natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
These include use for purposes other than motor or heating fuel, exports, fuel oil used in alumina production, oil used for sea-navigation, heavy oil used in commercial aviation and recycled oil’.
Te vključujejo uporabo za namene, ki niso motorno gorivo ali gorivo za ogrevanje, izvoz, kurilno olje, uporabljeno pri proizvodnji aluminijevega oksida, olje, uporabljeno pri plovbi po morju, težko olje, ki se uporablja v komercialnem letalstvu, in reciklirano olje“.
The exemption for mineral oils used for alumina production has been in place in Ireland since 1983.
Oprostitev za mineralna olja, ki se uporabljajo pri proizvodnji aluminijevega oksida, na Irskem velja od leta 1983.
While the original Statutory Instrument providing for the exemption was revoked in 1999, the exemption was preserved under the Finance Act 1999.
Ko je bil leta 1999 razveljavljen prvotni zakonski instrument, ki je zagotavljal oprostitev, je bila oprostitev ohranjena v Finančnem zakonu iz leta 1999.
The Italian exemption from excise tax applies to all undertakings using mineral oils for the production of alumina within the meaning of point 14 of table A of the Single Text on excises.
Italijanska oprostitev plačila trošarine se uporablja za vsa podjetja, ki uporabljajo mineralna olja pri proizvodnji aluminijevega oksida v smislu točke 14 tabele A Temeljnega akta o trošarinah.
The exemption was instituted by Law of 12 November 1990, n. 331, implementing Decreto Legge 15 September 1990, n.261, Article 8(5).
Oprostitev je bila uzakonjena s členom 8(5) Zakona št. 331 z dne 12. novembra 1990 o izvedbi Decreto Legge št. 261 z dne 15. septembra 1990.
That text has been reproduced in the successive legal texts concerned, including the national measures transposing Directive 92/81/EEC and the successive 'Single Text on excises'.
To besedilo je bilo ponatisnjeno v poznejših zadevnih pravnih besedilih, vključno z nacionalnimi ukrepi za prenos Direktive 92/81/EGS in poznejšim „Temeljnim aktom o trošarinah“.
The French exemption has its legal base in the 1997 rectifying Finance Law (‘Loi de finances rectificative pour 1997’.
Pravna podlaga francoske oprostitve je sprememba Finančnega zakona iz leta 1997 („Loi de finances rectificative pour 1997“).
It stipulates in Article 6 that ‘the deliveries of heavy oil with a sulphur content below 2 % included in the identification index 28bis of table B of Article 265(1) of the Customs Code are eligible for exemption from the Internal consumption tax on petrol products when they are destined to be used as a fuel for the production of alumina.
Člen 6 predvideva, da „so dobave težkega olja z vsebnostjo žvepla pod 2 %, vključene v identifikacijski seznam 28a tabele B člena 265(1) Carinskega zakonika, upravičene do oprostitve davka na domačo porabo za naftne derivate, če se bodo uporabljali kot gorivo v proizvodnji aluminijevega oksida“.
Article 265 bis of the customs code concerns products destined for uses other than motor fuel or heating fuel, but it does not, for example, contain similar provisions on uses of mineral oils in other industrial sectors.
Člen 265a Carinskega zakonika govori o proizvodih, namenjenih za druge uporabe kot za motorno gorivo ali gorivo za ogrevanje, ne vključuje pa na primer podobnih določb glede uporabe mineralnih olj v drugih sektorjih industrije.
Recitals 16 to 23 of Decision 2006/323/EC provide a more detailed description of the measures and beneficiaries concerned.
Uvodne izjave 16 do 23 Odločbe 2006/323/ES vsebujejo podrobnejši opis zadevnih ukrepov in upravičencev.
The Member States concerned have not indicated whether they are continuing to apply the exemption beyond 2006 nor have they informed the Commission of any changes to the applicable legislation, in particular changes due to the transposition of Directive 2003/96, that could affect the Commission's assessment.
Zadevne države članice niso navedle, ali nameravajo po letu 2006 še uporabljati oprostitev, prav tako niso obvestile Komisije o nobeni spremembi veljavne zakonodaje, zlasti o spremembah zaradi prenosa Direktive 2003/96/ES, ki bi lahko vplivale na oceno Komisije.
The relevant tax rates have changed since the initiation of the procedure.
Od sprožitve postopka so se spremenile zadevne davčne stopnje.
