natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The interested parties also argue that the PPAs should have been analysed in the light of the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection, bearing in mind the fact that PPAs were specifically designed to bring power generators in Poland into line with the requirements of Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.
Zainteresirane stranke trdijo tudi, da bi bilo treba pogodbe PNE analizirati v skladu s smernicami Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja glede na to, da bile pogodbe PNE zasnovane predvsem zato, da bi se proizvajalci energije na Poljskem uskladili z zahtevami Direktive 2001/80/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. oktobra 2001 o omejevanju emisij nekaterih onesnaževal v zrak iz velikih kurilnih naprav.
The PPAs should have been examined under the interim mechanism referred to in the Accession Treaty
Pogodbe PNE bi bilo treba proučiti v skladu z začasnim mehanizmom iz Pristopne pogodbe
The interested parties argue that PPAs should be examined under state aid procedure No PL 1/03, which was initiated by the Commission in application of the interim mechanism provided for in the Accession Treaty.
Zainteresirane stranke trdijo, da bi bilo treba pogodbe PNE proučiti v skladu s postopkom državne pomoči št. PL 1/03, ki ga je Komisija sprožila z uporabo začasnega mehanizma, predvidenega v Pristopni pogodbi.
Case No PL 1/03 dealt with the notification by Poland of the initial version of the bill for the abolition of PPAs.
V zadevi št. PL 1/03 je bila obravnavana priglasitev Poljske v zvezi z začetno različico predloga zakona za odpravo pogodb PNE.
The interested parties consider that, when it examined the notification, the Commission probably reached the same conclusion on the link between the PPAs and the initial bill as on the link between the PPAs and the Bill, namely that the PPAs and the bill are ‘closely linked.’
Zainteresirane stranke menijo, da je Komisija pri proučitvi priglasitve najbrž prišla do enake ugotovitve o povezavi med pogodbami PNE in začetno različico predloga zakona kot o povezavi med pogodbami PNE in predlogom zakona, in sicer da so pogodbe PNE in predlog zakona „tesno povezani“.
According to the interested parties, the logical conclusion is that the Commission should have analysed the PPAs by way of the same procedure that it used to analyse the initial bill, i.e. procedure No PL 1/03, just as it did in the present case.
Po mnenju zainteresiranih strank je logičen sklep, da bi morala Komisija analizirati pogodbe PNE v skladu z istim postopkom, ki ga je uporabila pri analizi začetne različice predloga zakona, torej postopkom št. PL 1/03, tako kot je to storila v tej zadevi.
The interested parties note that the decision to initiate the procedure also repeals the Commission decision concerning case PL 1/03.
Zainteresirane stranke opozarjajo, da se z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka razveljavi odločitev Komisije v zvezi z zadevo PL 1/03.
The Commission justified this repealing decision on the grounds that Poland had failed to implement the initial bill prior to accession and that therefore the procedures laid down in the Accession Treaty did not apply to it.
Komisija je odločitev o razveljavitvi utemeljila na podlagi tega, da Poljska ni uresničila začetnega predloga zakona pred pristopom, zato se zanj ne uporabljajo postopki, določeni v Pristopni pogodbi.
The interested parties argue that this ignores the intrinsic relationship between the initial bill and the PPAs.
Zainteresirane stranke trdijo, da pri tem ni upoštevana bistvena povezava med začetnim predlogom zakona in pogodbami PNE.
Contrary to the initial bill, the PPAs would have remained within the scope of the procedures laid down in the Accession Treaty.
V nasprotju z začetnim predlogom zakona bi pogodbe PNE ostale znotraj področja uporabe postopkov, določenih v Pristopni pogodbi.
The Commission should have continued to analyse the PPAs by way of procedure No PL 1/03, i.e. under the procedures of the Accession Treaty, and should not have initiated a new procedure under the EC Treaty.
Komisija bi morala nadaljevati analizo pogodb PNE v skladu s postopkom št. PL 1/03, torej v skladu s postopki Pristopne pogodbe, in ne bi smela sprožiti novega postopka v skladu s Pogodbo ES.
