natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, Italy opted for a different method, which consisted in treating Società Terni as a virtual self-producer.
Vendar pa se je Italija odločila za drugačno metodo, po kateri je družbo Società Terni obravnavala kot navideznega samoproizvajalca.
This method made perfect economic sense, and it is within this reference framework that the presence of an advantage should be assessed.
Ta metoda je bila gospodarsko zelo smiselna, in zato je morebitni prednostni položaj družbe treba ocenjevati v tem referenčnem okviru.
Following this approach, one must conclude that, until the expiry of the original compensatory tariff arrangement (and only until that date) the beneficiaries did not receive an advantage.
Na podlagi tega pristopa moramo ugotoviti, da do izteka veljavnosti prvotnega dogovora o kompenzacijski ceni (in samo do takrat) prejemnice ugodnosti niso bile v prednostnem položaju.
This conclusion cannot be called into question as a result of applying alternative benefit and loss calculations, especially where these are carried out retrospectively.
Ta sklep zaradi uporabe alternativnih izračunov prejemkov in izgub, zlasti kadar so bili ti opravljeni naknadno, ni vprašljiv.
Using a different method retrospectively (ex-post) would lead to conflicting or even illogical results, as the following example will illustrate.
Če bi pri izračunih za nazaj (ex-post) uporabili drugačno metodo, bi dobili sporne ali celo nelogične rezultate, kar bomo ponazorili z naslednjim primerom.
Suppose that, due to an explosion in energy prices, the financial amounts received by the beneficiaries had already exceeded the market value of Terni’s plant within the first 10 years of the tariff arrangement, following the study’s methodology, it should be concluded that there was an overcompensation, even though the expropriation package foresaw that the tariff would last 30 years.
Recimo, da bi zaradi izjemne rasti cen električne energije denarni zneski, ki bi jih prejele prejemnice ugodnosti, v prvih desetih letih dogovora o ceni že presegli tržno vrednost elektrarne Terni in bi morali na podlagi metodologije, ki je bila uporabljena za študijo, skleniti, da so prejemnice ugodnosti prejele čezmerno nadomestilo, čeprav je razlastitveni paket predvidel 30-letno veljavnost cene.
This would be an obvious fallacy, since it would not take into account the ratio of the original arrangement.
To bi bil očitno napačen sklep, saj ne bi upošteval razmerja iz prvotnega dogovora.
The same conclusion must apply a contrario, in the hypothesis that the actual amounts received fell short of covering the assets' value.
Enako bi morali skleniti, če bi sklepali po nasprotnem razlogovanju, pri domnevi, da dejanski zneski, ki so jih prejele prejemnice ugodnosti, niso pokrili vrednosti infrastrukture.
Besides, in the context of an expropriation, an ex-post recalculation of benefits and losses is totally out of place.
Poleg tega se pri razlastitvah prejemkov in izgub nikoli ne računa za nazaj.
The long-term economic outcome for the expropriated company, which is unpredictable at the time of the expropriation, cannot be the object of revision, many decades later, in order to justify further tranches of compensation.
Dolgoročnega poslovnega izida razlaščenega podjetja, ki ga ob razlastitvi ni mogoče napovedati, desetletja pozneje ne moremo popravljati, zato da bi upravičili nadaljnje izplačevanje obrokov nadomestila.
Therefore, the study can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Zato Komisiji študije ni treba upoštevati, saj ni pomembna.
The Commission has nevertheless examined the data and findings of the study.
Kljub temu pa je Komisija preučila podatke in rezultate študije.
This analysis has shown that the study is methodologically flawed.
Njena analiza je pokazala, da je študija opravljena na podlagi napačne metodologije.
As will be shown below, it systematically underestimates the tariff advantage for the Terni companies, and in all likelihood overestimates the value of the expropriated assets.
Kot je prikazano spodaj, je v študiji sistematično podcenjena cenovna ugodnost za podjetja Terni in najverjetneje precenjena vrednost razlaščene infrastrukture.
In order to calculate the tariff advantage for the period 1963-1999, the study compares the price paid by Terni (Alternative 1-the cost of self-produced electricity) to the ordinary price paid by a comparable customer, meaning a self-producer who was exempt from certain tariff components (Alternative 2).
Pri izračunu cenovne ugodnosti za obdobje od leta 1963 do leta 1999 je v študiji primerjana cena, ki jo je plačevala družba Terni (alternativa 1 – stroški samoproizvodnje električne energije), z običajno ceno, ki jo je plačeval primerljivi odjemalec, tj. samoproizvajalec, ki je bil oproščen plačila nekaterih sestavnih delov cene (alternativa 2).
