natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By letter of 30 September 2004 (D/56902), the Commission requested further information which the Netherlands provided by letter of 22 October 2004 (registered as received on 27 October under No A/38271).
Z dopisom z dne 30. septembra 2004 (D/56902) je Komisija zaprosila za dodatne informacije, ki jih je Nizozemska posredovala z dopisom z dne 22. oktobra 2004 (evidentiranim 27. oktobra pod številko A/38271).
In that letter, the Netherlands confirmed that further aid had been paid to the recipient for the remainder of 2003, the first three quarters of 2004 and the closure of one of the installations.
Nizozemska je v tem dopisu potrdila, da je bila prejemniku plačana nadaljnja pomoč za preostali del leta 2003, prva tri četrtletja leta 2004 in zaprtje ene od naprav.
The decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of 9 October 2004 [4].
Sklep o podaljšanju postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu 9. oktobra 2004.
The Commission received comments from the two joint competitors (letters of 16 and 19 November 2004, registered under Nos A/38860 and A/38978).
Komisija je prejela pripombe od dveh združenih konkurentov (dopisa z dne 16. in 19. novembra 2004, evidentirana pod številki A/38860 in A/38978).
It forwarded these comments to the Netherlands by letter of 22 November 2004 (D/58307).
Te pripombe je poslala Nizozemski z dopisom z dne 22. novembra 2004 (D/58307).
The Netherlands made observations on these comments and answered the Commission's questions by letters of 22 December 2004 (registered as received on 5 January 2005 under No A/30171) and 12 January 2005 (registered as received on 17 January under No A/30525).
Nizozemska je izrazila svoja stališča glede teh pripomb in odgovorila na vprašanja Komisije z dopisoma z dne 22. decembra 2004 (evidentiran 5. januarja 2005 pod številko A/30171) in 12. januarja 2005 (evidentiran 17. januarja pod številko A/30525).
In these letters, the Netherlands informed the Commission not only of the decision to close the remaining RDF but also of the corresponding compensation for the costs of closure.
Nizozemska je v teh dopisih obvestila Komisijo o odločitvi o zaprtju druge peči RDF ter tudi o ustreznem nadomestilu za stroške zaprtja.
Lastly, the two joint competitors confirmed their opposition to the aid by letters of 25 April 2005 (registered as received the same day under No A/33476) and 2 May 2005 (registered as received on 12 May under No A/33884).
Nazadnje sta združena konkurenta potrdila svoje nestrinjanje s pomočjo z dopisoma z dne 25. aprila 2005 (evidentiran istega dne pod številko A/33476) in 2. maja 2005 (evidentiran 12. maja pod številko A/33884).
Following these letters, yet another meeting between representatives of the Commission and of the two joint competitors took place on 26 May.
Po teh dopisih je bil 26. maja organiziran še en sestanek predstavnikov Komisije in dveh združenih konkurentov.
Again, the law firm also represented the same third competitor (hereinafter this competitor together with the other two are referred to as the ‘three joint competitors’).
Odvetniška družba je tudi tokrat zastopala istega tretjega konkurenta (v nadaljevanju je ta konkurent skupaj s preostalima dvema konkurentoma poimenovan „trije združeni konkurenti“).
At the meeting, a document was presented suggesting that further aid for 2004 had been paid to AVR Nuts.
Na sestanku je bil predstavljen dokument, ki kaže, da je bila podjetju AVR Nuts plačana nadaljnja pomoč za leto 2004.
Background and objective
Ozadje in cilj
Article 5(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste [5] stipulates that ‘Member States shall take appropriate measures, in cooperation with other Member States where this is necessary or advisable, to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, taking account of the best available technology not involving excessive costs. The network must enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal and the Member States to move towards that aim individually, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialized installations for certain types of waste.’
