natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
REASONS FOR OPENING ARTICLE 88(2) PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV POSTOPKA V SKLADU S ČLENOM 88(2)
The Commission considered [4] that the project under examination does comply with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Guidelines.
Komisija je menila [4], da je zadevni projekt v skladu z določbami smernic na področju varstva okolja.
Nevertheless, the Commission expressed doubts and decided to open the investigation procedure, as it considered that the principles and criteria endorsed in the Court jurisprudence (‘Deggendorf’) are applicable.
Vendar pa je Komisija izrazila dvom in sklenila sprožiti preiskovalni postopek, ker je menila, da bi se morala uporabiti načela in merila, potrjena v sodni praksi Sodišča v zvezi z zadevo „Deggendorf“.
It appeared that the intended recipient, ACEA S.p.A., is one of the former ‘aziende municipalizzate’ (public utilities owned by local public administrative bodies) in the energy sector which has benefited of the aid schemes assessed in the Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding [5] (State aid C 27/99, ex NN 69/98).
Zdelo se je, da je prejemnik, ACEA, ena izmed tako imenovanih „aziende municipalizzate“ (javnih služb v lasti lokalnih javnih upravnih organov) v energetskem sektorju, ki je koristila programe pomoči, ocenjene v Odločbi Komisije 2003/193/ES z dne 5. junija 2002 o državni pomoči, ki jo je Italija dodelila v obliki davčnih oprostitev in subvencioniranih posojil javnim službam z večinskim kapitalskim deležem [5].
Even though that decision only concerns the schemes as such and does not deal with the individual situation of the recipients, at least one of those schemes was intended to benefit to all undertakings meeting certain conditions, and at the relevant time ACEA met those conditions.
Čeprav ta odločba zadeva samo programe pomoči kot take in ne obravnava posameznega položaja prejemnikov, je bil vsaj eden izmed teh programov namenjen vsem podjetjem, ki izpolnjujejo določene pogoje, in podjetje ACEA je takrat izpolnjevalo te pogoje.
The Commission Decision 2003/193/EC declared such non-notified schemes unlawful and incompatible and imposed to the Italian State to recover any possible amount disbursed under those schemes.
Komisija je v svoji Odločbi 2003/193/ES razglasila takšne nepriglašene programe za nezdružljive in nezakonite ter Italiji v členu 3 naložila vračilo zneska, izplačanega v teh programih.
ACEA has challenged that decision before the Court of First Instance [6] and, in that context it has submitted that it had benefited from the relevant scheme.
Podjetje ACEA je tej odločbi oporekalo pred Sodiščem prve stopnje [6] in je v zvezi s tem predložilo, da je imelo koristi od zadevnega programa.
Financial reports by ACEA explicitly refer to the risk of recovery, for instance the semi-annual report of September 2004 [7].
Finančna poročila ACEA se izrecno sklicujejo na tveganost vračila, na primer polletno poročilo iz septembra 2004 [7].
Following two reminders of the Commission addressed to the Italian authorities concerning their obligation to recover those amounts, the Italian authorities have informed the Commission that, after more than two years from the adoption of the decision in case 2003/193/EC, they are still in the process of fulfilling their recovery obligation by adopting and implementing the appropriate administrative measures.
Po dveh opominih, ki ju je Komisija naslovila na italijanske oblasti v zvezi z njihovo obveznostjo za vračilo teh zneskov, so italijanske oblasti obvestile Komisijo, da so po več kot dveh letih od sprejetja Odločbe 2003/193/ES še vedno v procesu izpolnjevanja obveznosti vračila s sprejemanjem in izvajanjem ustreznih upravnih ukrepov.
In particular they have not clarified whether the sums that have been received by ACEA have been recovered yet.
Zlasti še niso razjasnili, ali so bile vsote, ki jih je prejelo podjetje ACEA, že vrnjene.
