natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Comments by Jungbunzlauer GmbH
Stališče podjetja Jungbunzlauer Ges.m.b.H
In order to achieve this, the legislator chose between several administrative options.
Gospodarska obremenitev zaradi obdavčenja energije bi morala biti v rokah končnega porabnika.
In order to facilitate the administration of the tax, the tax is levied at the level of the energy supplier.
Da bi to dosegli, ima zakonodajalec več možnosti. Za poenostavitev upravnih postopkov se dajatev pobira pri dobavitelju energije.
Undertakings pay the tax together with the price for energy to the energy supplier and are repaid afterwards by the State the amounts exceeding their tax obligation.
Podjetja bodo dajatev skupaj s ceno za energijo plačala dobavitelju, po tem pa jim bo država preplačan znesek povrnila.
It is due to this structure that the energy tax rebate law is designed in the form of a rebate.
Zaradi te strukture je zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo zasnovan v obliki povračila stroškov.
The legislator could also have chosen to levy the tax directly at the level of the end user.
Zakonodajalec bi se prav tako lahko odločil, da bi dajatve zaračunal neposredno končnemu porabniku.
In that event, a rebate would not have been necessary.
V tem primeru povračilo ne bi bilo potrebno.
The national legislator is free to set a maximum tax burden.
Državni zakonodajalec ima možnost omejiti obremenitev z dajatvami.
The upper limit established by the criterion of 0,35 % of net production value is irrelevant from a State aid point of view, but establishes the energy tax burden, where energy is used for business purposes, at 0,35 % of net production value.
Najvišja meja, postavljena na osnovi kriterija 0,35 % neto vrednosti proizvodnje, iz vidikov pravne pomoči ni pomembna, temveč je meja davčne obremenitve v gospodarski rabi pri 0,35 % neto vrednosti proizvodnje fiksna.
This also applies to the minimum tax burden of EUR 363 set by the measure.
To velja tudi za predvideno najnižjo obremenitev, ki znaša 363 EUR.
The European Court of Justice decided in its Adria-Wien ruling on the Austrian measure in its entirety.
Evropsko sodišče je v sodbi Adria-Wien celovito odločilo o avstrijskem ukrepu.
If this had not been the intention, the Court would have first asked whether the energy tax rebate was per se selective and only then would it have dealt with the question whether the exclusion of the service sector made the measure selective.
Če ne bi imelo tega namena, bi se sodišče najprej pozanimalo, ali je povrnitev dajatev na energijo sama po sebi selektivna in bi se nato posvetilo vprašanju, ali je izločitev storitvenega podjetja v okviru povrnitve dajatev na energijo tudi selektivna.
In addition, paragraph 36 of the ruling makes clear that the Austrian measure, with which the European Court was fully acquainted, does not constitute State aid.
V nadaljevanju se je v opombi št. 36 sodbe razjasnilo, da avstrijski ukrep, ki ga je sodišče v celoti poznalo, ne predstavlja državne pomoči.
The measure is not selective but is a general economic measure.
Ukrep ni selektiven, temveč gre tukaj za splošen gospodarski ukrep.
This view was also shared by the Advocate General in Case C-143/99.
To mnenje je delil tudi generalni javni tožilec v pravni zadevi C-143/99.
The measure does not distort competition and does not affect trade.
Ukrep ne pomeni izkrivljanja konkurence in ne vpliva na trgovanje.
Similar measures exist in other Member States.
Podobne ukrepe so sprejeli tudi v drugih državah članicah.
Furthermore, the energy taxation Directive provides for tax reductions and rebates for businesses in order to protect investments and employment.
Poleg tega pa je zaradi zaščite delovnih mest in investicij predvidena tudi direktiva o obdavčenju pridobivanja energije in znižanju ter povrnitvi dajatev.