On 1 July 2006, the applicable rates of excise tax on heavy fuel oil for business use in France and Ireland amounted to EUR 18,50, and EUR 15.00. On the same date the applicable rates in Italy amounted to EUR 63,75 per tonne of heavy fuel oil with a sulphur content above 1 % and EUR 31,39 per tonne of heavy fuel oil with a sulphur content below 1 %.
Dne 1. julija 2006 so se veljavne stopnje trošarin na težko olje za poslovno uporabo v Franciji in na Irskem povzpele na 18,50 EUR in 15,00 EUR. Istega dne so veljavne stopnje v Italiji dosegale 63,75 EUR na tono težkega kurilnega olja z vsebnostjo žvepla nad 1 % in 31,39 EUR na tono težkega kurilnega olja z vsebnostjo žvepla pod 1 %.
3 REASONS TO INITIATE AND EXTEND THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV IN PODALJŠANJE POSTOPKA NA PODLAGI ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE
In its decisions of 30 October 2001 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty, the Commission expressed its doubts as regards the compatibility of the aid under the Community guidelines on national regional aid and in particular in the light of the rules on operating aid contained in those guidelines.
Komisija je v svojih odločitvah z dne 30. oktobra 2001 o sprožitvi postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe izrazila dvom o združljivosti pomoči s Smernicami Skupnosti o državni regionalni pomoči in zlasti glede na pravila o pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, vsebovana v navedenih smernicah.
The Commission also raised doubts as regards the aids’ compatibility under the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 1994 and those of 2001 (hereinafter the ‘Environmental aid guidelines’).
Komisija je izrazila dvom tudi v zvezi z združljivostjo pomoči s Smernicami Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 1994 in tistimi iz leta 2001 (v nadaljnjem besedilu „smernice za okoljsko pomoč“).
In Decision 2006/323/EC, the Commission explained that it maintained similar doubts as regards the period as from 1 January 2004.
Komisija je v Odločbi 2006/323/ES razložila, da jo obhajajo podobni dvomi za obdobje od 1. januarja 2004.
Given that the Member States and interested parties had not had the opportunity to submit their comments on the legal situation created by Directive 2003/96/EC, the Commission considered it appropriate to extend the formal investigation procedure.
Ker države članice in zainteresirane stranke niso imele možnosti, da bi podale pripombe na pravni položaj, ki ga je ustvarila Direktiva 2003/96/ES, se je Komisiji zdelo primerno podaljšati formalni postopek preiskave.
4 COMMENTS FROM FRANCE, IRELAND AND ITALY AND FROM THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE FRANCIJE, IRSKE IN ITALIJE TER TRETJIH STRANK
The Member States and beneficiaries generally maintain the comments they made earlier and which are summarised in recitals 26-56 of Decision 2006/323/EC.
Države članice in upravičenci na splošno ostajajo pri pripombah, ki so jih podali prej in ki so predstavljene v uvodnih izjavah 26 do 56 Odločbe 2006/323/ES.
Some arguments have been developed in more detail.
Nekatere utemeljitve so določene podrobneje.
In addition, they make the following comments.
Poleg tega so imeli še naslednje pripombe.
The measures do not constitute State aid and this is confirmed by Directive 2003/96/EC.
Ukrepi niso državna pomoč in Direktiva 2003/96/ES to potrjuje.
They fall within the nature and logic of the respective tax systems.
Ustrezajo naravi in logiki ustreznih davčnih sistemov.
If they were to constitute State aid, Directive 2003/96/EC explicitly allows the aid, at least for the period until 31 December 2006.
Če bi bili ukrepi državna pomoč, Direktiva 2003/96/ES izrecno dovoljuje pomoč, vsaj za obdobje do 31. decembra 2006.
In any event, that Directive created legitimate expectations for the beneficiaries.
Kakor koli, navedena direktiva je upravičencem vzbudila pravno utemeljena pričakovanja.
Requesting recovery of the aid also breaches the principle of legal certainty and the principle of proper administration, given the contradictions with the Council decisions which were based on Commission proposals, the considerable delay and the manner in which the Commission has dealt with the investigation.
Glede na nasprotja z odločbami Sveta, ki so temeljile na predlogih Komisije, precejšnjo zamudo in način, kako je Komisija vodila preiskavo, zahteva po vračilu pomoči tudi krši načelo pravne varnosti in načelo pravilnega upravljanja.
The beneficiaries have undertaken long-term capital investments in reliance on the Council Decisions and the Directive.
