article 3, the deadline for comments ended on 10 September 2003.
V skladu z Uredbo Sveta (EGS, Euratom) št. 1182/71 z dne 3. junija 1971 o določitvi pravil glede rokov, datumov in iztekov rokov (UL L 124, 8.6.1971, str. 1), zlasti člena 3 Uredbe, rok za predložitev pripomb poteče 10. septembra 2003.
By letter of 15 August 2003, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprises asked for an extension of the deadline until 30 September 2003, which was accepted by the Commission by letter dated 9 September 2003.
Konfederacija švedskih podjetij je z dopisom z dne 15. avgusta 2003 zahtevala podaljšanje roka do 30. septembra 2003, kar je Komisija odobrila z dopisom z dne 9. septembra 2003.
The exemption is also applicable for electricity used in greenhouses.
Oprostitev se uporablja tudi za vrtnarska podjetja.
That part of the exemption will be subject to a separate Commission decision.
Komisija bo sprejela ločen sklep o oprostitvi teh podjetij.
For example, N 255/96 — Sweden — Act on excise duties on energy (OJ C 71, 7.3.1997, p. 10) and NN 72a/2000 — Sweden — Prolongation of CO2 scheme (OJ C 117, 21.4.2001, p. 19).
Primeri: pomoč št. N 255/96 – Švedska – Zakon o trošarinah na energijo (UL C 71, 7.3.1997, str. 10) in pomoč NN 72a/2000 – Švedska – Podaljšanje sistema davka na CO2 (UL C 117, 21.4.2001, str. 19).
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2001 in Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline GmBH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten [2001] ECR I-8365.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 8. novembra 2001 v zadevi C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH in Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH proti Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten, Rec. 2001, str. I-8365.
For example, in the reply to the Commission’s letter of 7 May 1996 (D/50485, the Swedish authorities submitted the full Act on Tax on Energy from which the full energy tax exemption on electricity for the manufacturing sector was clear.
Švedske oblasti so na primer v odgovoru na dopis Komisije z dne 7. maja 1996 (D/50485) predložile celotno besedilo zakona o davku na energijo, ki jasno določa, da je proizvodni sektor povsem oproščen davka na električno energijo.
In addition, brief descriptions of the measure were included in letters dated 15 April 1998 and 31 May 1999, which were sent by the Swedish authorities to the Commission.
Na drugi strani pa so bili kratki opisi ukrepov priloženi dopisu z dne 15. aprila 1998 in dopisu z dne 31. maja 1999, ki so ju švedske oblasti poslale Komisiji.
See Svensk författningssamling SFS 2003:810.
Zbornik švedskih zakonov (SFS) 2003:810.
See N 156/2004 —Sweden —‘Energy tax on electricity used by the manufacturing sector’, not yet published in the Official Journal.
N 156/04 – Švedska – „Davek na energijo, ki velja za proizvodni sektor“; (še neobjavljeno v UL).
See for example Judgment in Case C-143/99 (see footnote 9).
Na primer odločitev v zadevi C-143/99, cevovod Jadransko morje–Dunaj (opomba 9).
See Adria-Wien Pipeline, in particular paragraph 48.
Glej zadevo C-143/99, Primer vodovod Jadransko morje–Dunaj, točka 48.
Decision 2002/676/EC, ECSC of 3 April 2002 on the dual-use exemption which the United Kingdom is planning to implement under the Climate Change Levy and the extended exemption for certain competing processes (OJ L 229, 27.8.2002, p. 15); N 449/01 — Germany — ‘Ecological tax reform’ after 31 March 2002, (OJ C 137, 8.6.2002, p. 24), N 74/A/02 — Finland — ‘Aid to energy intensive companies’, ( OJ C 104, 30.4.2003, p. 9), and C 33/03 (ex NN 34/03) — Austria — ‘Energy tax refund 2002 and 2003’, not yet published in the Official Journal.
Odločba Komisije 2002/676/ES, CECA z dne 3. aprila 2002 o davku na podnebne spremembe v Združenem kraljestvu (UL L 229, 27.8.2002, str. 15). Pomoč št. N 449/01 – Nemčija – „Uresničevanje Ekološke davčne reforme po 31. marcu 2002“ ( UL C 137, 8.6.2002, str. 24); Pomoč št. N 74/A/02 – Finska – „Pomoč za podjetja, ki porabijo veliko energije“ ( UL C 104, 30.4.2003, str. 9) in Pomoč C 33/03 (ex NN 34/03) – Avstrija – „Vračilo davka na energijo v letu 2002 in 2003“; (še neobjavljeno v UL).
See case C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline, quoted above.
Zadeva C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline (prim. opomba 9).
OJ C 34, 7.2.2002, p. 13.
UL C 34, 7.2.2002, str. 13.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 November 1987 in Case 223/85 RSV v Commission, [1987] ECR 4617.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 24. novembra 1987, zadeva 223/85, Rijn-Schelde-Verolme (RSV) Machinefabrieken en Scheepswerven NV proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Rec. 1987, str. 4617.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 March 1987 in Case C-265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV v Commission [1987] ECR 1155, in particular paragraph 44.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 11. marca 1987 v zadevi 265/85, Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV in Van Dijk Food Products (Lopik) BV proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Rec. 1987, str. 1155, zlasti točka 44.