Deprivation of rights
Odvzem pravic
The interested parties argue that termination of the PPAs means that they are deprived of their rights (without adequate compensation).
Zainteresirane stranke trdijo, da prenehanje pogodb PNE pomeni, da so jim odvzete pravice (brez ustreznega nadomestila).
Comments on the Bill
Pripombe o predlogu zakona
Only ELCHO, the Banks and PAK submitted comments on the Bill.
Pripombe o predlogu zakona so predložili samo ELCHO, banke in PAK.
The interested parties reiterate their viewpoint that the PPAs do not constitute an economic advantage (see above).
Zainteresirane stranke ponavljajo svoje stališče, da pogodbe PNE ne pomenijo gospodarske prednosti (glej zgoraj).
They argue that, as a consequence, the payment of fair compensation for termination cannot constitute an advantage either.
Trdijo, da posledično tudi plačilo primernega nadomestila za prenehanje ne more pomeniti prednosti.
The interested parties refer to the Asteris judgement.
Zainteresirane stranke se sklicujejo na sodbo Asteris.
Compensation paid under the Bill is, they argue, akin to compensatory damages, and in addition is guaranteed under private international law and Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty.
Trdijo, da je nadomestilo, izplačano v skladu s predlogom zakona, sorodno nadomestilu škode ter je poleg tega zajamčeno v skladu z mednarodnim zasebnim pravom in členom 10 Pogodbe o energetski listini.
The interested parties also argue that the Bill does not involve state resources in so far as the parafiscal levy that will fund it does not go through PSE, but through one or more private operators or companies.
Zainteresirane stranke trdijo tudi, da predlog zakona ne vključuje državnih sredstev, če davkom podobna dajatev, s katero se bo financiral, ne gre prek PSE, ampak prek enega ali več zasebnih izvajalcev dejavnosti ali družb.
The interested parties also argue that the Bill can be regarded as compatible with the EC Treaty in the light of Articles 87(3)(a)-(c) and 86(2).
Zainteresirane stranke poleg tega trdijo, da lahko predlog zakona velja za združljivega s Pogodbo ES v skladu s členom 87(3)(a)–(c) in členom 86(2).
In this respect, the interested parties are invoking the same arguments as the ones used when discussing the compatibility of PPAs with these Treaty provisions.
V zvezi s tem se zainteresirane stranke sklicujejo na iste argumente kot pri obravnavi združljivosti pogodb PNE z določbami Pogodbe.
Regarding the Bill's compatibility with the Stranded Costs Methodology, the Banks argue that this method was conceived and adopted in a totally different context.
Banke v zvezi z združljivostjo predloga zakona z metodologijo za nasedle stroške trdijo, da je bila ta metoda zasnovana in sprejeta v popolnoma drugačnem okviru.
The objective of the Stranded Costs Methodology was to resolve the problem of how to recover sunk costs following liberalisation.
Cilj metodologije za nasedle stroške je bil razrešiti težave v zvezi s stalnimi stroški, ki so se pojavile po liberalizaciji.
The Bill, by contrast, took account of the circumstances prevailing in Poland when the PPAs were signed.
Predlog zakona je v nasprotju s tem upošteval okoliščine, ki so prevladovale na Poljskem ob podpisu pogodb PNE.
The Banks criticise the fact that, in its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission qualified certain power plants in Poland as ‘inefficient’ and sought to analyse whether the Draft Law would result in the level of income guaranteed before liberalisation being maintained.
Banke kritizirajo dejstvo, da je Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka nekatere elektrarne na Poljskem označila za „neučinkovite“ in poskušala analizirati, ali bi imel osnutek zakona za posledico zagotovljeno raven dobička pred začetkom liberalizacije.
According to the Banks, this logic would result in any power plants constructed before the accession of a new Member State to the European Union being deemed inefficient, with the consequence that any contracts concluded with these power plants would automatically be regarded as including state aid.
