natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One RDF would clearly not have been sufficient for the proper treatment of this volume of waste.
Ena peč RDF očitno ne bi zadostovala za pravilno obdelavo take količine odpadkov.
This figure is, however, open to criticism in three respects.
Vendar pa je navedeno številko mogoče izpodbijati v treh pogledih.
First, part of the expected supply of RDF waste to AVR Nuts may have been the consequence of the restrictive application of the definition of ‘waste for recovery’ by the Netherlands up to the beginning of 2003.
Prvič, del pričakovane dobave odpadkov RDF podjetju AVR Nuts je bil morda posledica omejevalne uporabe opredelitve „odpadkov za predelavo“ do začetka leta 2003 na Nizozemskem.
Second, interested parties have pointed to alternative domestic capacity for dealing with RDF waste.
Drugič, zainteresirane stranke so opozorile na alternativne domače zmogljivosti za ravnanje z odpadki RDF.
Third, the estimate would not take into account the possibility for AVR to treat part of the waste in its grate incinerators for municipal waste [21].
Tretjič, ocena ni upoštevala možnosti, da podjetje AVR obdeluje del odpadkov v svojih rešetkastih sežigalnicah komunalnih odpadkov.
On the other hand, the estimate explicitly took account of ongoing developments at the time.
Po drugi strani pa je v oceni izrecno upoštevano takratno stalno dogajanje.
Moreover, in early 2002 there was still a substantial stock of RDF waste, with the result that supply at the beginning of the period was guaranteed.
Nadalje so bile zaloge odpadkov RDF v začetku leta 2002 še vedno precej velike, zaradi česar je bila dobava na začetku obdobja zagotovljena.
Furthermore, had the Dutch authorities in 2002 based the estimated flow of RDF waste on the assumption that the definition of ‘waste for recovery’ would have been correctly applied, the estimate might have been lower, but it seems unlikely that, on the basis of the information available at the time, such an estimate would have been so low that they could have confidently decided that only one RDF would suffice.
Nizozemski organi so se v letu 2002 pri oceni toka odpadkov RDF oprli na domnevo, da bi bila ocena morda nižja, če bi se opredelitev „odpadkov za predelavo“ pravilno uporabljala, vendar se zdi malo verjetno, da bi bila glede na informacije, ki so bile takrat na voljo, ta ocena tako nizka, da bi se lahko z gotovostjo odločili, da zadostuje le ena peč RDF.
This is confirmed by the fact that in 2003, when the Court already had clarified the proper definition of ‘waste for recovery’, AVR's capacity problems still forced the Netherlands to allow actual exports of RDF waste.
To potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da so v letu 2003, ko je Sodišče že razjasnilo pravilno opredelitev „odpadkov za predelavo“, težave z zmogljivostjo podjetja AVR Nizozemsko še vedno silile v to, da dovoli dejanski izvoz odpadkov RDF.
The actual decline in the flow of RDF waste to AVR is explained to a significant extent by factors other than the increase in exports.
Dejansko zmanjševanje toka odpadkov RDF v podjetju AVR lahko v precejšnjem obsegu razložimo z dejavniki, ki ne zajemajo povečanja izvoza.
With respect to other capacity in the Netherlands, the Commission notes that a significant part of that capacity became available only in late 2003, after the required permits had been issued to the main competing pyrolysis installation.
Kar zadeva druge zmogljivosti na Nizozemskem, Komisija ugotavlja, da je precejšen del teh zmogljivosti postal razpoložljiv šele konec leta 2003, potem ko so bila izdana zahtevana dovoljenja za glavne konkurenčne naprave za pirolizo.
The interested parties have failed to demonstrate that the Dutch authorities should have taken into account back in 2002 sufficient alternative domestic capacity for treating all types of RDF waste produced in the Netherlands and delivered for disposal.
Zainteresirane stranke niso dokazale, da bi morali nizozemski organi v letu 2002 upoštevati zadostne alternativne domače zmogljivosti za obdelavo vseh vrst odpadkov RDF, proizvedenih na Nizozemskem in oddanih v odstranjevanje.
The decision to keep in operation two RDFs instead of one increased the level of aid, in particular because of the investments which appeared to be necessary and in respect of which compensation had subsequently to be paid because of the closure.
Raven pomoči se je zaradi odločitve, da se v obratovanju ohranita dve peči RDF namesto ene, zvišala, zlasti zaradi naložb, ki so se zdele potrebne in v zvezi s katerimi je bilo kasneje treba plačati nadomestilo zaradi zaprtja.