Based on the above mentioned information, it should be inferred that ACEA S.p.A. has received and not yet reimbursed certain amounts under the incompatible aid schemes assessed in the Decision 2003/193/EC.
Na podlagi zgoraj omenjenih informacij bi bilo treba zaključiti, da podjetje ACEA še ni povrnilo zneskov, ki jih je prejelo v okviru nezdružljivih programov pomoči, ocenjenih v zadevi, ki je predmet Odločbe 2003/193/ES.
Therefore, the Commission concluded, on the one hand, that it was unable to determine the amount of aid which ACEA S.p.A. had already received prior to the new aid granted under the project and which still has to be reimbursed.
Zato je Komisija menila, da ne more določiti zneska pomoči, ki ga je podjetje ACEA že prejelo in ga mora povrniti.
On the other hand, the Commission concluded that it could not assess the cumulative effect of both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ aid accruing to ACEA S.p.A. and its likely distortionary impact on the common market.
Na drugi strani je Komisija ugotovila, da ne more oceniti kumulativnega učinka „stare“ in „nove“ pomoči ter njegovega morebitnega izkrivljajočega vpliva na skupni trg.
V. COMMENTS FROM ITALY AND FROM THIRD PARTIES
V. PRIPOMBE ITALIJE IN TRETJIH STRANK
Comments from Italy
Pripombe Italije
The arguments of the Italian authorities are the following (recitals 16 to 27):
Argumenti italijanskih oblasti so navedeni v točkah 16 do 27.
Italy raises the issue of the identity of the beneficiary, which has changed since the decision of the Commission.
Italija izpostavlja vprašanje identitete upravičencev, ki se je spremenila od sklepa Komisije o sprožitvi postopka.
In fact, Italy points out that the beneficiary of the aid had changed even prior to that date.
Italija pravzaprav poudarja, da se je upravičenec do pomoči spremenil še pred tem datumom.
However, Italy recognises that the Commission was not made aware of this fact prior to the decision to open the current procedure.
Vendar pa Italija priznava, da Komisija tega dejstva ni poznala pred sklepom o sprožitvi postopka.
The change of the beneficiary would have as a consequence that the Deggendorf jurisprudence should not apply and that the present case would be without object.
Zaradi spremembe upravičenca se sodna praksa Deggendorf ne bi smela uporabljati in ta postopek bi bil brezpredmeten.
Italy contests that the measure constitutes aid, as it concerns a local project with no impact on trade; furthermore since heating is not tradable, and it cannot be taken as a substitute for other energy sources, there is no distortion of competition.
Italija zanika, da ta ukrep predstavlja pomoč, ker zadeva lokalni projekt, ki ne vpliva na trgovino; nadalje, ker se z ogrevanjem ne trguje in ker ogrevanje ne more nadomestiti drugih energetskih virov, ni izkrivljanja konkurence.
Italy then develops a number of arguments against the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence (recitals 19 to 23):
Italija nato razvije številne argumente v točkah 19 do 23 proti uporabi sodne prakse Deggendorf.
Italy claims that the Deggendorf jurisprudence should not apply in this case, given the different origin of the case.
Italija trdi, da se sodna praksa Deggendorf v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo ne bi smela uporabljati zaradi drugačnega izvora le-te.
The present case is a regional case (granting authority being the Regione Lazio), while the case concerning the municipalizzate was a national case.
Zadevna pomoč je regionalna (organ, ki dodeljuje pomoč, je regija Lacij), medtem ko je bila pomoč, dodeljena komunalnim podjetjem, nacionalna pomoč.
Italy claims that there is no absolute identity in the beneficiaries.
Italija trdi, da absolutna identiteta upravičencev ne obstaja.
The Deggendorf jurisprudence should apply only to individual aid and not to schemes.
Sodna praksa Deggendorf bi se zato morala uporabljati samo za individualno pomoč in ne za programe pomoči.
Italy claims that the Deggendorf jurisprudence should apply only when decisions are incontrovertible, while the decision of the Commission is not final, as there is an appeal pending.
