natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Given that the State cannot expropriate itself, the Commission had doubts that the transfer of Società Terni’s assets to ENEL could be construed as an expropriation entitling Società Terni to compensation, and formulated the hypothesis that such transfer could in fact be regarded as a mere restructuring of the State’s own assets.
Glede na to, da država ne more razlastiti samo sebe, Komisija dvomi, da bi si prenos infrastrukture družbe Società Terni na podjetje ENEL lahko razlagali kot razlastitev, zaradi katere bi bila družba Società Terni upravičena do nadomestila, in domneva, da bi se tak prenos dejansko lahko štel samo za prestrukturiranje državne infrastrukture.
The Commission took the view that, even if the compensatory nature of the measure were to be conceded, doubts would still persist as regards the proportionality of this compensation with regard to the financial damage suffered by Società Terni.
Komisija je zavzela stališče, da bi še vedno dvomila o sorazmernosti tega nadomestila glede na finančno škodo, ki jo je utrpela družba Società Terni, tudi če bi ukrepu priznala značaj nadomestila.
The Commission in particular expressed doubts that compensation could still be justified after 44 years.
Komisija še zlasti dvomi, da je nadomestilo po 44 letih še vedno upravičeno.
The Commission pointed out that the nature of the tariff appeared to have changed when ENEL stopped administering the scheme and bearing the financial burden arising from it.
Komisija je poudarila, da se zdi, da se je narava cene spremenila, ko je podjetje ENEL prenehalo upravljati shemo in nositi njeno finančno breme.
The Commission Decision to open the procedure also relied on ECSC Decision 83/396: Commission Decision of 29 June 1983 concerning aid the Italian government intends to grant to certain steel producers [9], which precluded such aid from being granted to Società Terni, and the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C 99/92 [10], where the Court upheld the aforementioned ECSC Decision, as evidence that the Terni tariff had already been found to constitute State aid.
Komisija se je pri svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka oprla tudi na Odločbo ESPJ št. 83/396: Odločbo Komisije z dne 29. junija 1983 o pomoči, ki jo italijanska vlada namerava odobriti nekaterim proizvajalcem jekla, [9] ki je preprečila, da bi se takšna pomoč odobrila družbi Società Terni, in na sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v Zadevi C 99/92, [10] v kateri je Sodišče prej omenjeno odločbo ESPJ potrdilo kot dokaz, da je bilo za ceno Terni že prej ugotovljeno, da pomeni državno pomoč.
The opening decision also pointed out that ThyssenKrupp has not yet repaid a State aid granted by Italy and which was declared incompatible [11], and therefore, pursuant to the Deggendorf [12] case-law, could not receive any further State aid.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija poudarila tudi, da podjetje ThyssenKrupp še ni vrnilo državne pomoči, ki mu jo je odobrila Italija in je bila razglašena za nezdružljivo, [11] in zato v skladu s sodno prakso Deggendorf [12] ne more prejemati dodatne državne pomoči.
Comments from the Terni companies
Pripombe podjetij Terni
Most of the observations submitted by the Terni companies on Società Terni’s functioning as ente pubblico economico, the nature of the operation leading to the transfer of the company’s assets, the compensatory nature of the tariff, the interpretation of the ECSC decision and ECJ ruling as well as the role played by Cassa Conguaglio are largely equivalent to those made by Italy, which are summarized in points (52) to (69).
Večina pripomb, ki so jih podjetja Terni predložila o delovanju družbe Società Terni kot javni ustanovi za izvajanje gospodarskih storitev (ente pubblico economico), naravi poslovanja, ki je povzročilo prenos infrastrukture podjetja, kompenzacijskem značaju cene, razlagi odločbe ESPJ in sodbe SES ter o vlogi, ki jo je imel sklad Cassa Conguaglio, večinoma ustreza pripombam Italije, ki so povzete v točkah od (52) do (69).