Some of these investments had not, however, been foreseen at the time the concession agreement was signed.
Vendar pa nekaj teh naložb ni bilo predvidenih v času, ko se je podpisovala koncesijska pogodba.
The effects on the predetermined operating deficits were relatively limited because of the relatively high proportion of fixed costs.
Učinki vnaprej določenih primanjkljajev iz rednega poslovanja so bili dokaj omejeni zaradi relativno visokega deleža stalnih stroškov.
The Commission expects the effects on competitors to remain relatively limited as well: there is no indication that keeping two RDFs in operation has resulted in larger quantities of RDF and other hazardous waste being incinerated.
Komisija pričakuje, da bodo ostali dokaj omejeni tudi učinki na konkurente, saj ni znakov, ki bi kazali, da je ohranitev dveh peči RDF povzročila sežiganje večjih količin odpadkov RDF in drugih nevarnih odpadkov.
Using RDF capacity for other types of waste, for which no evidence has been provided, is relatively inefficient and cannot be reckoned to have had a strong negative effect on competitors.
Uporaba zmogljivosti RDF za druge vrste odpadkov, za katere ni predloženih nobenih dokazov, je relativno neučinkovita in ni mogla imeti močnega negativnega vpliva na konkurente.
Accordingly, it appears to the Commission that the original decision to keep two RDFs in operation can be considered to be proportionate and that the decisions to close the RDFs were not unreasonably overdue.
Komisija zato meni, da prvotna odločitev, da se v obratovanju ohranita obe peči RDF, lahko velja za sorazmerno, in da odločitve o zaprtju peči RDF niso bile neutemeljeno zakasnele.
Involvement of AVR IW: AVR IW was responsible for much of AVR Nuts’ administration and, at the same time, was a competitor for other suppliers of hazardous waste.
Vključenost AVR IW: Podjetje AVR IW je izvajalo večino administrativnih nalog podjetja AVR Nuts in hkrati konkuriralo drugim dobaviteljem nevarnih odpadkov.
In this way, it obtained information on intended and actual supplies of waste.
Tako je pridobilo podatke o načrtovanih in dejanskih dobavah odpadkov.
As no single supplier was under an obligation to supply to AVR Nuts the quantities originally indicated and as the actual fees and discounts were ultimately based solely on actual volumes of waste supplied, it is difficult to see how AVR IW could have obtained a financial or strategic advantage by virtue of its central position.
Ker noben dobavitelj ni bil obvezen dobavljati podjetju AVR Nuts prvotno navedenih količin in ker so dejanske pristojbine in popusti na koncu temeljili izključno na dejanskih količinah dobavljenih odpadkov, je težko ugotoviti, kako bi lahko podjetje AVR IW pridobilo finančno ali strateško prednost zaradi svojega osrednjega položaja.
The Netherlands explained that AVR IW was unable to abuse this position and the Commission, on the basis of the comments from interested parties among other things, cannot come to this conclusion either.
Nizozemska je razložila, da podjetje AVR IW ni moglo zlorabiti tega položaja, tega pa, med drugim na podlagi pripomb zainteresiranih strank, prav tako ne more sklepati Komisija.
It may be true that AVR IW, on its own behalf, offered to treat waste at fees below those charged by AVR Nuts, but this cannot be attributed to the aid measures and could fall within the realm of competitive behaviour; any competitor was free to act in a similar manner.
Morda je res, da je podjetje AVR IW za svoj račun ponujalo obdelavo odpadkov po nižjih pristojbinah, kot jih zaračunava podjetje AVR Nuts, vendar tega ni mogoče pripisati ukrepom pomoči, lahko pa sodi v področje konkurenčnega vedenja; vsak konkurent je lahko ravnal na podobno.
Similarly, even if AVR IW rerouted part of the RDF waste to its municipal waste incinerators, which has not been proved, this does not seem to have resulted in a disproportionate distortion since any supplier with knowledge of the waste could have earned similar margins by simply supplying such waste directly to other municipal waste incinerators operated by AVR or others.
Četudi bi podjetje AVR IW preusmerilo del odpadkov RDF v svoje sežigalnice odpadkov, kar pa ni bilo dokazano, se prav tako ne zdi, da bi to povzročilo nesorazmerno izkrivljanje, saj bi lahko vsak dobavitelj z znanjem na področju odpadkov zaslužil podobne marže že, če bi dobavljal take odpadke neposredno drugim sežigalnicam komunalnih odpadkov, ki jih vodi podjetje AVR ali druga podjetja.