Italija trdi, da bi se morala sodna praksa Deggendorf uporabljati samo pri nespornih odločitvah, medtem ko odločba Komisije ni dokončna, ker pritožbeni postopek še ni končan.
Italy states that the Commission cannot exercise such a pressure on Members States’ policies before all enforcement means foreseen by the Treaty have been used.
Italija trdi, da Komisija ne more izvajati takšnega pritiska na politike držav članic, preden so uporabljena vsa sredstva izvršitve, ki jih predvideva Pogodba.
Italy claims that the Commission is making a use of the Deggendorf jurisprudence which is too wide. It notes that a possible consequence would be that Member States would stop notifying.
Italija trdi, da Komisija preširoko uporablja sodno prakso Deggendorf, in opozarja na možno posledico, da bi države članice prenehale s priglasitvami.
Italy points out two other features of the project under examination which would not favour the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence: (a) the energy saving objectives of the project are in line with Commission and EU policies; (b) ACEA would be penalised compared to other municipalizzate, and the Commission would be exercising pressure towards a single subject, through illegitimate means.
Italija poudarja dve drugi lastnosti zadevnega projekta, ki ne podpirata uporabe sodne prakse Deggendorf: a) cilji projekta varčevanja z energijo so v skladu s politikami Komisije in Skupnosti; b) podjetje ACEA bi bilo v primerjavi z drugimi komunalnimi podjetji oškodovano in Komisija bi izvajala pritisk na en sam subjekt s pomočjo nezakonitih sredstev.
In reply to the Commission’s questions, Italy points out that (recitals 25 to 27):
V odgovor na vprašanja Komisije Italija predlaga pripombe v točkah 25 do 27.
The Memorandum of Understanding shows that AEP is subject to double control of AEA and Electrabel.
Memorandum o soglasju kaže, da je podjetje AEP podvrženo dvojnemu nadzoru s strani ACEA in Electrabela.
In the Joint Venture Agreement the project under consideration was not taken into account, nor was the recovery decision.
V sporazumu o skupnem podjetju ni bil upoštevan zadevni projekt, niti odločba o vračilu.
ACEA has various activities, and that it is not possible to determine on which of these the recovery of the aid will impinge.
Podjetje ACEA opravlja različne dejavnosti in ni mogoče določiti, katere izmed teh dejavnosti bo vračilo pomoči zadevalo.
The beneficiary of the aid ACEA, made a number of comments, which, to a very large extent, are identical to those submitted by Italy.
Upravičenec do pomoči podjetje ACEA je navedel številne pripombe, ki so v zelo veliki meri enake tistim, ki jih je navedla Italija.
There are however three additional comments in particular on the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence:
Vendar pa obstajajo tri dodatne pripombe, zlasti glede uporabe sodne prakse Deggendorf.
The first additional argument from ACEA is that, in the present case, contrary to the Deggendorf case, there are no urgent and serious reasons for the recovery, nor has a long period passed since the decision on the unlawful aid.
Prvi dodatni argument podjetja ACEA je, da v tem primeru, v nasprotju z zadevo Deggendorf, ni nujnih in resnih razlogov za vračilo, niti ni preteklo veliko časa od sprejetja odločbe o nezakoniti pomoči.
The second argument from ACEA points out that, again contrary to the Deggendorf case, ACEA bears no responsibility or unwillingness concerning the recovery; to the contrary, ACEA declares itself as willing to payback, and makes clear that the delay does not depend on it.
Drugi argument podjetja ACEA poudarja, da, ponovno v nasprotju z zadevo Deggendorf, podjetje ACEA ne nosi odgovornosti ali ravnanja, ki oporeka vračilu; nasprotno, podjetje ACEA razglaša, da je pripravljeno vrniti pomoč, in pojasnjuje, da zamuda ni odvisna od njega.
The third additional argument that ACEA puts forward is the claim that the Commission is not coherent in its application of the jurisprudence Deggendorf.