Člen 5(1) Direktive Sveta 75/442/EGS z dne 15. julija 1975 o odpadkih [5] določa, da „Države članice sprejmejo ustrezne ukrepe, če je potrebno ali priporočljivo, tudi v sodelovanju z drugimi državami članicami, da vzpostavijo celovito in primerno omrežje obratov za odstranjevanje, pri tem pa upoštevajo najboljšo razpoložljivo tehnologijo brez čezmernih stroškov.
Article 5(2) of the Directive stipulates that ‘the network must also enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.’
Omrežje mora Skupnosti kot celoti omogočiti, da postane samozadostna pri odstranjevanju odpadkov, državam članicam pa, da se temu cilju približujejo posamezno, ob upoštevanju geografskih razmer ali potrebe po specializiranih obratih in napravah za nekatere vrste odpadkov.“ Člen 5(2) Direktive določa: „Omrežje mora tudi omogočiti odstranitev odpadkov v enem od najbližjih primernih obratov z uporabo najprimernejših načinov in tehnologij, da bi zagotovili visoko raven varstva okolja in javnega zdravja.“
In the early 1990s, with a view to meeting these objectives, a special landfill site (‘C2 depot’) and several RDFs began operations in the Netherlands.
Da bi dosegli te cilje, so na Nizozemskem v začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja uvedli posebno odlagališče („deponija C2“) in več peči RDF.
The C2 depot is used for the appropriate disposal of hazardous waste that cannot be incinerated (‘C2 waste’).
Deponija C2 se uporablja za ustrezno odstranjevanje nevarnih odpadkov, ki se ne morejo sežgati („odpadki C2“).
The RDFs are used for the appropriate disposal of hazardous waste that, despite a low calorific value, can still be incinerated [6] (‘RDF waste’).
Peči RDF se uporabljajo za ustrezno odstranjevanje nevarnih odpadkov, ki se kljub nizki kalorični vrednosti lahko sežgejo [6] („odpadki RDF“).
This incineration requires co-fuelling and, in practice, the most cost-efficient fuel is hazardous waste with a high calorific value.
Za tako sežiganje je potrebno gorivo CO in v praksi je najučinkovitejše gorivo dejansko nevarni odpadek z visoko kalorično vrednostjo.
In accordance with Article 8(3) of Directive 75/442/EC and Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community [7], Member States may prohibit export of ‘waste for disposal’.
V skladu s členom 8(3) Direktive 75/442/ES in členom 4(3) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 259/93 o nadzorovanju in kontroli pošiljk odpadkov znotraj Evropske skupnosti, v Skupnost in iz nje [7] lahko države članice prepovejo izvoz „odpadkov za odstranjevanje“.
It is only after various controls have been carried out that such waste may be traded.
Trgovina s takimi odpadki je dovoljena šele, ko so opravljene različne kontrole.
However, Member States are not generally allowed to prohibit the exportation to other Member States of ‘waste for recovery’ [8].
Vendar pa države članice na splošno ne smejo prepovedati izvoza „odpadkov za predelavo“ v druge države članice.
The concepts of ‘waste for disposal’ and ‘waste for recovery’ have been clarified in various judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Communities [9].
Pojma „odpadki za odstranjevanje“ in „odpadki za predelavo“ sta bila že razjasnjena v različnih sodbah Evropskega sodišča.
As a result, compared with the interpretation given to date by the Netherlands, a smaller amount of hazardous waste qualifies as waste for disposal while a larger amount qualifies as waste for recovery.
Posledica tega je, da se v primerjavi z razlagami, ki jih je do zdaj zagotovila Nizozemska, manjša količina nevarnih odpadkov uvršča med odpadke za odstranjevanje in večja količina med odpadke za predelavo.
The distinction does not depend on the calorific value of the waste, but rather on the primary objective of the installation in which the waste is treated and on the nature of the waste.
Razlika ni odvisna od kalorične vrednosti odpadkov, temveč od glavnega namena naprave, v kateri se odpadki obdelujejo, in od lastnosti odpadkov.
waste and RDF waste are supplied by companies in all sectors of the economy.
Odpadke C2 in odpadke RDF proizvajajo podjetja v vseh sektorjih gospodarstva.