Therefore, only the main thrust of the Terni companies observations and any additional elements submitted will be reported here in points (43) to (51).
Zato se v točkah od (43) do (51) te odločbe poroča samo o bistvenih in dodatnih pripombah, ki so jih predložila podjetja Terni.
Nature of the compensation
Značaj nadomestila
According to the Terni companies, the tariff is the legitimate compensation to which Società Terni was entitled following the expropriation of its assets and cannot therefore be qualified as State aid.
V skladu s pripombami podjetij Terni je cena zakonito nadomestilo, do katerega je bila družba Società Terni upravičena po razlastitvi svoje infrastrukture, in ga zato ni mogoče označiti za državno pomoč.
Adequacy of the compensation
Ustreznost nadomestila
Concerning the adequacy of the compensation, the Terni companies retrace the history of the tariff, pointing out that all the extensions of the Terni tariff beyond 1991 were concomitant with the general renewal of the hydroelectric concessions for other generators, and thus in line with the principle that there should be no discrimination between Terni and other self-producers who had not been expropriated and who could therefore continue to produce and consume electricity at very low cost.
Glede ustreznosti nadomestila podjetja Terni v svojih pripombah povzemajo zgodovino cene in poudarjajo, da je bila veljavnost cene Terni po letu 1991 vedno podaljšana hkrati s splošnim podaljšanjem koncesij za hidroelektrarne drugim proizvajalcem in je bila tako skladna z načelom, da ne sme biti razlikovanja med podjetji Terni in drugimi samoproizvajalci, ki niso bili razlaščeni in so zato lahko še naprej proizvajali in uporabljali električno energijo po zelo nizki ceni.
The Terni companies also point out that the financial amounts received in the form of lower electricity tariffs never exceeded the difference between the cost of acquiring energy on the market and the cost of self-produced electricity.
Podjetja Terni poudarjajo tudi, da denarni zneski, ki so jih prejela zaradi nižje cene električne energije, niso nikoli presegli razlike med stroški kupovanja energije na trgu in stroški lastne proizvodnje električne energije.
The Terni companies claim that the measure has no impact on trade between Member States for the reasons summarized below:
Podjetja Terni trdijo, da ukrep iz spodaj povzetih razlogov nima vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Cementir: In its Spoleto plant (the plant which benefits from the tariff) Cementir produces and markets mainly cement, which is used the construction industry.
Podjetje Cementir: V svoji tovarni v mestu Spoleto (v tovarni, ki je prejemnica ugodnosti cene) podjetje Cementir izdeluje in trži v glavnem cement, ki se uporablja v gradbeni industriji.
Cement is difficult to substitute with other products.
Cement je težko nadomestiti z drugimi izdelki.
Since it is uneconomical to transport, the geographic market for cement is regional or multi-regional.
Ker prevoz cementa ni gospodaren, je geografski trg za cement regionalen ali večregionalen.
Imports of cements are negligible in Italy, since they account for 5 % of overall demand in Italy and Cementir markets all the production of its Spoleto plant in central Italy;
Uvoz cementa v Italijo je zanemarljiv, saj pokrije le 5 % vsega povpraševanja po cementu v Italiji, podjetje Cementir pa ves cement, ki ga izdela v svoji tovarni v Spoletu, trži v osrednji Italiji.
Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche: The plant which benefits from the tariff produces ammonia and nitric acid.
Podjetje Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche: Tovarna, ki je prejemnica ugodnosti cene, proizvaja amoniak in dušikovo kislino.
Ammonia can be economically transported only by sea and provided ports are suitably equipped for its storage.
Amoniak se lahko gospodarno prevaža samo po morju in pod pogojem, da imajo pristanišča primerno opremo za njegovo skladiščenje.
There are no such storage plants in central Italy.
V osrednji Italiji ni takih skladiščnih obratov.
The same applies to nitric acid.
Enako velja za dušikovo kislino.
Therefore, the Terni companies claim that the geographic market is at best national.