Tretji dodatni argument, ki ga izpostavlja podjetje ACEA, je, da Komisija ni skladna v svoji uporabi sodne prakse Deggendorf.
ACEA mentions the Commission Decision 98/466/EC of 21 January 1998 granting conditional approval to aid which France has decided to grant to Société française de production [8], where a previous negative decision concerning the same beneficiary is mentioned, but where Deggendorf was not applied.
Podjetje ACEA navaja Odločbo Komisije 1998/466/ES [8] v zvezi s Société Française de Production (v nadaljevanju „SFP“), kjer je omenjena prejšnja negativna odločba v zvezi z istim upravičencem, vendar tu sodna praksa Deggendorf ni bila uporabljena.
The assessment of the case will look first at whether the measure under consideration is an aid, and whether it can be considered compatible according to the Treaty.
Ocena primera bo najprej ugotovila, ali je zadevni ukrep pomoč in ali se ga v skladu s Pogodbo lahko obravnava kot združljivega.
Secondly, the assessment will look at the identity of the beneficiary and the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence.
Drugič, ocena bo proučila identiteto upravičenca in uporabo sodne prakse Deggendorf.
A number of comments from Italy and from ACEA concern the finding of the Commission that the project is an aid (see paragraph 5.3).
Številne pripombe Italije in podjetja ACEA zadevajo ugotovitev Komisije, da projekt predstavlja pomoč.
The project is funded through state resources coming from the budget of the Regional Government, and deriving in particular from the ‘carbon tax’, which was introduced by the Budget Law for the year 1999.
Projekt se financira iz državnih sredstev, ki prihajajo iz proračuna regionalne vlade in izhajajo zlasti iz davka „carbon tax“, ki je bil uveden z zakonom o financah za leto 1999.
The first condition for the existence of an aid is respected.
Izpolnjen je prvi pogoj za obstoj pomoči.
The measure is selective, as it benefits only one producer, initially ACEA and now AEP.
Ukrep je selektiven, ker je do pomoči upravičeno samo eno podjetje, prej ACEA in zdaj AEP.
The second condition for the existence of an aid is respected.
Izpolnjen je drugi pogoj za obstoj pomoči.
Concerning the impact on trade, the 2003 Decision (point 3.1) says: ‘Heat is not traded but is substitutable to other primary or secondary energy products, which are themselves traded.’
V zvezi z vplivom na trgovino sklep o sprožitvi postopka v točki 3.1 navaja: „S toplotno energijo se ne trguje, vendar je zamenljiva z drugimi primarnimi ali sekundarnimi energenti, s katerimi se trguje“.
This is confirmed by other decisions of the Commission, for instance on the case Italy, Regione Piemonte, Aid for the reduction of polluting emissions (N 614/02) [9], when it says that a local district heating project ‘will allow households to substitute heat to other primary or secondary sources of energy such as oil or electricity which are traded among Member States’.
To potrjujejo druge odločbe Komisije, na primer v primeru Italije, regija Piemonte, pomoč za zmanjšanje onesnažujočih emisij (N 614/02 [9]), ko navaja, da bo projekt lokalnega daljinskega ogrevanja „omogočil gospodinjstvom, da nadomestijo toploto z drugimi primarnimi ali sekundarnimi viri energije, kot sta nafta ali električna energija, s katerima trgujejo države članice“.
The objective of district heating is to replace individual heating in buildings in an entire neighbourhood.
Namen daljinskega ogrevanja je nadomestiti individualno ogrevanje gospodinjstev v celotni soseščini.
In other words, the heating provided by the district heating power generator replaces the heating generated by small boilers, which in turn use other energy sources such as oil, gas, or by electricity.
Z drugimi besedami, ogrevanje, ki ga zagotavlja električni generator daljinskega ogrevanja, nadomesti ogrevanje, ki ga proizvajajo majhni kotli, ki nato uporabljajo druge vire energije, kot so nafta, plin ali elektrika.