Important sectors include metalworking, business and public services, the (petro-) chemical industry, transport and mining.
Med pomembnimi sektorji so kovinskopredelovalna industrija, poslovne in javne storitve, (petro)kemična industrija, transport in rudarstvo.
Most of the waste is handled by specialised intermediaries that typically offer a service covering the various types of waste produced by a company, i.e. C2 and RDF waste, other hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste.
Večino odpadkov obdelujejo specializirani posredniki, ki običajno ponujajo storitev, ki zajema različne vrste odpadkov, proizvedenih v podjetju, in sicer odpadki C2 in RDF, drugi nevarni odpadki ter nenevarni odpadki.
Such services are, of course, largely tied to the place where the waste is produced, but the more specific types of waste are transported over longer distances.
Take storitve so seveda večinoma vezane na mesto, kjer se odpadki proizvajajo, vendar se bolj specifične vrste odpadkov prevažajo na daljše razdalje.
Several large industrial waste companies operate internationally, with establishments in various countries.
Več večjih podjetij za industrijske odpadke deluje na mednarodni ravni in ima sedež v različnih državah.
In recent years, the options for putting hazardous waste to effective use have increased.
V zadnjih letih so se povečale možnosti za učinkovito uporabo nevarnih odpadkov.
More and more of it is being used in the cement industry (in particular in Belgium) or for filling abandoned mines (in particular in Germany).
Vse več se jih uporablja v proizvodnji cementa (zlasti v Belgiji) in za polnjenje opuščenih rudnikov (zlasti v Nemčiji).
The Court’s strict interpretation of ‘waste for disposal’ has facilitated this development.
Sodišče je s strogo razlago „odpadkov za odstranjevanje“ pospešilo ta razvoj.
At the same time, producers have further reduced the amounts of waste they generate.
Poleg tega so proizvajalci še naprej zmanjševali količine odpadkov, ki jih ustvarijo.
Within legal limits they can, at least to some extent, blend some of it with less hazardous waste, thereby reducing the costs of disposal or recovery.
V okviru zakonskih omejitev lahko vsaj v določenem obsegu zmešajo nekaj teh odpadkov z manj nevarnimi odpadki in tako zmanjšajo stroške odstranjevanja ali predelave.
As a result, the supply of RDF waste fell from about 80000/100000 tonnes in 1995 to about 34000 tonnes in 2002, compared with an anticipated figure of some 38500 tonnes.
Zaradi tega se je dobava odpadkov RDF zmanjšala s približno80000/100000 ton v letu 1995 na približno 34000 ton v letu 2002 namesto pričakovanih približno 38500 ton.
In mid-2004 AVR estimated that only 16000 tonnes of RDF waste would be offered to it annually [10].
Sredi leta 2004 je podjetje AVR ocenilo, da mu bo letno ponujenih le 16000 ton odpadkov RDF.
The supply of C2 waste decreased from about 6000 tonnes in 2000 to 4000 tonnes in 2002.
Dobava odpadkov C2 se je zmanjšala s približno 6000 ton v letu 2000 na 4000 ton v letu 2002.
Exports of hazardous waste produced in the Netherlands have increased to some 36000 tonnes, of which some 4000 tonnes is RDF waste, resulting in overcapacity as regards disposal facilities.
Izvoz nevarnih odpadkov, ustvarjenih na Nizozemskem, se je povečal na približno 36000 ton, od katerih je približno 4000 ton odpadkov RDF, kar je povzročilo presežek zmogljivosti naprav za odstranjevanje.
This has become a wider phenomenon affecting, for example, the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium.
To je postal tudi širši pojav, ki je prizadel na primer Združeno kraljestvo, Nemčijo in Belgijo.
AVR is a major player on the Dutch waste market.
Podjetje AVR je glavni akter na nizozemskem trgu odpadkov.
It is currently 100 %-owned by Rotterdam municipality, which has though recently announced its intention to sell its shares in AVR.