Po mnenju bank bi na podlagi te logike vse elektrarne, zgrajene pred pristopom novih držav članic k Evropski uniji, veljale za neučinkovite, posledično pa bi se vse pogodbe, sklenjene s temi elektrarnami, samodejno obravnavale, kot da vključujejo državno pomoč.
In turn, this would lead to the far-reaching conclusion that all contracts would have to be terminated at the date of accession and then renegotiated.
To pa bi pripeljalo do daljnosežnega sklepa, da bi bilo treba na dan pristopa prekiniti vse pogodbe in se o njih ponovno pogajati.
This would make no legal or economic sense.
To ne bi imelo nikakršnega pravnega ali ekonomskega smisla.
The Banks add that the Commission has failed to provide any convincing or tangible evidence that the power plants are inefficient.
Banke dodajajo, da Komisija ni zagotovila nobenih prepričljivih ali oprijemljivih dokazov, da so elektrarne neučinkovite.
In short, according to the Banks, the Commission made a wrong distinction between power plants that had been completed, or nearly completed, at the time of accession, and the others.
Skratka, po mnenju bank je Komisija nepravilno razlikovala med elektrarnami, ki so bile ob pristopu zgrajene ali skoraj zgrajene, in drugimi.
In so doing, the Commission overlooked the fact that compensation must be calculated with reference to the established rules of domestic and international law.
Pri tem je Komisija spregledala dejstvo, da je treba nadomestilo izračunati ob sklicevanju na veljavna pravila notranjega ali mednarodnega prava.
According to the Banks, the price which a new player is prepared to pay to enter the market is irrelevant to these calculations.
Po mnenju bank je cena, ki jo so jo novi udeleženci pripravljeni plačati za vstop na trg, za te izračune nepomembna.
COMMENTS FROM POLAND ON THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE POLJSKE V ZVEZI Z ODLOČITVIJO O SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA
Poland takes the view that the state has a duty to ensure energy security, which includes securing energy supplies, with due account for environmental requirements.
Poljska meni, da je država dolžna zagotoviti energetsko varnost, ki vključuje zagotavljanje oskrbe z energijo ob ustreznem upoštevanju okoljskih zahtev.
Poland argues that PPAs were the only way of discharging this duty in Poland at the time when the agreements were signed.
Poljska trdi, da so bile pogodbe PNE edina možnost za izpolnitev te dolžnosti na Poljskem v obdobju, ko so bile podpisane pogodbe.
Significant investment was necessary to modernise the Polish electricity market, and the energy companies themselves had very limited resources.
Za posodobitev poljskega trga električne energije so bile potrebne precejšnje naložbe, same energetske družbe pa so imele zelo omejena sredstva.
The Banks made the granting of loans contingent on a certain level of income being guaranteed for a specified period.
Banka je za odobritev posojil postavila pogoj, da mora biti za določeno obdobje zagotovljena določena raven dobička.
PPAs were regarded as collateral for these loans.
Pogodbe PNE so štele za zavarovanje za ta posojila.
PSE was the only entity that was capable of implementing the PPAs.
PSE je bil edini subjekt, ki je bil sposoben izvajati pogodbe PNE.
When analysing this company's behaviour, it should be borne in mind that the main motive of the state is not to generate profit but to discharge its duties in the general interest.
Pri analizi ravnanja te družbe bi bilo treba upoštevati, da glavni namen države ni ustvarjati dobiček, ampak opravljati naloge v splošnem interesu.
Poland argues that, since the PPAs were concluded by way of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure, the state's participation in them should be seen as representing the market price for discharging the duty in the public interest, which leads to the conclusion that there is no state aid element involved.
Poljska trdi, da bilo treba udeležbo države pri pogodbah PNE, ker so bile te sklenjene na podlagi odprtega, preglednega in nediskriminacijskega postopka, obravnavati kot zastopanje tržne cene pri opravljanju nalog v javnem interesu, kar vodi do ugotovitve, da ni nikakršnega elementa državne pomoči.
This is compatible with the concept of public-private partnership, which is promoted by the Commission.