COMMENTS BY AUSTRIA
STALIŠČE AVSTRIJE
Austria considers the energy tax rebate to be a general measure
Avstrija meni, da je povrnitev dajatev na energijo splošen ukrep
By letter dated 4 July 2003, received by the Commission on 4 July 2003, Austria confirms its view that the energy tax rebate is a general measure.
V dopisu z dne 4. julija 2003, ki ga je Komisija prejela 4. julija 2003, je Avstrija potrdila svojo ugotovitev, da je povrnitev dajatev na energijo splošen ukrep.
By asking its second question, the Austrian Constitutional Court also explained its motive, namely that, if the original measure constituted State aid, the Constitutional Court might abolish the restriction to those companies whose activity consists primarily in the manufacturing of goods.
Z drugim vprašanjem je avstrijsko ustavno sodišče pojasnilo svoj motiv: če bi prvotni ukrep predstavljal državno pomoč, bi lahko ustavno sodišče razveljavilo omejevanje na podjetja, ki večinoma proizvajajo materialne gospodarske dobrine.
The Austrian court needed to know whether, by removing the restriction, it would create or extend an illegal State aid.
Avstrijsko ustavno sodišče je želelo vedeti, ali bi se zaradi ukinitve omejitve pojavila ali razširila protipravna državna pomoč.
The European Court was aware of this motive, as can be seen from the report by the Rapporteur, Mr Wathelet, who notes: ‘The Constitutional Court assumes that, in case of removing the restriction …, an extension to all undertakings is only allowed if this does not constitute a new aid which has to be notified beforehand.’
Evropsko sodišče se je zavedalo, da je v poročilu poročevalca Watheleta pisalo, da ustavno sodišče izhaja iz tega, da je v primeru ukinitve ali omejitve … možna razširitev na vsa podjetja le takrat, ko to ne predstavlja nove pomoči, ki bi jo bilo potrebno priglasiti v naprej.
Without this motive, the second question would have been theoretical and would have had to be rejected by the European Court.
Drugače bi bilo drugo vprašanje le teoretično in bi ga moralo Evropsko sodišče zavrniti.
As a consequence, the Austrian Constitutional Court abolished only the restriction to the original group of beneficiaries and did not abolish the entire Energy Tax Rebate Act.
Posledično je avstrijsko ustavno sodišče ukinilo le omejitev prvotnega kroga tistih, ki so bili upravičeni do povrnitve dajatev, ne pa celotnega zakona o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo.
Knowing this background it cannot be argued that the European Court did not know or erred about the design of the Austrian measure.
Glede na ta dejstva ni moč argumentirati, da Evropsko sodišče ne bi bilo ali bi bilo napačno seznanjeno s strukturo avstrijskega ukrepa.
On the contrary, the Court itself described in paragraph 7 of the ruling the Austrian system correctly and replied in paragraph 36 to the second question that ‘national measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not constitute State aid.’
Sodišče je celo v opombi 7 sodbe pravilno opisalo avstrijski sistem in v opombi 36 odgovorilo na drugo vprašanje, „da državni ukrepi kot tisti v izhodiščnem postopku ne predstavljajo državnih pomoči“.
Austria commits itself to retroactively modifying the energy tax rebate
Avstrija napoveduje retroaktivno spremembo glede povrnitve dajatev na energijo
By letter dated 5 December 2003, Austria informed the Commission that the Ministry of Finance would be proposing to the Austrian Parliament that it modify retroactively the rebate of the energy taxes on electricity and natural gas for the two groups of beneficiary.
V dopisu z dne 5. decembra 2003 je Avstrija obvestila Komisijo, da bo Ministrstvo za finance avstrijskemu parlamentu predlagalo, naj povrnitev dajatev na elektriko in zemeljski plin pri obeh skupinah, ki sta bili do tega upravičeni, spremeni retroaktivno.
Undertakings to which the Energy Tax Rebate Act was not applicable until 31 December 2001 will be entitled to a 100 % tax rebate for the tax exceeding 0,35 % of their net production value in 2002.