Je v 100-odstotni lasti občine Rotterdam, ki pa je nedavno napovedala, da namerava prodati svoje delnice v podjetju AVR.
As from the mid-1990s, AVR Chemie incurred losses (€10,9 million in 2000 and €7,2 million in 2001).
Od sredine 90. let prejšnjega stoletja ima podjetje AVR Chemie izgubo (10,9 milijona EUR v letu 2000 in 7,2 milijona EUR v letu 2001).
For this reason, AVR wished to close down the three RDFs operating at that time.
Zato je podjetje AVR želelo zapreti tri peči RDF, ki so takrat delovale.
The Netherlands, however, reached an agreement on a restructuring.
Vendar pa je Nizozemska dosegla dogovor o prestrukturiranju.
AVR Chemie was split up and AVR Nuts was created in order to continue with the disposal of C2 and RDF waste after the closure of one of the three RDFs.
Podjetje AVR Chemie se je razdelilo in oblikovano je bilo podjetje AVR Nuts, ki naj bi nadaljevalo odstranjevanje odpadkov C2 in RDF po zaprtju ene od treh peči RDF.
Both are wholly owned by AVR.
Obe podjetji sta v celoti v lasti AVR.
AVR Chemie’s only remaining activity is renting out the facilities to AVR Nuts.
Edina dejavnost, ki jo še izvaja podjetje AVR Chemie, je dajanje naprav v najem podjetju AVR Nuts.
AVR Nuts and AVR IW cooperate closely.
AVR Nuts in AVR IW tesno sodelujeta.
A service contract stipulates that most of AVR Nuts’ management and commercial functions are carried out by AVR IW.
Pogodba o izvajanju storitev določa, da podjetje AVR IW opravlja večino poslovodnih in komercialnih nalog podjetja AVR Nuts.
The capacity of the two RDFs for which AVR has a permit is 100000 tonnes of hazardous waste per year.
Zmogljivost dveh peči RDF, za kateri ima AVR dovoljenje, je 100000 ton nevarnih odpadkov na leto.
The theoretically available capacity is 80-85 % of the permitted capacity.
Teoretično razpoložljiva zmogljivost zajema 80–85 % dovoljene zmogljivosti.
AVR treated 84880 tonnes of hazardous waste (both RDF and other) in 2001, 81274 tonnes in 2002 and 78297 tonnes in 2003.
Podjetje AVR je predelalo 84880 ton nevarnih odpadkov (RDF in drugih) v letu 2001, 81274 ton v letu 2002 in 78297 ton v letu 2003.
Incineration of RDF waste requires more or less the same quantity of other hazardous waste as fuel.
Za sežiganje odpadkov RDF je potrebna bolj ali manj enaka količina drugih nevarnih odpadkov kot goriva.
The actual volume of RDF waste treated in the RDFs is estimated at 19000 tonnes for 2002 and 23000 tonnes for 2003.
Dejanska količina odpadkov RDF, obdelanih v pečeh RDF, je ocenjena na 19000 ton v letu 2002 in 23000 ton v letu 2003.
Certain types of RDF waste can also be disposed of in municipal waste incinerators, which operate at a lower temperature.
Določene vrste odpadkov RDF se lahko odstranjujejo tudi v sežigalnicah komunalnih odpadkov, ki delujejo pri nižji temperaturi.
AVR Nuts is obliged to keep separate accounts in accordance with Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings [11].
Podjetje AVR Nuts mora voditi ločene račune v skladu z Direktivo Komisije 80/723/EGS z dne 25. junija 1980 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji. [11]
The operating deficits
Primanjkljaj iz rednega poslovanja
The aid and the activities for which it is granted are defined in a concession decision by the Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) dated 3 July 2002 and in a concession agreement between the Netherlands, AVR Holding, AVR Nuts, AVR IW and a number of other subsidiaries signed on 10 July 2002.