To pa je združljivo s konceptom javno-zasebnega partnerstva, ki ga spodbuja Komisija.
According to Poland, the PPAs were concluded under market terms and their form reflected in particular the credit terms offered by the banks to power generators.
Po trditvah Poljske so bile pogodbe PNE sklenjene pod tržnimi pogoji, njihova oblika pa je izražala zlasti kreditne pogoje, ki so jih banke ponudile proizvajalcem energije.
Furthermore, Poland argues that, since the concepts of SGEIs and public-private partnership always refer to a specific sector, the PPAs cannot be viewed as instruments which are abnormally sector-specific.
Poljska poleg tega trdi, da pogodb PNE ni mogoče obravnavati kot instrumente, ki so izjemno sektorski, saj se koncepta storitev SSGP in javno zasebnih partnerstev vedno nanašata na določen sektor.
Poland also argues that, in cases where power plants were privatised, the sales price took account of the value of the PPA.
Poljska trdi tudi, da se je ob privatizaciji elektrarn pri prodajni ceni upoštevala vrednost pogodb PNE.
This therefore rules out any element of economic advantage, which is one of the cumulative elements for defining state aid.
To torej izključuje kakršen koli element gospodarske prednosti, ki je eden od kumulativnih elementov za opredelitev državne pomoči.
Poland also takes the view that the PPAs do not constitute aid which is still applicable after accession.
Poljska meni tudi, da pogodbe PNE niso pomoč, ki se še vedno uporablja po pristopu.
Poland regards PPAs as individual aid, and states that their implementation, even after accession, is nothing more than the transfer of aid awarded before accession.
Poljska obravnava pogodbe PNE kot individualno pomoč in navaja, da je njihovo izvajanje, tudi po pristopu, samo prenos pomoči, dodeljene pred pristopom.
The PPAs also clearly indicate the state's maximum exposure.
Pogodbe PNE tudi jasno določajo največjo izpostavljenost države.
Poland states in its opinion that the Stranded Costs Methodology cannot be applied to the PPAs themselves.
Poljska v svojem mnenju navaja, da za same pogodbe PNE ni mogoče uporabiti metodologije za nasedle stroške.
It is applicable only after the PPAs have been terminated.
Lahko se uporabi šele po prenehanju pogodb PNE.
In conclusion, the Polish authorities dispute the statement that the PPAs guarantee a certain price for the electricity over a specified period.
Poljski organi torej oporekajo trditvi, da pogodbe PNE zagotavljajo določeno ceno za električno energijo v določenem obdobju.
Poland argues that instead the PPAs ensure that the costs of generating electricity are covered and allow for a small profit margin to the extent necessary to repay the debt.
Poljska namesto tega trdi, da pogodbe PNE zagotavljajo kritje stroškov proizvodnje električne energije in omogočajo majhno stopnjo dobička v obsegu, potrebnem za poplačilo dolga.
According to Poland, in accordance with market economy principles, the price of a product or service should always reflect the costs of the capital obtained to finance the investment.
Po mnenju Poljske bi morala v skladu z načeli tržnega gospodarstva cena proizvoda ali storitve vedno izražati stroške kapitala, pridobljenega za financiranje naložbe.
Poland responded to the Commission's doubts on the Bill as expressed in the decision to initiate the procedure by proposing an amended version of the Bill. The Bill entered into force on 4 August 2007 and is therefore referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’.
Poljska se je odzvala na pomisleke Komisije o predlogu zakona, izražene v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, tako da je predlagala spremenjeno različico predloga zakona. Predlog zakona je začel veljati 4. avgusta 2007, zato se v nadaljnjem besedilu imenuje „Zakon“.
As regards state aid, a description is given below of the points in which the new version of the Act differs from the original version as described in section 2.2.
Kar zadeva državno pomoč, so v nadaljevanju opisane točke, v katerih se nova različica Zakona razlikuje od prvotne različice, opisane v oddelku 2.2.
The list of aid recipients and the maximum amount of compensation have been amended.