Podjetja, za katera zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo do 31. decembra 2001 ni veljal, bodo dobila pravico do stoodstotne povrnitve dajatev, ki so v letu 2002 presegali 0,35 % njihovo neto vrednost proizvodnje.
In 2003, these companies will pay 20 % of the national tax rates on natural gas and electricity.
V letu 2003 bodo ta podjetja plačevala 20 % nacionalne davčne stopnje na zemeljski plin in elektriko.
This minimum tax burden will respect the minimum tax rates of the energy taxation Directive, which entered into force on 1 January 2004.
Ta najnižja davčna obremenitev upošteva najnižje davčne stopnje v skladu z „direktivo o obdavčenju energije“, ki je začela veljati s 1. januarjem 2004.
The ratio between the minimum tax under the Directive and the national tax is about 3,3 % for electricity and about 14 % for natural gas.
Ta direktiva določa, da znaša najnižji obdavčljiv znesek v razmerju z državnimi davki približno 3,3 % za elektriko in okoli 14 % za zemeljski plin.
Undertakings to which the Energy Tax Rebate Act was applicable before 31 December 2001 will pay in 2002 and 2003 120 % of the minimum tax rates on natural gas and electricity as established by Annex I, table C, of the energy taxation Directive (the 120 % provision).
Podjetja, za katera je zakon o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo veljal pred 31. decembrom 2001, bodo v letih 2002 in 2003 plačala 120 % najnižjih obdavčljivih zneskov za zemeljski plin in elektriko, kakor je določeno v Prilogi I tabele C direktive o obdavčenju energije („120-odstotna določba“).
The tax burden of 120 % of the minimum tax rates on natural gas and electricity corresponds statistically to the average tax burden on companies under the energy taxation Directive, including taxation on electricity, gas and coal.
Obremenitev s zneskom 120 % najnižje obdavčitve na zemeljski plin in elektriko statistično gledano ustreza povprečni davčni obremenitvi podjetij v skladu z direktivo o obdavčevanju energije, vključno z obdavčenjem elektrike, zemeljskega plina in premoga.
The 120 % provision will lead to an additional tax burden of about 10 to 15 % of current net tax revenue.
Določba o 120 % bo povzročila dodatno obremenitev z dajatvami v višini približno 10 do 15 % trenutnega neto davčnega priliva.
The additional burden is not so high as most of the companies concerned already pay significantly more than the 120 % under the current rules.
Dodatna obremenitev ni tako visoka, saj večina zadevnih podjetij po veljavnih predpisih plačuje veliko več kot 120 %.
However, those companies for which the 120 % provision leads to an increase in the tax burden will pay on average about 50 % more than before, while for some companies the financial impact will even be far greater.
Kljub temu pa bodo podjetja, pri katerih bo 120-odstotna določba povzročila povečano davčno obremenitve, povprečno plačala več kot 50 %, nekatera pa celo veliko več.
Austria informed the Commission that all payments under the current provisions had been stopped immediately after the initiation of the formal investigation procedure.
Avstrija je Komisijo obvestila, da so bila vsa tekoča plačila neposredno po začetku formalnega postopka preiskave ustavljena.
However, Austria could not provide information on the number of companies which will have to repay a part of the rebate already paid to them, or about the amounts involved.
Kljub temu pa Avstrija ni mogla dati podatkov o številu podjetij, ki so morali del že plačane povrnitve dajatev vrniti, ali o zadevnih zneskih.
Austria confirmed that every repayment will bear interest according to the applicable EU reference rate.
Avstrija je potrdila, da se uporablja za vsa vračila veljavna referenčna obrestna mera EU.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
V. PRESOJA POMOČI
Assessment for the years 2002 and 2003
Presoja za leta 2002 in 2003
Although the Commission initiated the procedure in respect of the provisions of Law No 158/2002 applicable in 2002, it considers it justified to assess also the year 2003 without taking a separate decision extending the formal investigation procedure to this period.