Pomoč in dejavnosti, za katere je dodeljena, so določene v koncesijski odločbi, ki jo je izdal minister za stanovanjska vprašanja, prostor in okolje (VROM) dne 3. julija 2002, in v koncesijski pogodbi med Nizozemsko, AVR Holding, AVR Nuts, AVR IW in številnimi drugimi hčerinskimi podjetji, ki je bila podpisana 10. julija 2002.
It was to run from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006.
Trajala bi od 1. januarja 2002 do 31. decembra 2006.
The aid amounts to 100 % of the predetermined operating deficit, which is calculated on the basis of a methodology laid down by an independent accountant.
Pomoč znaša 100 % vnaprej določenega primanjkljaja iz rednega poslovanja, izračunanega na podlagi metodologije, ki jo je določil neodvisni računovodja.
In the event of a predetermined operating surplus, 70 % of it would be used to pay back the aid granted previously.
V primeru vnaprej določenega poslovnega presežka bi se 70 % tega uporabilo za vračilo prej dodeljene pomoči.
The predetermined deficits for 2002 and 2003 amounted to €1,5 million and €2,8 million respectively.
Vnaprej določeni primanjkljaji so znašali 1,5 milijona EUR za leto 2002 in 2,8 milijona EUR za leto 2003.
Annex I to this decision provides a summary of the methodology and its application for 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Priloga I k tej odločbi vsebuje povzetek metodologije in njeno uporabo za leta 2002, 2003 in 2004.
Most of the aid concerns the RDFs.
Večina pomoči zadeva peči RDF.
For the C2 depot, the predetermined deficit amounted to €0.37 million in 2003, for example.
Za deponijo C2 je vnaprej določeni primanjkljaj v letu 2003 na primer znašal 0,37 milijona EUR.
In accordance with the service contract, AVR IW carries out most of AVR Nuts’ administrative and operational functions.
V skladu s pogodbo o izvajanju storitev podjetje AVR IW izvaja večino administrativnih in operativnih nalog za podjetje AVR Nuts.
For this, it receives compensation the amount of which is included in the predetermined deficit on the basis of ‘activity-based costing’.
Za to prejme nadomestilo, katerega znesek je vključen v vnaprej določen primanjkljaj na podlagi „obračunavanja stroškov po dejavnostih“.
In practice, this meant that, for the years 2002-04, an average of 30 % of AVR’s overheads was allocated to AVR Nuts.
V praksi je to pomenilo, da je bilo v letih 2002–2004 povprečno 30 % režijskih stroškov podjetja AVR dodeljenih podjetju AVR Nuts.
One additional cost element which is included in the predetermined budget and for which AVR Nuts receives aid that it passes on to AVR IW concerns waste acquisition.
Še en dodatni element stroškov, ki je vključen v vnaprej določen proračun in za katerega podjetje AVR Nuts prejema pomoč, ki jo da naprej AVR IW, je povezan s pridobivanjem odpadkov.
Given the important weight of fixed costs, active acquisition of waste was considered necessary to maximise capacity utilisation and thus to minimise operating costs.
Glede na pomembnost stalnih stroškov je veljalo, da je aktivno pridobivanje odpadkov pomembno za čim večjo izkoriščenost zmogljivosti in s tem za doseganje čim nižjih stroškov poslovanja.
The predetermined and actual costs are presented in Table 1 below.
Vnaprej določeni in dejanski stroški so prikazani v Tabeli 1 spodaj.
Predetermined and actual acquisition costs
Vnaprej določeni in dejanski stroški pridobivanja
Predetermined additional costs
Vnaprej določeni dodatni stroški
Predetermined start-up costs - international acquisition
Vnaprej določeni zagonski stroški – mednarodno pridobivanje
Total predetermined costs
Skupaj vnaprej določeni stroški
Actual costs
Dejanski stroški
At the outset, the deficit was expected to increase to €3,8 million in 2006, but market and operating conditions proved to be much more difficult than anticipated, with little hope for improvement.