The advantage is thus calculated as the difference between the two alternative preferential treatments foreseen as compensation for Terni.
Ugodnost je torej izračunana kot razlika med dvema alternativnima načinoma ugodnejšega obravnavanja, ki sta predvidena kot nadomestilo za družbo Terni.
The Commission notes that, to calculate the tariff advantage, Terni’s actual tariff should have been compared with the ordinary tariff payable by a non self-producer with Terni’s consumption profile.
Komisija ugotavlja, da bi bilo za izračun cenovne ugodnosti dejansko ceno družbe Terni treba primerjati z običajno ceno, ki jo je plačeval nesamoproizvajalec z enakim profilom porabe, kot ga ima družba Terni.
The study therefore underestimates Terni’s tariff advantage.
Tako je v študiji podcenjena cenovna ugodnost družbe Terni.
For the period 2000-2006, the advantage is, again, taken to be the difference between the two preferential treatments, the only difference being that the actual price paid by Terni corresponds to Alternative 2 (and no longer Alternative 1, which was no longer possible after the reform of the tariff).
Za obdobje od leta 2000 do leta 2006 študija ugodnost spet računa kot razliko med dvema načinoma ugodnejšega obravnavanja, le da upošteva dejansko ceno, ki jo je plačevala družba Terni, iz alternative 2 (in ne več iz alternative 1, ki po reformi cene ni bila več mogoča).
Using this method, for some years the advantage even turns out to be negative, which demonstrates the flaws in the methodology, considering that the Terni companies always paid a tariff below the market price.
Po uporabi te metode je ugodnost nekaj let celo negativna, kar glede na to, da so podjetja Terni vedno plačevala ceno, ki je bila nižja od tržne, kaže na napačno metodologijo.
In principle, for this period, the tariff advantage should have been simply equivalent to the compensatory component paid by Cassa Conguaglio.
Načeloma bi morala biti cenovna ugodnost v tem obdobju preprosto enaka kompenzacijskemu sestavnemu delu, ki ga je plačal sklad Cassa Conguaglio.
Therefore, the advantage is, again, very significantly underestimated.
Zato je ugodnost ponovno precej podcenjena.
Another flaw in the study concerns the value of the assets.
Naslednja napaka študije je razvidna iz določanja vrednosti infrastrukture.
The study simply takes as the book value of the assets the difference between the item ‘plant and machinery’ in Terni’s 1962 budget (the year before the nationalization) and the same item the following year.
Na podlagi študije je knjigovodska vrednost infrastrukture preprosto razlika med postavko „oprema in druga delovna sredstva“ iz proračuna družbe Terni v letu 1962 (leto pred nacionalizacijo) in isto postavko iz proračuna v naslednjem letu.
Firstly, it should be noted that there is no concrete proof that the difference is attributable exclusively to the loss of the hydro power plant.
Prvič, treba je pripomniti, da ni konkretnih dokazov za to, da je razliko mogoče pripisati izključno izgubi hidroelektrarne.
However, even if, arguendo, that book value could be accepted, the method used in the study would nonetheless be flawed.
Tudi če bi domnevno lahko sprejeli to knjigovodsko vrednost, je metoda, ki je uporabljena v študiji, še vedno napačna.
As confirmed by Italy, the real value of a hydro plant at the moment of an expropriation is linked to the residual duration of the underlying concession [22].
Kot je potrdila Italija, je resnična vrednost hidroelektrarne ob razlastitvi povezana s preostalim obdobjem veljavnosti veljavne koncesije.
Therefore, the book value of the plant should have been corrected to take this into account.
Zato bi bilo treba knjigovodsko vrednost elektrarne popraviti v skladu s tem podatkom.
In the study, the book value is simply actualized to 2006 in line with inflation.
V študiji je knjigovodska vrednost v skladu z inflacijo enostavno aktualizirana na vrednost v letu 2006.
Therefore, there is evidence suggesting that the study overestimates the assets' value.
To so dokazi, ki kažejo na to, da je v študiji vrednost infrastrukture precenjena.
In conclusion, the study can be dismissed altogether.
Komisija lahko torej študijo v celoti zavrne.
The extensions of the tariff
Podaljšanja veljavnosti cene
As regards the extensions in time of the Terni tariff, the Commission appreciates that their rationale was to retain the parallelism in treatment with those hydropower producers who had seen their concessions renewed.