Četudi se vpeljan postopek sklicuje na določbe 158. zveznega zakona 2002, ki se uporabljajo, se Komisiji zdi upravičeno, da se pregleda tudi leto 2003 brez posebne odločbe o razširitvi formalnega postopka preiskave za to obdobje.
The Commission notes that Law No 71/2003 leaves the provisions laid down by Law No 158/2002 completely unchanged.
Komisija je ugotovila, da 71. zvezni zakon 2003 ni spremenil določb, sprejetih s 158. zveznim zakonom 2002.
Thus, the provisions applicable in 2002 and 2003 are identical.
Tako sta določbi, ki veljata za leti 2002 in 2003, enaki.
The Commission considers, therefore, that interested parties had the opportunity to comment on all aspects relevant to the assessment of the provisions.
Komisija torej meni, da so vse zainteresirane stranke imele možnost izraziti svoje stališče o vseh vidikih, ki so pomembni za presojo programa.
The extension in time was put into effect by Austria after the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Po tem, ko se je Komisija odločila za vpeljavo formalnega postopka preiskave, je Avstrija podaljšala čas postopka.
This situation is comparable to a situation where a Member State modifies legislation which is the subject of an infringement procedure, but by this modification does not remove all of the alleged infringement, or where facts as described in the reasoned opinion occur after the submission of that opinion.
To je primerljivo s situacijo, kjer država članica spremeni zakonodajo, ki je predmet postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev pogodbe, vendar s to spremembo ne odpravi vseh domnevnih kršitev ter ohrani dejanska stanja, opisana v stališču, okrepljenem z utemeljitvami.
In such cases, the Court allows the Commission to continue the procedure and to adapt its conclusions to the changed circumstances [7].
V takšnih primerih sodišče dovoljuje Komisiji nadaljevanje postopka in prilagodi sklepe spremenjenim okoliščinam [7].
In its letter of 5 December 2003, Austria referred explicitly to the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003. It exercised its rights of defence therefore with regard to the whole period.
V dopisu z dne 5. decembra 2003 se je Avstrija sklicevala izrecno na čas od 1. januarja 2002 do 31. decembra 2003 in je tako izrabila svoje pravice do obrambe z vidika celotnega časovnega obdobja.
In practice, third parties were also able to comment on the application of the scheme both for 2002 and for 2003.
V bistvu so svoje stališče v zvezi z uporabo ureditve 2002 in 2003 lahko izrazili tudi drugi.
In particular, the Austrian Industry Association presented its written comments on the energy tax rebate for 2002 on 12 August, i.e. before the publication of Law 71/2003 extending the duration of the energy tax rebate.
Sicer je Združenje avstrijske industrije 12. avgusta predložilo svoje pisno stališče glede povrnitve dajatev na energijo v letu 2002, se pravi pred objavo 71. zveznega zakona 2003 o podaljšanju povrnitve dajatev na energijo.
Subsequently, the Association was represented at several meetings between the Commission and the Austrian Government and commented on these occasions also on the year 2003.
Nadalje je bilo Združenje prisotno na več razgovorih med Komisijo in avstrijsko vlado, kjer je tudi izrazilo svoje stališče glede leta 2003.
Its right to submit observations has therefore been respected.
Tako se je spoštovala pravica do izrazitve stališča.
The comments made by Jungbunzlauer GmbH on 14 August 2003 described the situation of the company, noting that the described facts were valid ‘in particular (also) for the year 2002’.
V stališču podjetja Jungbunzlauer Ges.m.b.H z dne 14. avgusta 2003 je bilo podjetje predstavljeno, ugotovljeno pa je bilo, da veljajo podatki o dejanskem stanju „posebno (tudi) za leto 2002“.
The company commented on the existence of aid, submitting arguments which are in substance independent of the year of application.
Podjetje je izrazilo svoje stališče glede pomoči ter navedlo argumente, ki pa so po večini neodvisni od leta uporabe.
Marienhütte GmbH commented on the initiation of the procedure on 18 August 2003, hence also before the publication of Law 71/2003.