Oil, gas and electricity are traded among Member States.
Nafta, plin in elektrika se tržijo med državami članicami.
There is a substitution effect and the project under consideration does then have an impact on trade.
Gre za učinek nadomestitve, zato zadevni projekt vpliva na trgovino.
In any event, both the ACEA and the Electrabel groups are active in a number of areas, in particular energy and electricity production and distribution, where intra-Community trade takes place.
V vsakem primeru sta ACEA in Electrabel dejavna na številnih področjih, zlasti na področjih proizvodnje in distribucije energije in električne energije, kjer poteka trgovina znotraj Skupnosti.
The third condition for the existence of aid is also respected.
Izpolnjen je tretji pogoj za obstoj pomoči.
Finally, the measure is also distortive, as it favours only a producer that may have its position strengthened in the global energy market, which may then possibly lead to a change in market conditions.
Ukrep tudi izkrivlja konkurenco, ker daje prednost podjetju, ki ima okrepljen položaj na globalnem trgu energije, kar lahko nato vodi k spremembam tržnih pogojev.
Impact on trade and distortion stemming from the measure are thus confirmed, and are consistent with the findings of the Commission in other cases [10].
Vpliv na trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence, ki izhaja iz tega ukrepa, sta s tem potrjena in se ujemata z ugotovitvami Komisije v drugih primerih [10].
All the four conditions for the existence of an aid are thus respected, and the Commission confirms its finding that the project under examination should be considered as such.
Izpolnjeni so torej vsi štirje pogoji za obstoj pomoči. Komisija potrjuje svojo ugotovitev, da je potrebno zadevni projekt obravnavati kot pomoč.
The Commission then examined if the aid under consideration could have been considered compatible, according to article 87(3)c. It first recognised that the project intends to reach environmental objectives.
Glede združljivosti zadevne pomoči s programom pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Komisija priznava, da je namen projekta doseči okoljevarstvene cilje.
Second, it looked at whether the measure could fall within the rules foreseen by the Environmental Guidelines.
Drugič, proučila je, ali zadevni ukrep spada med pravila, ki jih določajo smernice na področju varstva okolja.
The Commission looked in particular at points 30 and 37.
Komisija je proučila zlasti točki 30 in 37.
Point 30 of the Guidelines stipulates that ‘investments in energy saving as defined in point 6 are deemed equivalent to investments to promote environmental protection.
Točka 30 teh smernic določa, da „se investicije v varčevanje z energijo, kakor je opredeljeno v točki 6, štejejo za enakovredne investicijam za spodbujanje varstva okolja.
Such investments play a major role in achieving economically the Community objectives for the environment.
Takšne investicije igrajo poglavitno vlogo pri gospodarnem doseganju okoljskih ciljev Skupnosti.
They are, therefore, eligible for investment aid at the basic rate of 40 % of eligible costs’.
Zato so te investicije upravičene do investicijske pomoči z osnovno intenzivnostjo 40 % upravičenih stroškov“.
Within the project under consideration, only investment concerning district heating, consisting in pipelines for the distribution of heat and its accessories, is eligible to aid.
V okviru zadevnega projekta je samo investicija v zvezi z daljinskim ogrevanjem, ki obsega cevovode za distribucijo toplote in opremo, upravičena do pomoči.
The regional authorities of Lazio have provided the Commission with technical and economic evidence which proves that the proposed distribution network for district heating would actually mark a significant step forward in energy saving as compared to the existing — i.e. pre-investment — situation, ceteris paribus.
Regionalni organi oblasti Lacija so Komisiji posredovali tehnične in gospodarske dokaze, ki dokazujejo, da bi načrtovano distribucijsko omrežje za daljinsko ogrevanje dejansko omogočilo pomemben napredek pri varčevanju z energijo v primerjavi z obstoječim – tj. predinvesticijskim – stanjem, pod enakimi pogoji.
Therefore, point 30 of the Guidelines applies.