Glede podaljšanj veljavnosti cene Terni Komisija ocenjuje, da so se utemeljila s tem, da jih je treba opraviti sočasno z obnovitvijo koncesij drugim proizvajalcem hidroelektrične energije.
However, such parallelism, which lies at the heart of the compensatory mechanism, was foreseen in the expropriation arrangement only for 30 years, not indefinitely.
Vendar pa je bila takšna sočasnost, ki je bistvo mehanizma kompenzacij, v dogovoru o razlastitvi predvidena samo za trideset let in ne brez časovne omejitve.
Therefore, for the reasons already explained in paragraphs (73) to (78) above, these extensions did not have a compensatory nature.
Zato iz razlogov, ki so bili navedeni že v odstavkih od (73) do (78) zgoraj, ta podaljšanja niso imela značaja nadomestila.
This conclusion is even more obvious for the second extension of the tariff.
Tak sklep še bolj velja za drugo podaljšanje veljavnosti cene.
This extension interrupted a phasing-out mechanism intended to ease the companies' transition to the full tariff, which signalled the Italian authorities' conviction that the companies had been fully compensated for.
Z njim je bil prekinjen opustitveni mehanizem, katerega cilj je bil olajšati prehod podjetij na polno ceno, s čimer se je pokazalo, da italijanski organi oblasti menijo, da se je podjetjem nadomestila že izplačalo v celoti.
Italy itself has, indeed, extensively explained the reasons which led to this second extension, and which are related to industrial policy alone (see Italy’s comments in paragraph (61) above).
Italija je resnično obširno pojasnila razloge za to drugo podaljšanje, ki so povezani samo z industrijsko politiko (glej pripombe Italije v odstavku (60) zgoraj).
Conclusions on the compensatory nature of the tariff
Sklepne ugotovitve o kompenzacijskem značaju cene
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the Terni tariff can be considered compensatory until 1992.
Glede na povedano Komisija meni, da se cena Terni do leta 1992 lahko šteje za nadomestilo.
Until that date, the measure does not qualify as State aid.
Do takrat ukrep ni bil državna pomoč.
All further extensions of the tariff, however, must be examined in the light of the State aid rules.
Vsa nadaljnja podaljšanja veljavnosti cene pa je treba preučiti v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
The Commission has therefore assessed whether the preferential tariff granted to the Terni group after 1992, and in particular as of 1 January 2005, date of entry into force of Article 11, paragraph 11 of Law 80/2005, which is the object of these proceedings, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je zato ocenjevala, ali gre pri ugodnejših cenah, ki so bile skupini Terni odobrene po letu 1992 in zlasti od 1. januarja 2005, ko je začel veljati odstavek 11 člena 11 zakona št. 80/2005, ki je predmet tega postopka, za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In this context, the Commission takes note of the Italian clarifications as regards the irrelevance of the ECSC Decision 83/396 and Court judgment C 99/92 and can agree that such decisions have no bearing on the assessment of the State aid nature of the tariff granted to the three plants in the Terni area.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija upoštevala pojasnila Italije glede nepomembnosti Odločbe ESPJ 83/396 in sodbe Sodišča v Zadevi C 99/92 in se strinja, da takšne odločitve niso pomembne za ugotavljanje, ali ima cena, ki je bila odobrena trem tovarnam na območju Terni, značaj državne pomoči.
A measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: the measure (a) confers an economic advantage to the beneficiary; (b) is granted by the State or through State resources and is imputable to the State; (c) is selective; (d) has an impact on intra-community trade and is liable to distort competition within the EU.
Ukrep je državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji: ukrep (a) daje gospodarsko prednost upravičencu, (b) odobri ga država ali je odobren iz državnih sredstev in se ga lahko pripiše državi, (c) je selektiven, (d) ima vpliv na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco v EU.
Advantage
Prednostni položaj
In the light of the reasoning developed in points (73) to (94), the Commission has come to the conclusion that the preferential tariff for Terni did not provide an advantage to the beneficiaries throughout the duration of the original compensatory package, that is, until 1992.
V skladu z obrazložitvami v točkah od (74) do (95) je Komisija sklenila, da prejemnice ugodnosti zaradi ugodnejših cen za družbo Terni med veljavnostjo prvotnega kompenzacijskega paketa, torej do leta 1992, niso bile v prednostnem položaju.
Therefore, only the extensions of the tariff have to be assessed in order to ascertain the presence of an advantage.
Za ugotovitev, ali so bile v prednostnem položaju, je zato treba oceniti samo podaljšanja veljavnosti cene.