Zato podjetja Terni trdijo, da je geografski trg v najboljšem primeru nacionalen.
National demand is fully met by domestic production and there are no trade flows;
Domača proizvodnja v celoti izpolnjuje nacionalne potrebe in trgovinskih tokov ni.
ThyssenKrupp: the Terni companies claim that the market for the distribution (not the production or sale) of steel products is national.
Podjetje ThyssenKrupp: Podjetja Terni trdijo, da je trg za distribucijo (ne za proizvodnjo ali prodajo) izdelkov iz jekla nacionalen.
In particular, ThyssenKrupp’s Terni plant markets only 6 % of its production in the European Union.
Zlasti tovarna podjetja ThyssenKrupp, ki je prejemnica ugodnosti cene Terni, samo 6 % svoje proizvodnje trži v Evropski uniji.
Legitimate expectations
Upravičena pričakovanja
The Terni companies claim legitimate expectations on two grounds:
Podjetja Terni imajo upravičena pričakovanja iz dveh razlogov.
firstly, the Italian authorities had explicitly confirmed, in a letter to the AEEG, that the nature of the tariff was compensatory and that the extension of the existing tariff scheme was not subject to prior notification to the Commission under the State aid rules [13];
Prvič, italijanski organi oblasti so v dopisu AEEG izrecno potrdili, da ima cena značaj nadomestila in da o podaljšanju veljavne sheme cen v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči ni treba prej uradno obvestiti Komisije [13].
secondly, the Commission had not called the measure into question, either when it was first prolonged by Law 9/1991 (approved in the context of case NN 52/1991), or when information on the second extension was submitted in the context of another State aid procedure (C 13/06).
Drugič, Komisija ni dvomila o ukrepu, niti ko je bil prvič podaljšan z zakonom št. 9/1991 (kar je odobrila v Zadevi NN 52/1991) niti ko so bile v drugem postopku državne pomoči (C13/06) predložene informacije o drugem podaljšanju.
State aid clearance of the second extension
Odobritev drugega podaljšanja v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči
The Terni companies further submit, in this context, that when Article 11, paragraph 12 of Law 80/2005 (establishing a preferential tariff for certain energy-intensive companies in Sardinia, case C 13/06) was notified to the Commission, the Italian authorities had submitted information and clarifications also on the Terni tariff, so that the notification might be considered complete within the meaning of Article 4, paragraph 5 of Regulation EC 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [14].
Poleg tega podjetja Terni v zvezi s tem trdijo, da so italijanski organi oblasti, ko so Komisijo uradno obvestili o odstavku 12 člena 11 zakona št. 80/2005 (o vzpostavitvi ugodnejših cen za nekatera energetsko intenzivna podjetja na Sardiniji, Zadeva št. C 13/06), predložili tudi informacije in pojasnila o ceni Terni, tako da se uradno obvestilo v smislu odstavka 5 člena 4 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES lahko šteje za popolno [14].
The Commission had failed to take a decision within two months, and therefore, even if the tariff was to be considered State aid, quod non, it should be deemed to be authorized on the basis of Article 4, paragraph 5 of Regulation N 659/1999 [15].
Komisija v dveh mesecih ni sprejela odločitve, in zato se mora za ceno – tudi če bi jo bilo treba obravnavati kot državno pomoč, quod non – šteti, da je bila odobrena na podlagi odstavka 5 člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [15].
The Terni companies underline that their good faith is substantiated by the fact that, in case of doubts on the compatibility of the tariff, ThyssenKrupp would certainly not have launched large-scale investments in the Terni area.
Podjetja Terni poudarjajo, da njihovo dobro vero dokazuje dejstvo, da podjetje ThyssenKrupp zagotovo ne bi veliko vlagalo v območje Terni, če bi o združljivosti cene obstajali dvomi.
