natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the time of the comments made by Denmark, the price of allowances was EUR 13 per tonne CO2, while the Community minima recalculated into EUR per tonne CO2 were 1,55 for coal and coke, 6,66 for gas oil and 2,64 for natural gas.
V času pripomb s strani Danske je bila cena pravic 13 EUR na tono CO2, najnižje stopnje Skupnosti pa so v EUR znašale 1,55 EUR na tono CO2 za premog in koks, 6,66 za plinsko olje in 2,64 za zemeljski plin.
A CO2 allowance price of EUR 13 per tonne creates, thus, an essentially greater economic incentive to reduce emissions than the tax would have done.
Cena pravice za CO2, ki znaša 13 EUR na tono CO2, torej ustvari precej večjo ekonomsko spodbudo za zmanjšanje emisij kot davek.
In accordance with the Danish National Allocation Plan for 2005-2007, the quota-regulated industry in Denmark is allocated allowances at a level which is 7,1 % below what the CO2 emissions would have been in a ‘business as usual’ situation (including taxes and voluntary agreements) for the same period.
V skladu z danskim državnim načrtom razdelitve pravic za obdobje 2005–2007 so danski industriji, ki se ureja s kvotami, dodeljene pravice na ravni, ki je 7,1 % nižja od ravni emisij CO2 v običajnih razmerah (vključno z davki in prostovoljnimi sporazumi) za enako obdobje.
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE
OCENA PREDLAGANEGA UKREPA
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, 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, in so far as it affects trade between Member States shall be incompatible with the common market.
Po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES je državna pomoč ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki z dajanjem prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The proposed measure results in a loss of State revenue and is, thus, financed by Denmark through State resources.
Predlagani ukrep prinaša izgubo prihodka države, zaradi česar ga Danska financira z državnimi sredstvi.
The beneficiaries are active on markets where there is competition and trade between Member States and, therefore, the measure has the potential of distorting competition and affecting trade between Member States.
Upravičenci so dejavni na trgih, na katerih sta konkurenca in trgovanje med državami članicami, zaradi česar bi lahko ukrep izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovanje med državami članicami.
In order to determine whether the proposed measure is caught by Article 87(1), the question is thus whether it provides a selective economic advantage to the beneficiaries or not.
Da bi ugotovili, ali predlagani ukrep sodi v člen 87(1), se je treba vprašati, ali upravičencem zagotavlja selektivno ekonomsko prednost.
The Danish authorities argue that the proposed tax relief does not confer a selective advantage on the beneficiaries, since it covers all undertakings that are legally and factually in the same situation, namely those who are the subject of double regulation.
Danski organi trdijo, da predlagana davčna olajšava upravičencem ne zagotavlja selektivne prednosti, saj pokriva vsa podjetja, ki so v enakem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, torej tista, za katera veljajo dvojni predpisi.
Should it be assumed, however, that it is a case of selective advantage, the Danish authorities find this justified by the nature and structure of the system.
Vendar če bi predvidevali, da gre za primer selektivne prednosti, danski organi menijo, da to opravičujeta narava in struktura sistema.
This is because the CO2 tax and the EU ETS have the same objective, i.e. to reduce CO2 emissions.
To je zato, ker imata davek na CO2 in sistem EU ETS enak cilj, tj. zmanjšanje emisij CO2.
Since the EU ETS was introduced the CO2 tax no longer serves any environmental purpose.
Od uvedbe sistema EU ETS davek na CO2 nima več nobene okoljske vrednosti.
For companies covered by the EU ETS, the CO2 tax is therefore not an effective instrument for reducing the overall CO2 emissions, but merely an extra economic burden.
Za podjetja, vključena v sistem EU ETS, davek na CO2 ni učinkovit instrument za celostno zmanjšanje emisij CO2, ampak le dodatna gospodarska obremenitev.
The Commission notes that it was established in the Adria-Wien judgment [20] that ‘the only question to be determined is whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question’.
Komisija navaja, da je bilo v sodbi Adria-Wien [20] ugotovljeno, da je „treba zgolj ugotoviti, ali državni ukrep v okviru določene pravne ureditve daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga v smislu člena 92(1) Pogodbe v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so glede na cilj zadevnega ukrepa v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju“.
There is recent case-law [21] on the interpretation of advantage and selectivity.