Podjetje Marienhütte Ges.m.b.H je izrazilo svoje stališče na začetku postopka 18. avgusta 2003, torej pred objavo 71. zveznega zakona 2003.
Its comments are also in substance independent of the year of application of the energy tax rebate provisions.
Opažanja so tudi v tem primeru večinoma neodvisna od leta uporabe določil o povrnitvi dajatev na energijo.
The Commission did not receive any late submissions or any requests to submit comments after the expiry of the deadline laid down in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Komisija ni prejela nobenih zapoznelih stališč, prav tako ni nihče zaprosil za predložitev stališča po roku, ki je bil postavljen med odločanjem o začetku postopka.
After an in-depth examination, the Commission concludes that the measure under examination constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Po temeljiti preiskavi je Komisija prišla do sklepa, da zadevni ukrep predstavlja državno pomoč v smislu člena 87, odstavka 1 Pogodbe ES.
The Commission considers that the tax rebate, even if it is, in theory, applicable to all undertakings reaching the threshold of 0,35 % of net production value, de facto benefits undertakings which have a high energy consumption in relation to their net production value and is therefore selective.
Po mnenju Komisije bodo od povrnitve dajatev, četudi teoretično velja za vsa podjetja, ki dosegajo začetno vrednost 0,35 % neto vrednosti proizvodnje, dejansko imela korist podjetja, ki v razmerju do neto vrednosti proizvodnje porabijo veliko energije. Povrnitev dajatev na energijo je tako selektivna.
The Commission considers that in Case C-143/99 the Court of Justice did not rule on all aspects of the original tax rebate measure, but only on the restriction to undertakings whose activity consisted mainly in the production of goods.
Sodišče, po mnenju Komisije, v pravni zadevi C-143/99 ni izrazilo svojega mnenja o vseh vidikih prvotne ureditve povrnitve dajatev, temveč le o omejitvi na podjetja, ki večinoma proizvajajo fizično gospodarsko blago.
In order to answer the two questions referred by the Austrian Constitutional Court, it was not necessary for the Court to assess any other aspects of the measure.
Za odgovor na obe vprašanji avstrijskega ustavnega sodišča je bilo potrebno, da je sodišče izrazilo svoje mnenje tudi o drugih vidikih ukrepa.
The questions did not refer to the Austrian system as a whole, but concentrated on its limited scope.
Vprašanja se ne nanašajo zgolj na avstrijski sistem, temveč tudi na ključne točke omejenega področja uporabe.
It cannot be assumed that, simply because more extensive information was presented to the Court, it implicitly took a position on a question which had not been asked.
Ni mogoče izhajati iz tega, da je sodišče le zato, ker je bilo na voljo več informacij, izrecno izrazilo svoje mnenje na eno vprašanje, s katerim se ni ukvarjalo.
The Court explicitly ruled on ‘national measures which provide for a rebate of energy taxes’ in general.
Sodišče je v svoji sodbi izrazilo svoje splošno mnenje o „splošnih ukrepih, ki predvidevajo povrnitev dajatev na energijo“.
If it had been the Court’s intention to rule on all aspects of the Austrian measure, it can be assumed that it would have made this more explicit.
Če bi sodišče imelo namen izraziti svoje stališče glede vseh vidikov avstrijskega ukrepa, je mogoče izhajati iz tega, da bi bilo to prej eksplicitno.
The Commission does not share the view that the Court would not have answered the second question referred by the Austrian Constitutional Court if it had not intended to rule on all aspects of the energy tax rebate.
Komisija ne deli mnenja, da sodišče na drugo vprašanje avstrijskega ustavnega sodišča ne bi odgovorilo, če ne bi imelo namena, izraziti svojega mnenja o vseh vidikih povrnitve dajatev na energijo.
The Court first of all answered the second question referred by the Austrian Constitutional Court.
Sodišče je najprej odgovorilo na drugo vprašanje avstrijskega ustavnega sodišča.