Zato se uporablja točka 30 okoljskih smernic.
Point 37 of the Guidelines stipulates that ‘eligible costs must be confined strictly to the extra investment costs necessary to meet the environmental objectives’.
Točka 37 smernic določa, da „morajo biti upravičeni stroški omejeni zgolj na dodatne investicijske stroške, da se izpolnijo okoljski cilji“.
Therefore, the full cost of the investment can be considered as eligible.
Zato Komisija celotne stroške investicije šteje za upravičene.
The aid granted corresponds to a maximum gross intensity of 40 %.
Dodeljena pomoč ustreza najvišji bruto intenzivnosti 40 %.
Therefore, in terms of eligible investment costs and aid intensity, the district heating project, taken in isolation, appears to be in line with points 30 and 37 of the Guidelines.
Zato se zdi, da je projekt daljinskega ogrevanja, kar zadeva upravičene investicijske stroške in intenzivnost pomoči, sam po sebi usklajen s točkama 30 in 37 okoljskih smernic.
Based on this analysis the Commission would be able to declare the project, taken in isolation, as compatible to the rules concerning state aid.
Na osnovi te analize bi Komisija lahko razglasila, da je projekt sam po sebi združljiv s pravili glede državnih pomoči.
In taking this decision, the Commission balanced environmental aspects with competition policy, as it is precisely supposed to do.
Pri sprejemanju te odločitve je Komisija primerjala okoljske vidike s konkurenčno politiko, natančno tako, kot je potrebno.
As it is indicated in point 4 of the Environmental Guidelines ‘taking long-term environmental requirements into account does not mean that all aid must be authorised’.
Kot je določeno v točki 4 okoljskih smernic, „dolgoročno upoštevanje okoljskih zahtev ne pomeni, da mora biti odobrena vsa pomoč“.
Accepting the point of view of Italy, that since the project intended to reach environmental objectives the Commission should then have approved it, would ignore the fact that what matters most for competition rules is the modality through which the objectives are met.
S sprejetjem stališča Italije, da bi morala Komisija odobriti projekt, glede na to, da je namenjen doseganju okoljskih ciljev, ne bi upoštevali dejstva, da je za pravila o konkurenci najpomembnejši način, s katerim se dosežejo cilji.
It is established jurisprudence that in providing guidelines on the ways it will examine State aid notifications, the Commission indicates to the Member States the less distortive ways of reaching the environmental goals.
Ustaljena sodna praksa je, da Komisija z zagotavljanjem smernic glede načinov proučevanja priglasitev o državni pomoči pokaže državam članicam manj izkrivljajoče načine doseganja okoljskih ciljev.
However, the environmental objective of the aid does not justify a derogation from general rules and principles concerning all State aid measures, whatever their objective.
Vendar pa okoljski cilj pomoči ne upravičuje odstopanja od splošnih pravil in načel glede vseh ukrepov državne pomoči, ne glede na njihov cilj.
The first aspect of the assessment in the present case is to analyse the identity of the beneficiary.
Prvi vidik ocene v tem primeru je analiza vprašanja identitete upravičenca.
A number of comments from Italy [11] concern the change of beneficiary, the conditions of transfer of the part of the firm that is going to carry out the project and the Memorandum of Understanding between ACEA and Electrabel.
Številne pripombe Italije [11] zadevajo zamenjavo upravičenca, pogoje prenosa dela podjetja, ki bo izvajal projekt, in Memorandum o soglasju med podjetjema ACEA in Electrabel.
It is useful to underline that, before taking the decision to open the current procedure, the Commission was not made aware that the beneficiary of the aid had become AEP.
Pred sklepom o sprožitvi postopka Komisija ni bila seznanjena, da je upravičenec do pomoči postalo podjetje AEP.
It’s a fact that was communicated from the Italian authorities only in the course of the current procedure.
Gre za dejstvo, ki so ga italijanske oblasti posredovale šele med obstoječim postopkom.