Upravičenci so se zaradi zaupanja v odločbe Sveta in direktivo odločili za dolgoročne kapitalske naložbe.
The Commission would therefore be estopped from adopting an act that is manifestly contrary to its conduct over a long period.
Komisija tako ne more sprejeti akta, ki je v očitnem nasprotju z njeno takrat že dolgo uveljavljeno prakso.
The rules in Directive 2003/96/EC override the State aid rules.
Pravila v Direktivi 2003/96/ES razveljavljajo pravila o državni pomoči.
The Commission could only challenge the validity of the measures under Article 18(1) of Directive 2003/96/EC and not under the State aid rules.
Komisija bi lahko izpodbijala veljavnost ukrepov samo v skladu s členom 18(1) Direktive 2003/96/ES, ne pa v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
Applying the State aid rules would breach the principle of effet utile.
Uporaba pravil o državni pomoči bi kršila načelo ohranjanja učinka.
Ireland and Aughinish argue that the Irish measure constitutes existing aid and that the Commission's reading of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty is wrong: after expiry of the 10-year limitation period, the Commission's letter of 17 July 2000 could not have been an act interrupting the limitation period and the measure would constitute existing aid also for the period after 17 July 1990.
Irska in Aughinish trdita, da je irski ukrep obstoječa pomoč in da Komisija napačno razlaga člen 15 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES: po izteku desetletnega zastaralnega roka dopis Komisije z dne 17. julija 2000 ne more veljati za dejanje, ki je prekinilo zastaralni rok, in ukrep bi bil obstoječa pomoč tudi v obdobju po 17. juliju 1990.
They also claim that the Commission's assessment of the nature of the agreements between Aughinish and the Irish authorities in 1970 is flawed: binding commitments were entered into before Ireland's accession to the Communities.
Trdita tudi, da je bila ocena vrste sporazumov med Aughinishem in irskimi organi, ki jo je podala Komisija, napačna: zavezujoče obveze so bile sprejete pred pristopom Irske k Skupnostim.
Italy argues that the measure is closely linked to the realisation of environmental objectives related to the burden arising from alumina production.
Italija trdi, da je ukrep tesno povezan z uresničevanjem okoljskih ciljev, povezanih z bremenom, ki je posledica proizvodnje aluminijevega oksida.
Aughinish argues that the exemption falls at least within the spirit of the Environmental aid guidelines and ‘it has, notwithstanding the fact that it is not paying “a significant proportion of the tax”, been provided with more than sufficient incentives to improve environmental protection’.
Aughinish trdi, da je oprostitev vsaj v duhu smernic za okoljsko pomoč in da „ima, ne glede na to, da ne plačuje ‚pomembnega deleža davka‘, več kot dovolj spodbud za izboljšanje varstva okolja“.
Ireland argues that alternative measures could have been implemented from 1 January 2004 had it been known that the exemption was liable to be found incompatible with the common market.
Irska trdi, da bi nadomestne ukrepe lahko izvajali od 1. januarja 2004, če bi vedeli, da se oprostitev lahko označi za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.
Ireland refers to the possibility to widen the scope of the relief to cover heavy fuel oil for dual use, or more widely to energy products generally for dual use.
Irska ima v mislih možnost, da bi razširili področje uporabe oprostitve, tako da bi zajemala tudi težko kurilno olje za dvojno uporabo, ali pa bi jih razširili na energente na splošno za dvojno uporabo.
In this way, according to Ireland, the relief could have been converted into a general measure or into an acceptable State aid, for example under the Environmental aid guidelines.
Po mnenju Irske bi tako lahko spremenili oprostitev v splošni ukrep ali v sprejemljivo državno pomoč, na primer v skladu s smernicami za okoljsko pomoč.
In the view of these possibilities, retrospective recovery would be unconscionable.
Glede na te možnosti bi bilo nepravično zahtevati vračilo za nazaj.
Ireland stresses, furthermore, that Aughinish made various investments on the reasonable expectation that the exemptions would continue until at least December 2006.
Irska poleg tega poudarja, da je Aughinish zaradi razumnega pričakovanja, da bodo oprostitve trajale vsaj do decembra 2006, izvedel različne naložbe.
The Commission should allow the aid on the basis of an effects-based economic assessment of the alumina markets and their competitive structure.
Komisija bi morala pomoč dovoliti na podlagi na učinkih temelječe ekonomske ocene trgov aluminijevega oksida in njihove konkurenčne strukture.