Obstaja novejša sodna praksa [21] o razlagi prednosti in selektivnosti.
The Gibraltar judgment offered a standard State aid analysis for tax cases [22].
Gibraltarska sodba je ponudila standardno analizo državne pomoči za davčne primere [22].
The Court of First Instance held that such an analysis should consist of: (1) the identification of the system of reference; (2) the determination of the derogation from that system of reference; and (3) the possibility of justification of the derogation by the nature or structure of the system.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da bi morala takšna analiza vsebovati: (1) identifikacijo referenčnega sistema, (2) določitev odstopanja od tega referenčnega sistema in (3) možnost utemeljitve odstopanja zaradi narave ali strukture sistema.
As regards the notion of selective advantage, the Commission thus first has to identify the system of reference.
Glede opredelitve selektivne prednosti mora Komisija torej najprej določiti referenčni sistem.
In the case at hand, the Commission considers, in line with the standard analysis, the system of reference to be the existing general energy tax system (including all taxes levied on the consumption of each energy product, i.e. CO2 tax and electricity tax).
V zadevnem primeru Komisija meni, da je v skladu s standardno analizo referenčni sistem obstoječi splošni sistem obdavčitve energije (vključno z vsemi davki, zaračunanimi za porabo vsakega energetskega proizvoda, na primer davkom na CO2 in davkom na elektriko).
This is in line with Article 4(2) of the Energy Taxation Directive, according to which all indirect taxes on the same energy product can be added together for the purpose of meeting the Community minimum levels of taxation.
To je skladno s členom 4(2) Direktive o obdavčitvi energije, na podlagi katere se lahko vsi posredni davki na enak energetski proizvod seštejejo za namene izpolnitve najnižjih ravni obdavčitev Skupnosti.
Furthermore, in 2004 Denmark presented the two taxes together as part of the national energy tax system in order to demonstrate compliance with the Energy Taxation Directive and to justify for State aid purposes the tax exemption from the electricity tax [23].
Poleg tega je Danska leta 2004 prikazala oba davka skupaj kot del nacionalnega sistema obdavčitve energije, da bi dokazala skladnost z Direktivo o obdavčitvi energije in za namene državne pomoči upravičila oprostitev obdavčitve davka na elektriko [23].
By relieving the beneficiaries of a financial burden which would otherwise have been part of their production costs, the scheme clearly favours the beneficiaries compared to the non-exempted firms and thereby derogates from the system of reference.
Z oprostitvijo upravičencev finančnih bremen, ki bi bila sicer del njihovih proizvodnih stroškov, shema očitno daje prednost upravičencem v primerjavi s podjetji, za katera ne velja oprostitev, in tako odstopa od referenčnega sistema.
The Danish authorities argue that the analysis of whether there is a selective advantage should take into account that the beneficiaries have a burden under the EU ETS.
Danski organi trdijo, da bi analiza o selektivni prednosti morala upoštevati, da so upravičenci obremenjeni zaradi sistema EU ETS.
The Commission notes that the energy tax system has only partially the same objective as the EU ETS.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ima sistem obdavčitve energije le delno enak cilj kot sistem EU ETS.
Whereas the EU ETS aims exclusively at reducing CO2 emissions, the energy tax system also has other objectives, such as promoting energy efficiency and collecting revenue for the State.
Medtem ko se sistem EU ETS osredotoča samo na znižanje emisij CO2, ima sistem obdavčitve energije tudi druge cilje, kot sta na primer spodbujanje energijske učinkovitosti in pobiranje prihodka za državo.
In addition, there are important differences in the functioning of a tax and of an allowance system (for example, the EU ETS does not always result in an actual cost to be paid by each beneficiary for every energy unit consumed).
Poleg tega so v delovanju sistema obdavčitve in sistema pravic bistvene razlike (sistem EU ETS na primer ne izraža vedno dejanskih stroškov, ki bi jih moral upravičenec plačati za vsako porabljeno enoto energije).
Against that background, the Commission does not share Denmark’s view that the CO2 tax and the EU ETS together should be regarded as the reference system.
V teh okoliščinah se Komisija ne strinja s stališčem Danske, da bi bilo treba davek na CO2 skupaj s sistemom EU ETS obravnavati kot referenčni sistem.