There can be no doubt that the provision of electricity at lower prices compared to the ordinary electricity tariff constitutes a clear economic advantage for the beneficiaries, who see their production costs reduced and their competitive position strengthened.
Zagotavljanje električne energije po cenah, ki so nižje od običajnih cen električne energije, je nedvomno očitna gospodarska prednost za prejemnice ugodnosti, ki imajo tako nižje proizvodne stroške in okrepljen konkurenčni položaj.
Since this particular tariff arrangement applies only to the Terni group, the measure is selective.
Ker zadevni dogovor o ceni velja samo za skupino Terni, je ukrep selektiven.
Financing through State resources and imputability to the State
Financiranje iz državnih sredstev in možnost pripisovanja ukrepa državi
As regards the financing through State resources, it should be noted that, as of 2002, the financial burden arising from the tariff is borne by all electricity consumers in Italy by means of a parafiscal levy collected by Cassa Conguaglio via the A4 component of the electricity tariff.
V zvezi s financiranjem iz državnih sredstev je treba opozoriti na to, da od leta 2002 s plačilom drugih dajatev, ki jih sklad Cassa Conguaglio pobira s sestavnim delom A4 cene električne energije, finančno breme cene nosijo vsi odjemalci električne energije v Italiji.
Such levy is obligatory as it imposed by means of Delibere of the AEEG which implement national legislation.
Plačilo take dajatve je obvezno, saj je določeno z odločbo organa AEEG, s katerimi se izvaja nacionalna zakonodaja.
Cassa Conguaglio is a public body established by law, which carries out its functions on the basis of precise instructions laid down in the Delibere of the AEEG and the relevant legislative and regulatory provisions.
Sklad Cassa Conguaglio je z zakonom določen javni organ, ki svoje funkcije izvaja na podlagi natančnih navodil, ki so določena v odločbah organa AEEG, ter ustreznih zakonskih in uredbenih določb.
It is settled case-law that, the yield of a levy which is obligatory under national law and is paid to a public body established by law constitutes State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty when it is earmarked for the financing of a measure which fulfils the other criteria of that Article [23].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pomeni donos dajatev, ki je obvezna v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in se plačuje z zakonom določenemu javnemu organu, državna sredstva v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, kadar je namenjena financiranju ukrepa, ki izpolnjuje druga merila tega člena [23].
In paragraph (68) above, Italy quotes Pearle [24] in order to substantiate its claim that the resources transiting through Cassa Conguaglio do not constitute State aid.
V odstavku (68) zgoraj Italija za utemeljitev svoje trditve, da sredstva, ki prehajajo skozi sklad Cassa Conguaglio, niso državna pomoč, navaja Zadevo Pearle [24].
In Pearle, the Court found that under certain, precisely defined circumstances, the resources of a levy which transited through a public body could not be considered State resources.
V Zadevi Pearle je Sodišče odločilo, da se v nekaterih natančno določenih okoliščinah sredstva, pridobljena na podlagi dajatev, ki so šla skozi javni organ, ne morejo šteti za državna sredstva.
In Pearle, the measures were financed entirely by an economic sector, at the initiative of that sector, by way of a levy which merely transited through a public body and the the subjects paying the levy were identical to those who received the benefits of the aid measure.
V Zadevi Pearle je ukrepe v celoti in na lastno pobudo financiral gospodarski sektor z dajatvijo, ki je samo prešla javni organ, subjekti, ki so jo plačevali, pa so bili isti kot subjekti, ki so prejemali ugodnosti ukrepa pomoči.
The Commission contends that the case at hand is manifestly different.
Komisija vztraja pri tem, da je zadevni primer očitno drugačen.
The Terni tariff was established at the initiative of the State, (not an economic sector), the beneficiaries of the tariff do not bear any of the financial burden of the levy, which rests solely on electricity consumers, and the State can, at any time, give instructions to Cassa Conguaglio via a Delibera of the AEEG or other legislative or regulatory provisions, as to how to dispose of the funds collected through the levy.
Cena Terni je bila določena na pobudo države (ne gospodarskega sektorja), prejemnice ugodnosti cene ne nosijo finančnega bremena dajatve, ki ga nosijo izključno odjemalci električne energije, in država lahko skladu Cassa Conguaglio z odločbo organa AEEG ali drugimi zakonskimi ali uredbenimi določbami kadar koli da navodila, kako razpolagati s sredstvi, ki jih je zbral s to dajatvijo.
Therefore, Pearle is irrelevant to this case.