The Commission should take into account the external aspects of competitiveness in assessing State aid, as proposed in the State aid action plan.
Komisija bi morala pri ocenjevanju državne pomoči upoštevati zunanje vidike konkurenčnosti, kot je bilo predlagano v akcijskem načrtu državnih pomoči.
Detailed information on the markets has been provided.
Zagotovljene so bile podrobne informacije o trgih.
The Commission ought to suspend the formal investigation procedure until the Court of Justice has determined the issues which are the subject of the current challenges to Decision 2006/323/EC.
Komisija bi morala opustiti formalni postopek preiskave, dokler Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti ne opredeli vprašanj, ki so predmet trenutnega izpodbijanja Odločbe 2006/323/ES.
Aughinish submits, in addition, that it was not appropriate for the Commission to take a decision to extend the Article 88(2) procedure by means of a recital to Decision 2006/323/EC.
Aughinish poleg tega trdi, da ni primerno, da je Komisija sprejela odločitev o podaljšanju postopka iz člena 88(2) z uvodno izjavo Odločbe 2006/323/ES.
The Commission should have taken a separate decision.
Komisija bi morala sprejeti posebno odločbo.
The EAA did not submit any comments in addition to the points raised earlier, which are summarised in recital 50 of Decision 2006/323/EC.
EAA k že navedenim stališčem, ki so strnjeno predstavljena v uvodni izjavi 50 Odločbe 2006/323/ES, ni dodal nobene pripombe.
The comments from the Member States and beneficiaries coincide to a large extent with their pleadings before the Court of Justice in the pending challenges to Decision 2006/323/EC.
Pripombe držav članic in upravičencev se večinoma prekrivajo z njihovimi pisnimi stališči, podanimi med izpodbijanjem Odločbe 2006/323/ES, ki poteka pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti.
5 ASSESSMENT
OCENA
The procedural concerns raised by the parties
Pomisleki strank o postopku
The parties argue that the Commission ought to suspend the formal investigation procedure until the Court has determined the issues which are the subject of the current challenges to Decision 2006/323/EC.
Stranke trdijo, da bi morala Komisija opustiti formalni postopek preiskave, dokler Sodišče ne opredeli vprašanj, ki so predmet trenutnega izpodbijanja Odločbe 2006/323/ES.
That decision, however, concerns the period until 31 December 2003, whereas this decision concerns the period as from 1 January 2004.
Vendar pa navedena odločba zadeva obdobje do 31. decembra 2003, medtem ko ta odločba zadeva obdobje od 1. januarja 2004.
In addition, this decision is presumed valid unless and until annulled by the Court of First Instance.
Poleg tega ta odločba velja, dokler je ne razveljavi Sodišče prve stopnje.
Therefore, and given the continuing distortion of competition that the State aid presents, the Commission does not see a reason to suspend the conclusion of the procedure.
Zaradi tega in zaradi stalnega izkrivljanja konkurence, ki ga prinaša državna pomoč, Komisija ne vidi razloga, da bi opustila dokončanje postopka.
The Commission did not take the decision to extend the Article 88(2) procedure merely by alluding to this in a recital.
Komisija ni sprejela odločitve o podaljšanju postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe samo z omembo v uvodni izjavi.
Specific attention was drawn to the extension in the conclusion in the preamble to Decision 2006/323/EC.
Posebna pozornost podaljšanju je bila posvečena v preambuli k Odločbi 2006/323/ES.
The decision to initiate an investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty takes the form of a letter to the Member State and therefore does not require the use of the structure of a normative decision, with an operative part and numbered articles.
Odločitev o sprožitvi postopka preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe je bila sporočena v dopisu državi članici, zato ni treba uporabiti strukture normativne odločbe z operativnim delom in oštevilčenimi členi.
Furthermore, it is clear from the challenges made to Decision 2006/323/EC, and the comments received as regards the extension of the procedure, that interested parties were able to take the fullest cognisance of all aspects of the content of that decision.
Poleg tega je iz izpodbijanj Odločbe 2006/323/ES in prejetih pripomb glede podaljšanja postopka jasno, da so se zainteresirane stranke lahko v celoti seznanile z vsemi vidiki vsebine navedene odločbe.
Existence of State aid as from 1 January 2004
Obstoj državne pomoči od 1. januarja 2004
Article 87(1) of the Treaty provides that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the ommon market’.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe predpisuje, da je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
It is evident that the exemptions are financed through State resources since the State foregoes a certain amount of money that it would otherwise collect.