Amounts received
Prejeti zneski
The Terni companies point out that, in the absence of Law 80/2005, they would have benefited until 31 December 2007 from the preferential tariff on the basis of Article 20, paragraph 4 of Law 9/1991 (approved by the Commission).
Podjetja Terni opozarjajo, da bi bila, če ne bi bilo zakona št. 80/2005, do ugodnejših cen do 31. decembra 2007 upravičena na podlagi odstavka 4 člena 20 zakona št. 9/1991 (ki ga je odobrila Komisija).
The AEEG authorized Cassa Conguaglio to pay out in 2006 (as advance payment) only the sums which would have become due in 2007 [16].
AEEG je pooblastil sklad Cassa Conguaglio, naj leta 2006 (kot predplačilo) izplača samo zneske, ki bi zapadli v plačilo leta 2007 [16].
Therefore, the amounts received until 31 December 2006 should be considered authorized.
Zato se morajo zneski, ki so bili prejeti do 31. decembra 2006, šteti za odobrene.
According to the companies, the provisions of Decreto-legge No 80/2005 have de facto not been implemented in respect of these amounts.
Kot pravijo podjetja, se določbe zakonskega odloka št. 80/2005 dejansko niso uporabljale za te zneske.
Deggendorf case-law
Sodna praksa Deggendorf
Concerning the Deggendorf case-law, ThyssenKrupp states its willingness, in principle, to repay the aid, subject to agreement being found on the amount to be recovered.
Glede na sodno prakso Deggendorf je podjetje ThyssenKrupp na podlagi dogovora o znesku, ki ga je treba vrniti, načeloma pripravljeno vrniti pomoč.
Expropriation of Terni’s assets and its entitlement to compensation
Razlastitev infrastrukture družbe Terni in njena pravica do nadomestila
Italy submits that Terni’s generating assets were nationalized as an exception to the general rule set out in the nationalization law, according to which self-producers would not be subject to expropriation.
Italija trdi, da je bila nacionalizacija električne infrastrukture družbe Terni glede na splošno pravilo iz zakona o nacionalizaciji, v skladu s katerim se samoproizvajalci ne razlaščajo, izjema.
The nationalization law of 1962 was based on Article 43 of the Italian Constitution, according to which certain undertakings which carry out services of fundamental public interest or in the energy sector may be transferred to the State by way of expropriation, provided compensation is granted.
Zakon o nacionalizaciji iz leta 1962 je bil sprejet na podlagi člena 43 italijanske ustave, v skladu s katerim se nekatera podjetja, ki opravljajo storitve temeljnega pomena za javno korist, ali podjetja v energetskem sektorju z razlastitvijo lahko prenesejo na državo, če se jim izplača nadomestilo.
Concerning the Commission’s doubts as to the possibility to expropriate assets belonging to a State-owned company, Italy submits that neither Article 42, nor Article 43 of the Constitution limit the notion of expropriation to privately owned property.
Glede dvomov Komisije o možnosti razlastitve infrastrukture, ki je v lasti državnega podjetja, Italija trdi, da niti člen 42 niti člen 43 ustave pojma razlastitve ne omejujeta na zasebno lastnino.
The expropriation of Società Terni’s electrical branch was legally required, according to Italy, because Terni was controlled by an ‘ente pubblico economico’, which, unlike an ‘ente pubblico’ was obliged to operate according to market principles.
Kot pravi Italija, je bila razlastitev električne panoge družbe Società Terni predpisana z zakonom, saj je družbo Terni nadzirala javna ustanova za izvajanje gospodarskih storitev (ente pubblico economico), ki je v nasprotju z navadno javno ustanovo (ente pubblico) morala poslovati po tržnih načelih.
The nationalization law did not envisage any compensation for undertakings managed by public entities strictu sensu, but it did for Terni in view of its different status and mode of functioning.
V zakonu o nacionalizaciji ni bilo predvideno nadomestilo za podjetja, ki jih upravljajo javni subjekti v ožjem smislu, kar pa zaradi drugačnega statusa družbe Terni in njenega načina poslovanja ni veljalo za to družbo.