Moreover, as the aid was determined on the basis of a predetermined budget, the Commission expects AVR to have opted for efficient solutions, and not to have rerouted waste if this would have led to underutilisation of the installations and hence higher actual losses.
Ker se je pomoč določala na podlagi vnaprej določenega proračuna, Komisija pričakuje, da se je podjetje AVR odločilo za učinkovite rešitve in ne za preusmeritev odpadkov, če bi to povzročilo nezadostno izkoriščenost naprav in s tem višje dejanske izgube.
In fact, such rerouting may well be regarded as efficient waste management in line with the Community principles.
Pravzaprav se taka preusmeritev lahko obravnava kot učinkovito ravnanje z odpadki v skladu z načeli Skupnosti.
Technological development: The Commission does not expect the measures to have a pronounced adverse effect on the development of alternative disposal and recovery technologies.
Tehnološki razvoj: Komisija ne pričakuje, da bi imeli ukrepi izrazit škodljiv vpliv na razvoj alternativnih tehnologij odstranjevanja in predelave.
As explained by the Netherlands, other instruments exist for encouraging such developments.
Kot je razložila Nizozemska, obstajajo drugi instrumenti za spodbujanje takega razvoja.
In 2003, for example, a permit was granted for an innovative pyrolysis installation.
V letu 2003 je bilo na primer dodeljeno dovoljenje za inovativno napravo za pirolizo.
The fees charged by AVR were significantly higher than the fees charged by the operator of that installation and so the distortive effect of the aid must be considered to be limited in this respect.
Pristojbine, ki jih zaračunava podjetje AVR, so bile znatno višje od pristojbin, ki jih zaračunava upravljavec navedene naprave, zato je treba upoštevati, da je izkrivljajoč učinek pomoči v tem pogledu omejen.
Aid for the acquisition of waste: In contrast to the above aspects, the measures cannot be regarded as proportionate as regards the acquisition of waste as carried out by AVR IW and for which AVR Nuts pays compensation out of the aid it receives from the State.
Pomoč za pridobivanje odpadkov: V nasprotju z zgoraj navedenimi vidiki pa ni mogoče trditi, da so ukrepi sorazmerni, kar zadeva pridobivanje odpadkov, kot ga izvaja podjetje AVR IW in za katero podjetje AVR Nuts plačuje nadomestilo iz pomoči, ki jo prejme od države.
The Commission accepts that minimising the costs of the system requires maximising the volume of waste to be treated, especially the volume of RDF waste, for which the gate fees are highest.
Komisija se strinja, da je za zmanjševanje stroškov sistema treba povečati obseg odpadkov za obdelavo, zlasti odpadkov RDF, za katere so pristojbine za odlaganje najvišje.
As indicated in point 99, the system of non-discriminatory staggered rebates can be accepted for this reason.
Kot je navedeno pod točko 99, je zaradi tega sistem nediskriminacijskih postopnih rabatov sprejemljiv.
In contrast, the compensation granted to AVR IW in respect of the acquisition of waste distorts competition in a disproportionate way as AVR IW is the sole recipient.
Nasprotno pa nadomestilo, dodeljeno podjetju AVR IW za pridobivanje odpadkov, nesorazmerno izkrivlja konkurenco, saj je podjetje AVR IW edini prejemnik.
Its competitors do not receive similar compensation for acquisition costs incurred by them.
Njegovi konkurenti ne prejemajo podobnega nadomestila za svoje stroške pridobivanja.
As regards high-calorific hazardous waste, had there been persistent shortages, the solution could have consisted in lowering the gate fees in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Kar zadeva nevarne odpadke z visoko kalorično vrednostjo, pa bi bila lahko rešitev v primeru nenehnega pomanjkanja nediskriminatorno znižanje pristojbin za odlaganje.
As regards RDF waste, the compensation for acquisition costs must be considered as disproportionate too.
Glede odpadkov RDF je treba nadomestilo za stroške pridobivanja prav tako obravnavati kot nesorazmerno.
But, even in the case of RDF waste from Dutch sources, acquisition may encourage disposal in the Netherlands at the expense of recovery in the Netherlands or elsewhere.
Vendar pa lahko celo v primeru odpadkov RDF iz nizozemskih virov pridobivanje spodbudi odstranjevanje na Nizozemskem na račun predelave na Nizozemskem ali drugje.
Under specific circumstances, this may be contrary to the principle of treatment near the source.
V določenih okoliščinah je to lahko v nasprotju z načelom obdelave blizu vira.