In the NOx judgment, the Court of First Instance found that there was no selectivity, because the advantage (the allocation of free emission permits) was only provided to undertakings which had an obligation under the same scheme and could therefore not be considered to be in the same legal and factual situation as undertakings outside the scheme [24].
V sodbi NOx je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da ni bilo selektivnosti, saj je bila prednost (dodelitev brezplačnih pravic za emisije) zagotovljena samo podjetjem, ki so imela obveznosti v okviru iste shema, in zato ni bilo mogoče šteti, da so v enakem pravnem in dejanskem položaju kot podjetja, ki niso bila v shemi [24].
The Commission finds that the situation in the NOx case is different from the one at hand.
Komisija meni, da je položaj v zadevi NOx drugačen kot v zadevnem primeru.
In the NOx case, the granting of the advantage (i.e. the free NOx trading allowances) was subject to the beneficiaries falling under the emission ceiling of the same system.
V zadevi NOx je bila prednost (tj. brezplačne pravice za trgovanje z NOx) dodeljena upravičencem, ki so spadali pod zgornje meje istega sistema.
In the case at hand, though, it is proposed to provide a relief from a CO2 tax which is normally to be paid by all energy consumers.
V zadevnem primeru pa je predlagana oprostitev davka na CO2, ki ga plačujejo vsi porabniki energije.
The reason for the relief will be that the beneficiaries are covered by another (non-tax) system.
Razlog za oprostitev bi bil, da upravičenci sodijo v drug (nedavčni) sistem.
In the Commission’s view this case is therefore more similar to the situation in the abovementioned Adria-Wien judgment, where the Court of Justice ruled that there was indeed a selective advantage because the energy tax relief favoured certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with other undertakings which were in a legal and factual situation that was comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the tax in question.
Stališče Komisije je, da je ta primer bolj podoben zgoraj omenjeni sodbi Adria-Wien, v kateri je Sodišče razsodilo, da je dejansko obstaja selektivna prednost, saj je oprostitev davka na energijo dajala prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga v primerjavi z ostalimi podjetji, ki so bila glede na cilj zadevnega ukrepa v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju.
According to the Commission’s notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [25], tax measures of a purely technical nature (such as avoiding double taxation) are in principle regarded as general measures [26].
V skladu z obvestilom Komisije o uporabi pravil državnih pomoči za ukrepe, povezane z neposredno obdavčitvijo podjetij [25], se davčni ukrepi povsem tehnične narave (kot je preprečevanje dvojne obdavčitve) načeloma štejejo za splošne ukrepe [26].
As mentioned above, there are important differences between a tax and the EU ETS.
Kot že navedeno, obstajajo med davkom in sistemom EU ETS pomembne razlike.
The latter can therefore not be considered as taxation in the meaning of the notice.
Slednjega torej v smislu obvestila ni mogoče šteti za obdavčitev.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that the tax relief per se grants a selective advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Zato Komisija meni, da davčna oprostitev kot taka zagotavlja selektivne prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
As regards the logic of the system, the Commission notes again that the energy tax system has only partially the same objective as the EU ETS.
Glede logike sistema Komisija ponovno ugotavlja, da ima sistem obdavčitve energije le delno enak cilj kot sistem EU ETS.
In this case, the system of reference is the energy tax system.
V tem primeru je referenčni sistem sistem obdavčitve energije.
The logic of that system is to tax each energy product consumed and the proposed relief from the tax is not in line with that logic.
Logika tega sistema je, da se obdavči vsak porabljen energetski proizvod in predlagana oprostitev davka ni v skladu s to logiko.
In this context, Denmark argues that the double regulation increases companies’ marginal costs without reducing overall CO2 emissions.
V zvezi s tem Danska trdi, da dvojni predpisi povečajo mejne stroške podjetja, ne da bi zmanjšali skupne emisije CO2.
The Commission considers, however, that argument relevant only as regards the compatibility of potential State aid, in particular with reference to the proportionality of State aid.
Po mnenju Komisije je ta argument pomemben samo glede skladnosti morebitne državne pomoči, zlasti v povezavi s sorazmernostjo državne pomoči.
This is because the effects of the EU ETS are not part of the reference system for the definition of State aid.
To je zato, ker učinki sistema EU ETS niso del referenčnega sistema za opredelitev državne pomoči.
Anyway, even if the Commission were to include EU ETS in the reference system, not all activities which generate emissions and a corresponding obligation to surrender emission allowances pursuant to the EU ETS would be covered by the proposed CO2 tax relief [27].