This question did not refer to the case under examination by the Court.
To vprašanje pa se ne nanaša na še ne rešen postopek.
The Court therefore clearly placed its reply to the first question on the case in point in a more general context and replied, repeating established case law, that a State measure which benefits all undertakings in national territory, without distinction, cannot constitute State aid.
Zato je sodišče na prvo vprašanje o dejanskem stanju odgovorilo bolj splošno. Opirajoč se na sodno prakso je dejalo, da državni ukrep, od katerega bodo brez razlik imela korist vsa nacionalna podjetja, ne predstavlja državne pomoči.
Several precedents demonstrate that a measure can be selective in its effect even if by law it is applicable to all sectors of the economy.
Precedenčni primeri kažejo, da lahko ima ukrep selektivni učinek, četudi se po zakonu uporablja na vseh gospodarskih področjih.
These are only examples of how de facto selectivity can occur.
To so le primeri za to, kako lahko pride do dejanske selektivnosti.
It is true that the measure under examination does not restrict the support according to size of undertaking, sector, activity or investment sum.
Drži, da zadevni ukrep, ki je predmet preiskave, ne predvideva omejitev zaradi velikosti podjetja, panoge, delovanja ali investicijskega zneska.
However, the threshold has the effect that the measure is de facto tailored to energy-intensive users.
Zaradi praga je ukrep dejansko prirejen za podjetja, ki porabijo veliko energije.
Although the Austrian Industry Association claimed that companies with a low energy consumption can also benefit from the tax rebate if they make large investments or incur heavy losses, it in no way substantiated this argument.
Sicer je Združenje avstrijske industrije doseglo, da imajo od povrnitve dajatev koristi tudi podjetja z manjšo porabo energije, če veliko investirajo ali če imajo velike izgube, vendar pa to ni posebej dokazano.
On the contrary, during the formal investigation procedure, demonstrations of the effects of different solutions were based on examples of companies in energy-intensive sectors.
Nasprotno je bil med formalnim poskusnim postopkom preiskave prikazan učinek različnih možnih rešitev na osnovi različnih podjetij, ki porabijo veliko energije.
This is also confirmed by comments made by Marienhütte, which explicitly refers to the measure as a correction mechanism for energy-intensive undertakings.
To je razvidno tudi v izjavi podjetja Marienhütte, v kateri je ukrep izrecno označen kot korekcijski mehanizem za podjetja, ki porabijo veliko energije.
The Commission also notes that Austria did not comment on the argument raised by the Austrian Industry Association.
Nadalje je Komisija ugotovila, da Avstrija ni izrazila svojega stališča glede argumenta Združenja avstrijske industrije.
In particular, Austria did not provide any information on actual beneficiaries, including information on whether the actual beneficiaries have significantly changed following the amendment of the law.
Avstrija tudi ni dala nobenih podatkov o dejanskih olajšavah, in tudi ne o temu, ali se je krog prejemnikov pomoči po noveli zakona dejansko bistveno spremenil.
The Commission therefore has no information in its possession allowing it to conclude that the effects of the measure are substantially different from the effects of the measure in place before 1 January 2002, which was restricted to companies active in the production of goods.
Zato Komisija nima podatkov, po katerih bi lahko sklepala, ali se učinek tega ukrepa bistveno razlikuje od veljavnega ukrepa, ki je veljal pred 1. januarjem 2002 in ki je bil omejen na podjetja, ki so proizvajala večinoma fizično gospodarsko blago.
In addition, the Commission notes that Austria calculated the 120 % provision also on the basis of a sample of about 240 energy-intensive companies, claiming that information on all companies receiving a rebate was not available.
Komisija je prav tako ugotovila, da je Avstrija 120-odstotno določbo tudi zaračunavala na osnovi okoli 240 izbranih podjetij, ki porabijo veliko energije in uveljavila, da ni podatkov o podjetjih, upravičenih do povrnitve.