Consequently, the amount of €2,4 million intended for acquisition, included in the aid to AVR Nuts, which was based on the predetermined budget, and transferred to AVR IW cannot be justified on the basis of Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Zneska za pridobivanje v višini 2,4 milijona EUR, vključenega v pomoč podjetju AVR Nuts, ki je temeljila na vnaprej določenem proračunu, in prenesenega na podjetje AVR IW, zato ni mogoče utemeljiti na podlagi člena 86(2) Pogodbe.
The compatibility of this part of the measure with Article 87(2) and (3) is assessed in Section 6.3 below.
Združljivost tega dela ukrepa s členom 87(2) in (3) je ocenjena v oddelku 6.3 spodaj.
Assessment on the basis of Article 87 of the compensation for acquisition costs
Presoja nadomestila za stroške pridobivanja na podlagi člena 87
The Commission has examined whether the exemptions in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty apply to the compensation for acquisition costs granted to AVR IW.
Komisija je preučila, ali izjeme iz člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe veljajo za nadomestilo za stroške pridobivanja, dodeljeno podjetju AVR IW.
The exemptions in Article 87(2) could serve as a basis for considering aid to be compatible with the common market.
Na podlagi izjem iz člena 87(2) bi lahko pomoč obravnavali kot združljivo s skupnim trgom.
However, the aid (a) does not have a social character and is not granted to individual consumers, (b) does not make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and (c) is not required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany.
Vendar pa pomoč (a) nima socialnega značaja in se ne dodeljuje posameznim potrošnikom, (b) ni namenjena povrnitvi škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, (c) ni potrebna za nadomestilo gospodarske škode, ki jo je povzročila delitev Nemčije.
Similarly, the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a), (b) and (d), which refer to aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, aid to promote projects of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a Member State, and aid to promote culture and heritage conservation, do not apply in the present case.
Podobno izjeme iz člena 87(3)(a), (b) in (d), ki se nanašajo na pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika, pomoč za pospeševanje izvedbe projektov skupnega evropskega interesa ali za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice in pomoč za pospeševanje ohranitve kulture in dediščine, v tem primeru ne veljajo.
The Netherlands has not attempted to justify the aid on any of these grounds.
Nizozemska ni poskušala utemeljiti pomoči na nobeni od teh podlag.
As regards the first part of the exemption in Article 87(3)(c), namely aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, the Commission notes that the aid does not involve research and development, investment by small and medium-sized enterprises or the rescue or restructuring of AVR IW.
Kar zadeva prvi del izjeme v členu 87(3)(c), in sicer pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti, Komisija ugotavlja, da pomoč ne vključuje raziskav in razvoja, naložb malih in srednje velikih podjetij ali reševanja oziroma prestrukturiranja podjetja AVR IW.
Nor does the aid serve regional development purposes, and AVR IW is not located in an area where start-up investments are eligible for regional aid.
Pomoč tudi ni namenjena regionalnemu razvoju, podjetje AVR IW pa se ne nahaja v območju, kjer so zagonske naložbe upravičene do regionalne pomoči.
Therefore, the aid cannot be declared compatible with the common market on the ground that it would facilitate the development of certain regions.
Zato se pomoč ne more razglasiti za združljivo s skupnim trgom, ker naj bi pospešila razvoj določenih regij.
The Commission has examined whether the aid measure qualifies for exemption under Article 87(3)(c) on any other grounds and, in particular, whether the environmental aid guidelines apply to this case.
Komisija je preučila, ali ukrep pomoči izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo iz člena 87(3)(c) na kakršni koli drugi podlagi ter zlasti, ali se v tem primeru uporabljajo smernice o okoljski pomoči.
Since the aid constitutes operating aid, the Commission has assessed it in the light of Section E.3.1 of those guidelines.
Ker pomoč vključuje pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, jo je Komisija ocenila glede na oddelek E.3.1 navedenih smernic.
The aid is, however, not shown to be absolutely necessary, nor is it strictly limited to compensating for extra production costs by comparison with market prices of the relevant products or services.
Vendar pa se ni izkazalo, da je pomoč neizogibno potrebna, niti ni strogo omejena na nadomeščanje dodatnih stroškov proizvodnje v primerjavi s tržnimi cenami zadevnih proizvodov ali storitev.
As none of the exemptions is applicable, the Commission concludes that this aid is incompatible with the common market and, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, should be recovered from the recipient, AVR IW, in conformity with the provisions set out in Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [22].