Četudi bi Komisija vključila sistem EU ETS v referenčni sistem, predlagana oprostitev davka na CO2 ne bi zajela vseh dejavnosti, pri katerih nastajajo emisije, in ustreznih obveznosti za predajo pravic v skladu s sistemom EU ETS [27].
That would deviate from the general logic claimed by Denmark and the relief would therefore not be fully in keeping with the logic of the system.
To bi odstopalo od splošne logike, na katero se sklicuje Danska, olajšava pa tako ne bi bila v celoti skladna z logiko sistema.
The Commission therefore does not find that the selectivity of the proposed exemption was justified by the nature and logic of the tax system.
Komisija zato meni, da narava in struktura davčnega sistema nista upravičila selektivnost predlaganega ukrepa.
Classifying the notified measure as State aid is in line with established Commission practice, under which exemptions or reductions from environmental taxes normally are regarded as State aid.
Opredelitev priglašenega ukrepa kot državno pomoč je v skladu z ustaljeno prakso Komisije, po kateri oprostitve ali zmanjšanje okoljskih dajatev sodijo med državno pomoč.
In particular, the Commission considered as State aid schemes where CO2 tax reductions were introduced for companies covered by the EU ETS [28].
Komisija je za državno pomoč štela zlasti sheme, v katerih so bile uvedene oprostitve davka na CO2 za podjetja, ki sodijo v sistem EU ETS [28].
The Commission, thus, concludes that the notified measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija zato zaključuje, da priglašeni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
According to point 204 of the EAG 2008, the Commission will apply the new guidelines to all notified aid measures in respect of which it is called upon to take a decision after the guidelines are published, even where the schemes were notified prior to their publication.
V skladu s točko 204 EAG 2008 bo Komisija uporabila nove smernice za vse priglašene ukrepe pomoči, v zvezi s katerimi se mora odločati, četudi so bile sheme priglašene pred njihovo objavo.
However, point 68 of the EAG 2008 states that, at the time of the drafting of the guidelines, the Commission had not gathered sufficient experience in assessing the compatibility of reductions of environmental taxes where the companies in question participate in tradable permit schemes and it was, therefore, at the time of the adoption of the EAG 2008, too early to provide general guidance thereon.
Vendar pa točka 68 EAG 2008 navaja, da v času priprave smernic Komisija še ni imela dovolj izkušenj glede ocenjevanja združljivosti zmanjšanja okoljskih davkov v primerih, ko zadevna podjetja sodelujejo v shemah trgovanja s pravicami, zato je bilo v času sprejetja EAG 2008 prezgodaj za določitev splošnih smernic v zvezi s tem.
The assessment of such cases will therefore be made on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
Ocenjevanje takih primerov bo torej potekalo v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
When assessing environmental cases which are not covered by the EAG, the Commission normally takes inspiration from the criteria set up in the guidelines.
Pri ocenjevanju okoljskih primerov, ki ne sodijo v EAG, Komisija običajno upošteva merila, določena v smernicah.
In this case, there are criteria for assessing reductions of and exemptions from energy taxes and it would be inconsistent not at least to take inspiration from these, in particular when assessing whether the aid is necessary and proportionate.
V tem primeru obstajajo merila za ocenjevanje zmanjšanja in oprostitve davkov na energijo, zaradi česar bi bilo nedosledno, če se ne bi vsaj upoštevala, zlasti pri ocenjevanju, ali je pomoč potrebna in sorazmerna.
First, when assessing the compliance of State aid with the EC Treaty, the Commission has to consider the positive impact of the aid measure in question in reaching an objective of common interest (for example, a higher level of environmental protection) against its potentially negative side effects on trade and competition.
Prvič, Komisija mora pri ocenjevanju združljivosti državne pomoči s Pogodbo ES upoštevati pozitiven učinek zadevnega ukrepa pomoči pri doseganju cilja skupnega interesa (na primer višjo stopnjo varstva okolja) glede na morebitne negativne stranske učinke na trgovino in konkurenco.
In this case, it is difficult to establish whether there is an environmental benefit from introducing the proposed scheme.
V tem primeru je težko ugotoviti, ali uvedba nove sheme zagotavlja okoljsko korist.
While the objectives of the EU ETS and the CO2 tax are to achieve a higher level of environmental protection, the objective of the tax relief per se is to relieve companies of a tax burden.