Očitno je, da so oprostitve financirane iz državnih sredstev, saj se država odreka določenim zneskom denarja, ki bi jih sicer pobrala.
As set out in recitals 60, 61 and 62 of Decision 2006/323/EC, the measures confer an advantage on the beneficiaries and can be assumed to affect intra-Community trade and to distort or threaten to distort competition.
Kot je določeno v uvodnih izjavah 60, 61 in 62 Odločbe 2006/323/ES, ukrepi dajejo ugodnost upravičencem in zanje lahko domnevamo, da vplivajo na trgovanje znotraj Skupnosti ter izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco.
The fact that competitors in the alumina industry in other Member States may not be subject to similar taxes at all and that the beneficiaries have undertaken expenditure to mitigate the environmental impact of their production, does not detract from this assessment.
Dejstvo, da tekmecem v industriji aluminijevega oksida v drugih državah članicah mogoče sploh ni treba plačevati takšnih dajatev in da so upravičenci imeli stroške z zmanjšanjem okoljskega vpliva njihove proizvodnje, ne vpliva na to oceno.
The measures favour certain undertakings as they only apply to companies that use heavy fuel in the production of alumina and in practice, in each Member State there is only one company benefiting from the exemption: Aughinish in the Shannon region, Eurallumina in Sardinia and Alcan in Gardanne.
Ukrepi dajejo prednost posameznim podjetjem, saj se uporabljajo samo za družbe, ki uporabljajo težko gorivo pri proizvodnji aluminijevega oksida, in dejansko v vsaki državi članici uživa ugodnosti takšne oprostitve samo po ena gospodarska družba: Aughinish v regiji Shannon, Eurallumina na Sardiniji in Alcan v regiji Gardanne.
For the reasons set out in recitals 33 to 40, they can not be considered as being justified by the nature and general scheme of the respective energy tax systems.
Zaradi razlogov iz uvodnih izjav 33 do 40 jih zaradi narave in splošnega sistema ustreznih sistemov energetskega davka ni mogoče šteti za upravičene.
Dual uses, non-fuel uses of energy and mineralogical processes fall outside the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC and, since 1 January 2004, Member States have had discretion as to whether or not to tax such uses.
Dvojna uporaba energentov in njihova uporaba kot negoriv in uporaba za mineraloške postopke ne sodi v področje uporabe Direktive 2003/96/ES in države članice lahko od 1. januarja 2004 po lastni presoji odločijo, ali bodo takšne uporabe obdavčile ali ne.
Indeed, an exemption of such energy uses may constitute a general measure that does not involve State aid if it falls within the nature and the logic of the domestic tax system.
Oprostitev za takšno uporabo energentov je res lahko splošni ukrep, ki ne vključuje državne pomoči, če ustreza naravi in logiki notranjega davčnega sistema.
To that extent, it is in the nature and the logic of the tax system to exclude from the scope of the framework dual uses and non-fuel uses of energy as well as mineralogical processes.’
V tem pogledu narava in logika davčnega sistema narekujeta, da se iz obsega okvira izključi dvojno uporabo energentov in njihovo uporabo kot negoriv kakor tudi za mineraloške postopke.“
In addition, when Directive 2003/96/EC was adopted, the Council and the Commission jointly declared‘Energy products should essentially be subject to a Community framework when used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Poleg tega sta Svet in Komisija ob sprejetju Direktive 2003/96/EC skupaj izjavila, da „za energente praviloma velja pravni okvir Skupnosti, če se uporabljajo kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
Such exceptions to the general system or differentiations within that system, which are justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system, do not involve State aids.’
Takšne izjeme od splošnega sistema ali razlikovanja znotraj tega sistema, ki jih upravičuje narava splošnega programa davčnega sistema, ne vključujejo državnih pomoči.“
The Council also stated that ‘The Council furthermore states that it understands the legal situation arising with the adoption of this Directive in relation to the Treaty rules on State Aid, the same way as it was set out by the Commission at the meeting of the Working Party on Tax Questions on 14 November 2002.’
Svet je tudi izjavil, da „Svet poleg tega izjavlja, da razume pravni položaj, ki je nastal s sprejetjem te direktive, v povezavi s pravili o državni pomoči v Pogodbi, na ravno tak način, kot ga je razložila Komisija na sestanku delovne skupine o davčnih vprašanjih 14. novembra 2002“.