As regards Terni’s ownership structure, Italy underlines that Terni was a joint stock company (società per azioni) where the State had a majority stake, but equity was also owned by a large number of private investors.
Glede lastniške strukture družbe Terni Italija poudarja, da je bila družba Terni delniška družba, v kateri je imela država večinski delež, vendar pa so bili lastniki kapitala tudi številni zasebni vlagatelji.
Italy has provided documentation showing that that Terni’s capital was also partly in private hands and that the company was quoted on the stock exchange.
Italija je predložila dokumentacijo, iz katere je razvidno, da je bil kapital družbe Terni delno tudi v rokah zasebnikov in da je podjetje kotiralo na borzi.
According to Italy, depriving Terni of the same right to adequate compensation to which a private company would be entitled would have constituted a breach of the principle of neutrality of ownership enshrined in Article 295 of the EC Treaty.
Če bi družbi Terni odvzela enako pravico do ustreznega nadomestila, kot bi jo imelo zasebno podjetje, bi s tem, kot pravi Italija, kršila načelo nevtralnosti lastništva, ki ga vsebuje člen 295 Pogodbe ES.
Italy quotes a number of rulings by the Corte di Cassazione and the Consiglio di Stato whereby these Courts confirmed that the logic of the tariff for Terni was to put the company on the same footing as self-producers of electricity from renewable sources of energy, and therefore the tariff could not be raised by means of supplements which would not apply to self-producers.
Italija navaja številne odločitve pritožbenega sodišča Corte di Cassazione in državnega sveta Consiglio di Stato, pri čemer sta oba organa potrdila, da je bil namen cene Terni podjetje obravnavati enako kot samoproizvajalce, ki električno energijo proizvajajo iz obnovljivih virov energije, in zato cene ni bilo mogoče zviševati z dodatki, ki ne bi veljali za samoproizvajalce.
As regards other electricity producers who were also expropriated, Italy submits that, with the exception of Terni, all expropriated producers were undertakings exclusively or primarily active in the production, import or supply of electricity.
V zvezi z drugimi proizvajalci električne energije, ki so bili tudi razlaščeni, Italija poudarja, da so bili razen družbe Terni vsi razlaščeni proizvajalci podjetja, ki so se ukvarjala izključno ali predvsem s proizvodnjo, uvozom ali dobavo električne energije.
As a general rule, the compensation paid by the State reflected the market value of the assets, which was calculated in different ways according to the type of company.
Praviloma je nadomestilo, ki ga je plačala država, izražalo tržno vrednost infrastrukture, ki je bila na podlagi vrste podjetja izračunana na različne načine.
The net accounting value of the assets was taken as reference value, but was corrected on the basis of other factors which Italy did not identify in detail.
Neto knjigovodska vrednost infrastrukture je bila vzeta kot referenčna vrednost, ki se je popravila na podlagi drugih dejavnikov, ki jih Italija ni podrobno opisala.
For hydropower producers, the Italian observations suggest that the residual duration of the concession played a role in the calculation of the compensation.
Po pripombah Italije je mogoče sklepati, da je na izračun nadomestila za proizvajalce hidroelektrične energije vplivalo preostalo obdobje veljavnosti koncesije.
Non-aid nature of Terni’s tariff and its clearance under the State aid rules
Cena Terni kot nepomoč in njena odobritev v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči
Italy submits that both the original tariff arrangement — which constituted Terni’s legitimate compensation for the expropriation of its assets — and its further extensions in time do not constitute State aid.
Italija trdi, da niti prvotni dogovor o ceni, na podlagi katerega je družba Terni zaradi razlastitve svoje infrastrukture prejemala zakonito nadomestilo, niti nadaljnja podaljšanja tega dogovora ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
To substantiate this claim, Italy quotes a number of rulings of the European Court of Justice, which concern the non-aid nature of certain forms of compensation to undertakings [17], notably compensation for damages and services of general economic interest.