Medtem ko so cilji sistema EU ETS in davka na CO2 doseči višjo stopnjo varstva okolja, je cilj oprostitve davka kot take razbremeniti podjetja davčne obremenitve.
The effect of the proposed measure is, thus, that the beneficiaries obtain a competitive advantage which in itself cannot be considered to be an objective of common interest.
Učinek predlaganega ukrepa je torej, da upravičenci dobijo konkurenčno prednost, katere same po sebi ni mogoče šteti za cilj skupnega interesa.
This does, however, not exclude that there can be a direct environmental benefit stemming from the fact that the reduction enables the introduction or maintenance of higher tax levels than the Community minima for other undertakings [29].
Vendar pa to ne izključuje neposredne okoljske koristi na podlagi dejstva, da zmanjšanje omogoča uvedbo ali ohranjanje davčnih stopenj, ki so višje od najnižjih stopenj Skupnosti za ostala podjetja [29].
Second, point 152 of the EAG 2008 states that in order to be approved under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, reductions and exemptions from harmonised taxes must be compatible with the relevant Community legislation.
Drugič, točka 152 EAG 2008 navaja, da morajo biti za odobritev v skladu s členom 87 Pogodbe ES zmanjšanja in oprostitve usklajenih davkov združljivi z ustrezno zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The requirement of respect of tax directives was also confirmed in case-law by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2001 in Case T-184/97, BP Chemicals v Commission [30].
Zahteva v zvezi z direktivami o davkih je bila potrjena tudi v sodni praksi s sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 27. septembra 2001 v zadevi T-184/97, BP Chemicals proti Komisiji [30].
In cases like this, which concerns a relief from the CO2 tax, this means primarily respect of the Energy Taxation Directive.
V takih primerih, ki se nanašajo na oprostitev davka na CO2, to pomeni predvsem upoštevanje Direktive o obdavčitvi energije.
According to that directive, the tax levels have to respect a certain Community minimum level for each energy product and electricity.
V skladu s to direktivo morajo davčne stopnje upoštevati določeno najnižjo raven Skupnosti za vsak energetski proizvod in električno energijo.
The minimum levels are specified in Annex I of the directive.
Najnižje ravni so določene v Prilogi I Direktive.
As mentioned above, according to Article 4(2) of the Energy Taxation Directive, the minimum levels can be reached by adding all charges levied in respect of all indirect taxes (except for VAT) calculated directly or indirectly on the quantity of energy products and electricity at the time of consumption.
Kot že navedeno, so lahko v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive o obdavčitvi energije najnižje ravni dosežene s seštevkom vseh obračunanih stroškov v zvezi s posrednimi davki (razen za DDV), izračunanimi neposredno ali posredno na količino energetskih proizvodov in električne energije v času porabe.
According to Article 17(4) of the same directive, businesses that benefit from a level of taxation below the Community minima shall enter into agreements, tradable permit schemes or equivalent arrangements leading to the achievement of environmental objectives broadly equivalent to what would have been achieved if the Community minima would have been observed.
V skladu s členom 17(4) iste direktive podjetja, ki imajo korist od stopnje obdavčitve, ki je nižja od najnižjih stopenj Skupnosti, sklenejo sporazume, sodelujejo v shemah trgovanja s pravicami ali sklenejo enakovreden sporazum, ki vodi do izpolnitve okoljskih ciljev v približno enaki meri, kot če bi upoštevali najnižje stopnje Skupnosti.
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission invited Denmark to submit further information to support its claim that the EU ETS has a broadly equivalent effect to the tax.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija pozvala Dansko, naj predloži nadaljnje informacije, ki bi podprle njeno trditev, da ima sistem EU ETS približno enak učinek kot davek.
Denmark has not submitted additional information on that issue.
Danska ni predložila dodatnih informacij s tem v zvezi.
Given the price level of the EU ETS allowances in comparison with the Community minimum levels, it can nevertheless not be excluded that the effects of the EU ETS are broadly equivalent to what would have been achieved under the CO2 tax [31].
Glede na cene pravic v sistemu EU ETS v primerjavi z najnižjimi ravnmi Skupnosti ni mogoče izključiti, da so učinki sistema EU ETS približno enakovredni tistim, ki bi bili doseženi z davkom na CO2 [31].