Zato Zadeva Pearle za zadevni primer ni pomembna.
In the Preussen-Elektra case, also quoted by Italy in paragraph (68) above, the Court considered that a purchase obligation imposed on private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity from renewable sources at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that type of electricity did not constitute State aid because the measure did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources.
V Zadevi Preussen-Elektra, ki jo Italija prav tako navaja v odstavku (68) zgoraj, je Sodišče ocenilo, da obveznost nakupa električne energije iz obnovljivih virov po minimalnih cenah, višjih od dejanske tržne vrednosti te vrste električne energije, ki velja za zasebna podjetja za oskrbo z električno energijo, ni bila državna pomoč, saj ukrep ni vseboval neposrednega ali posrednega prenosa državnih sredstev.
Here again, the substance of the cases is clearly different.
Tudi tukaj se oba primera v svojem bistvu očitno razlikujeta.
In Preussen Elektra, the resources required to finance the measure were provided directly by the electricity suppliers without any public body being involved, not even as a passive vehicle for the transit of such monies.
V Zadevi Preussen Elektra so potrebna sredstva za financiranje ukrepa neposredno zagotovili dobavitelji električne energije, ne da bi bil vključen kakršen koli javni organ, niti kot pasivno sredstvo za prehod takih denarnih sredstev.
In that case, no transfer of State resources could be identified.
V tem primeru ni bilo prenosa državnih sredstev.
In the case at hand, however, the monies come from the general public via a parafiscal charge which transits through a public body before being channelled to the final beneficiaries.
Po drugi strani pa denarna sredstva v zadevnem primeru prihajajo od javnosti, ki plačuje drugo dajatev, ta pa prehaja skozi javni organ, preden se dajatev posreduje končnim prejemnicam ugodnosti.
This is therefore a classic case of involvement of State resources.
Zato je obravnavana zadeva klasičen primer vključitve državnih sredstev.
In the light of the above, therefore, the parafiscal levy used to finance the Terni tariff constitutes State resources.
Zato na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev druga dajatev, ki je bila uporabljena za financiranje cene Terni, pomeni državna sredstva.
The criterion of imputability to the State [25] is also fulfilled, since the legal basis for the Terni tariff is laid down in national legislation, in conjunction with the Delibere of the AEEG which is a public body.
Izpolnjeno je tudi merilo možnosti pripisovanja ukrepa državi, [25] saj je pravna podlaga za ceno Terni določena v nacionalni zakonodaji v povezavi z odločbo AEEG, ki je javni organ.
As regards the last criteria of Article 87(1) — impact on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — the Commission can dismiss the arguments put forward by the Terni companies in paragraph (46) on the basis of the considerations developed in points (109) to (116).
Glede zadnjih meril iz člena 87(1), vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljanja konkurence, lahko Komisija na podlagi pomislekov iz točk od (109) do (116) zavrne utemeljitve podjetij Terni iz odstavka (46).
The beneficiaries' main substantive argument is that the plants which benefit from the tariff are not active in intra-community trade as they sell most of their products on the domestic market.
Glavna bistvena utemeljitev prejemnic ugodnosti je, da elektrarne, ki uživajo ugodnost cene, niso dejavne v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, saj večino svojih izdelkov prodajo na notranjem trgu.
It should be noted, in this respect, that the analysis cannot be limited to the plants located in the Terni area.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da analize ni mogoče omejiti samo na elektrarne, ki imajo sedež na območju Terni.
The beneficiaries are part of international groups active in various sectors of the economy [26], and operating aid granted to one branch or plant can be used to cross-subsidize other branches of the group in sectors open to intra-community trade, and in fact, this circumstance alone could warrant the conclusion that the tariff has an impact on trade between Member States.
Prejemnice ugodnosti so del mednarodnih skupin, ki delujejo v različnih gospodarskih sektorjih [26], in pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki se odobri eni panogi ali elektrarni, se lahko uporabi za navzkrižno subvencioniranje drugih panog v skupini v sektorjih, ki so odprti za trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, in že samo zaradi tega dejstva bi lahko sklenili, da cena vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Besides, even if it was demonstrated that most or all of the companies' production was sold on the Italian domestic market, quod non, this would be irrelevant for the purpose of establishing the impact on intra-community trade of the measure.
Poleg tega tudi dokaz, da se vsa proizvodnja podjetij ali njen večji del prodaja na italijanskem notranjem trgu, kar se sicer ne dogaja, ne bi bil pomemben pri ugotavljanju vpliva ukrepa na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.