Italija svojo trditev utemeljuje z navajanjem številnih odločitev Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, ki se nanašajo na nekatere oblike nadomestil za podjetja, ki niso pomoč, [17] predvsem nadomestil za škodo in opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
As regards the State aid clearance of Terni’s tariff, Italy underlines that Law 9/1991, laying down the first extension of the tariff, was duly notified to the Commission and approved by it.
Glede odobritve cene Terni z državno pomočjo Italija poudarja, da je bil zakon št. 9/1991 o prvem podaljšanju veljavnosti cene pravilno priglašen Komisiji, ta pa ga je odobrila.
The subsequent extensions in time of the tariff, which are concomitant with the extensions of hydroelectric concessions for hydropower producers, follow the same logic, which was never challenged by the Commission.
Poznejša podaljšanja veljavnosti cene, ki so sovpadala s podaljšanji hidroelektričnih koncesij proizvajalcem hidroelektrične energije, so temeljila na enaki logiki, ki je Komisija nikoli ni izpodbijala.
Therefore, according to Italy, the Terni tariff should be considered an existing non-aid measure.
Zato je treba ceno Terni, kot pravi Italija, šteti za dejanski ukrep, ki ni pomoč.
Italy submits that it has thus always acted in good faith.
Italija poudarja, da je vedno ravnala v dobri veri.
It did not notify under Article 88(3) the contested extension of the tariff arrangement for Terni since, in its view, it did not constitute State aid.
O spornem podaljšanju dogovora o ceni za družbo Terni na podlagi člena 88(3) ni uradno obvestila Komisije, saj po njenem mnenju ni pomenilo državne pomoči.
Italy underlines that the Commission was informed of the existence of this measure (Report of November 2005 and letter of February 2006).
Vendar pa Italija opozarja, da je Komisijo obvestila o tem ukrepu (s poročilom iz novembra 2005 in z dopisom iz februarja 2006).
As regards the policy reasons of the second extension, Italy submits that the tariff is necessary to establish a level-playing field between these energy-intensive companies active in Italy and their competitors in the EU [18], which also benefit from reduced energy prices (tariff or contract-based), pending the completion of ongoing infrastructure projects on electricity generation and transport.
Glede političnih razlogov za drugo podaljšanje Italija trdi, da je cena potrebna za vzpostavitev enakih pogojev delovanja za energetsko intenzivna podjetja v Italiji in njihove konkurente v EU [18], ki tudi uživajo ugodnosti nižjih cen električne energije (na podlagi cen ali pogodb), dokler tekoči infrastrukturni projekti za proizvodnjo in prevoz električne industrije ne bodo končani.
If the tariff was abolished, the companies in question would delocalize their operations outside the EU.
Če bi ceno ukinili, bi zadevna podjetja svojo proizvodnjo preselila v države zunaj EU.
This would inevitably lead to an industrial crisis and sever job losses in the affected regions.
To bi neizogibno povzročilo industrijsko krizo in veliko izgubo delovnih mest na prizadetih območjih.
Therefore, according to Italy, the prolongation of the tariff should be seen as a transitional solution.
Zato je na podaljšanje veljavnosti cene, kot pravi Italija, treba gledati kot na prehodno rešitev.
Italy quotes the conclusions of the High-level group on competitiveness, energy and environment [19] which suggest, as a long-term solution, the improvement of interconnection and infrastructure, and, as a medium-term solution, long-term supply contracts and partnership between customers and energy suppliers/generators.
Italija navaja sklepe Skupine na visoki ravni za konkurenčnost, energijo in okolje [19], da bi bila dolgoročna rešitev izboljšanje medsebojnega povezovanja in infrastrukture, srednjeročna rešitev pa dolgoročne pogodbe o dobavljanju ter partnerstvo med odjemalci in dobavitelji/proizvajalci električne energije.