Ker nobena od izjem ni veljavna, Komisija meni, da ta pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom in da jo mora v skladu s členom 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 podjetje AVR IW kot prejemnik povrniti v skladu z določbami, navedenimi v poglavju V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvedbi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe. [22]
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the following measures constitute state aid for AVR Nuts: 1. the compensation for the budget deficits in 2002 and 2003; 2. the compensation for the budget deficits in 2004 and in the remaining period 2005-06; 3. the compensation for closure costs, which consists in (a) compensation for closure costs related to the agreed investments to the extent they have not yet been written off and (b) compensation for closure costs due to the early termination of the treatment of RDF waste; and 4. the aid contained in the guarantee.
Komisija ugotavlja, da naslednji ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč za podjetje AVR Nuts: 1. nadomestilo za proračunske primanjkljaje v letih 2002 in 2003; 2. nadomestilo za proračunske primanjkljaje v letu 2004 in v ostalem obdobju 2005–2006; 3. nadomestilo za stroške zaprtja, ki zajemajo (a) nadomestilo za stroške zaprtja, povezane z dogovorjenimi naložbami, če še niso odpisane, in (b) nadomestilo za stroške zaprtja, ki izhajajo iz predčasnega prenehanja obdelave odpadkov RDF; in 4. pomoč, vsebovano v jamstvu.
The aid, except for the part of it designed to compensate for the costs of acquiring waste, can be found compatible with the common market as it constitutes compensation for the costs of an SGEI within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty, on condition that the aid does not exceed the actual losses incurred during that period and that allowance is made for no more than a reasonable profit margin.
Za pomoč se, razen v delu, namenjenem nadomestilu za stroške pridobivanja odpadkov, lahko ugotovi, da je združljiva s skupnim trgom, saj pomeni nadomestilo za stroške storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena v smislu člena 86(2) Pogodbe, pod pogojem, da pomoč ne prekorači dejanskih izgub, nastalih v tem obdobju, in da se dopusti profitna marža le v utemeljenem obsegu.
To this end, the Commission requests the Netherlands to submit annual reports on the actual use of the aid and the profitability of the activities during the year concerned.
Komisija v ta namen prosi Nizozemsko, da predloži letna poročila glede dejanske uporabe pomoči in donosnosti dejavnosti v zadevnem letu.
The Netherlands should also verify the compensation for closure costs and, in so doing, address the issues enumerated in Annex II.
Nizozemska bi morala tudi pregledati nadomestilo za stroške zaprtja in pri tem upoštevati vprašanja, našteta v Prilogi II.
An interim report on this verification must be submitted to the Commission by the spring of 2006 and the final report by the spring of 2007.
Vmesno poročilo o tem pregledu je treba predložiti Komisiji do pomladi 2006, končno poročilo pa do pomladi 2007.
The Netherlands should notify any aid granted to AVR Nuts that would allow the company to attain a profitability level higher than the rate of return on Dutch government bonds plus 2 percentage points.
Nizozemska bi morala prijaviti kakršno koli pomoč, dodeljeno podjetju AVR Nuts, ki bi mu omogočila, da doseže raven donosnosti, ki je višja od stopnje donosa nizozemskih državnih obveznic, povečane za 2 odstotni točki.
This aid may not be paid out before the Commission has approved it pursuant to Article 4 or 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Ta pomoč se ne sme plačati, preden je Komisija ne odobri v skladu s členom 4 ali 7 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999.
However, the compensation of €2396000 granted to AVR IW for the costs of acquiring waste cannot be found compatible since it cannot be regarded as proportionate compensation for the SGEI.
Vendar pa se za nadomestilo v višini 2396000 EUR, dodeljeno podjetju AVR IW za stroške pridobivanja odpadkov, ne more ugotoviti, da je združljivo, saj se ne more obravnavati kot sorazmerno nadomestilo za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Instead, it compensates AVR IW for costs that should normally be included in the budget of a waste treatment company.
Podjetju AVR IW namreč nadomešča stroške, ki bi običajno morali biti vključeni v proračun podjetja za obdelavo odpadkov.
None of the exemptions from the prohibition on state aid in Article 87(1) of the Treaty is applicable.
Nobena od izjem v prepovedi o državni pomoči iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ni veljavna.
Consequently, this part of the aid must be recovered directly from AVR IW.
Zato je treba ta del pomoči povrniti neposredno od podjetja AVR IW.
To this end, the Commission requests the Netherlands to enjoin AVR IW to repay the aid with interest in line with the conditions laid down in this decision.
V ta namen Komisija prosi Nizozemsko, da predpiše podjetju AVR IW, da povrne pomoč z obrestmi v skladu s pogoji, določenimi v tej odločbi.