Na začetku se je pričakovalo, da se bo primanjkljaj povečal na 3,8 milijona EUR v letu 2006, vendar se je izkazalo, da so tržni pogoji in pogoji poslovanja mnogo težji, kot se je pričakovalo, in da je le malo upanja za izboljšanje.
Compensation for closure costs
Nadomestilo za stroške zaprtja
In view of the mounting operating deficits, the Netherlands, as already indicated in points 5 and 7, reconsidered its policy.
Glede na vse večje primanjkljaje iz rednega poslovanja je Nizozemska ponovno preučila svojo politiko, kot je že navedeno pod točkama 5 in 7.
At the end of 2003, it was decided to close one of the two RDFs with effect from 1 July 2004.
Konec leta 2003 je bilo sklenjeno, da se zapre ena od dveh peči RDF z učinkom od 1. julija 2004.
In the summer of 2004, it was decided to close the second one with effect from 1 January 2005.
Poleti 2004 je bilo sklenjeno, da se zapre še druga peč z učinkom od 1. januarja 2005.
For the remaining years, the predetermined losses for accepting C2 waste were, as expected, small.
Za preostala leta so bile vnaprej določene izgube za sprejemanje odpadkov C2 v skladu s pričakovanji majhne.
The concession agreement provided that the State would compensate AVR financially for the remaining book value of investments carried out in favour of AVR-Nuts during the period covered by the agreement with the approval of the State but not yet written off. Applying this clause in advance, the Dutch authorities calculated compensation of €8670108 for the costs of closing down the first RDF.
Koncesijska pogodba je določala, da bo država podjetju AVR zagotovila finančno nadomestilo za preostalo knjigovodsko vrednost naložb, izvedenih v korist podjetja AVR Nuts v obdobju, zajetem v pogodbi, ki jih je odobrila država, vendar še niso odpisane.
This amount concerns various investments which were written off to the extent of 50 % if they concerned both RDFs or to the extent of 100 % if they were made specifically for the RDF that was being closed down.
Z vnaprejšnjo uporabo te določbe so nizozemski organi izračunali nadomestilo za stroške zaprtja prve peči RDF v višini 8670108 EUR. Ta znesek zadeva različne naložbe, ki so bile odpisane v višini 50 %, če so bile povezane z obema počema RDF, ali v višini 100 %, če so bile posebej namenjene peči RDF, ki se je zapirala.
The main items in this amount are €1,9 million for investments in fire safety, €3,3 million for a homogenisation plant, €1,5 million for replacing coke funnels and €0,5 million for a drum end and Stefferson ring.
Glavne postavke v tem znesku so 1,9 milijona EUR za naložbe v požarno varnost, 3,3 milijona EUR za homogenizacijski obrat, 1,5 milijona EUR za nadomestitev lijakov za koks in 0,5 milijona EUR za zaključek bobna in Steffersonov obroč.
For the closure of the second RDF, the calculation includes €11151000 for the remaining book value of the installations and tangible fixed assets.
Za zaprtje druge peči RDF je v izračun vključenih 11151000 EUR za preostalo knjigovodsko vrednost naprav in opredmetenih osnovnih sredstev.
This amount includes the other 50 % of the remaining book value of the above investments carried out with the approval of the State and 100 % of the remaining book value of the investments carried out with the approval of the State but concerning only the second RDF.
Ta znesek zajema ostalih 50 % preostale knjigovodske vrednosti navedenih naložb, izvedenih z odobritvijo države, in 100 % preostale knjigovodske vrednosti naložb, izvedenih z odobritvijo države, ki pa zadevajo le drugo peč RDF.
This latter item includes notably the investment in the general overhaul of the remaining RDF, which was carried out during 2004.
Zadnja postavka zajema predvsem naložbe v generalni remont druge peči RDF, opravljen v letu 2004.
The overall cost was €3273000, which was more than expected.
Splošni stroški so znašali 3273000 EUR, kar je bilo več, kot je bilo pričakovano.
With the benefit of hindsight, this turned out to be an unfortunate investment.
Kasneje se je izkazalo, da je bila to nesmotrna naložba.