Seznam prejemnikov pomoči in najvišji zneski nadomestila so spremenjeni.
The new list of stranded costs compensation amounts for potential recipients is as follows:
Novi seznam zneskov nadomestil za nasedle stroške za možne prejemnike:
Compensation levels in the amended Act
Ravni nadomestil v spremenjenem Zakonu
Source: Appendix 2 to the Act as submitted by Poland.
Vir: Dodatek 2 k Zakonu, ki ga je predložila Poljska.
As compared against the list in Table 2, the amended list of recipients:
V primerjavi s seznamom v preglednici 2 spremenjeni seznam prejemnikov:
no longer includes Electrabel Połaniec S.A. and Dalkia Poznań Zespół Elektrociepłowni S.A., because their PPAs have expired in the meantime;
ne vključuje več družb Electrabel Połaniec S. A. in Dalkia Poznań Zespół Elektrociepłowni S. A., ker sta se njuni pogodbi PNE medtem iztekli;
no longer includes Żarnowiecka Elektrownia Gazowa Sp. z o.o., because the PPA for this power plant was terminated before construction of the plant had been completed;
ne vključuje več družbe Żarnowiecka Elektrownia Gazowa Sp. z o. o., ker se je pogodba PNE za to elektrarno prenehala pred zaključkom njene izgradnje;
now includes Elektrociepłownia Gorzów S.A., which became eligible for payments under the Bill.
zdaj vključuje družbo Elektrociepłownia Gorzów S. A., ki je postala upravičena do izplačil v skladu s predlogom zakona.
Elektrociepłownia Kraków S.A. remains eligible for payments under the Act, but with a maximum level of compensation equivalent to zero.
Elektrociepłownia Gorzów S. A. je še vedno upravičena do izplačil v skladu z Zakonom, vendar pa je najvišja raven nadomestila enaka nič.
The main rules governing the calculation of the maximum amount of stranded cost compensation listed in Table 3 above are laid down in Article 27 of the Act.
Glavna pravila, ki urejajo izračunavanje najvišjega zneska nadomestila za nasedle stroške, navedenega v preglednici 3, so določena v členu 27 Zakona.
The maximum amounts of compensation were calculated as the difference between:
Najvišji zneski nadomestila so izračunani kot razlika med:
undepreciated investment costs as of 2007 not covered by investment aid, and
neamortiziranimi stroški naložb, ki jih od leta 2007 ne krije pomoč za naložbe, in
the part of its cash flow that the company will be able to use to recoup its investment costs.
delom denarnega toka, ki ga bo družba lahko uporabila za povračilo svojih stroškov naložb.
Investment costs are the net book value of fixed assets as per Article 27(1) of the Act.
Stroški naložb so čista knjižna vrednost osnovnih sredstev v skladu s členom 27(1) Zakona.
Undepreciated investment costs are the book value of fixed assets after deduction of their depreciated value.
Neamortizirani stroški naložb so knjižna vrednost osnovnih sredstev po odbitku njihove neamortizirane knjižne vrednosti.
The following are subsequently deducted from this amount:
Od tega zneska se nato odbijeta:
the residual book value of the power plant as at the day on which the PPA was originally scheduled to end (if any), and
preostala knjižna vrednost elektrarne na dan, ko naj bi se po prvotnih načrtih iztekla PNA (če obstaja), in
the total amount of the grants and write-offs relating to the assets.
skupni znesek nepovratnih sredstev in odpisov v zvezi s sredstvi.
This maximum amount was calculated from 2007 until expiry of the PPA for each power plant.
Najvišji znesek je bil izračunan od leta 2007 do izteka pogodbe PNE za vsako elektrarno.
When the compensation amounts were calculated, only those investments that had been completed or were on the point of completion as of the date of Poland's accession to the European Union were taken into consideration.
Pri izračunu zneskov nadomestila so se upoštevale samo tiste naložbe, ki so bile že zaključene ali pa skoraj zaključene ob pristopu Poljske k Evropski uniji.
‘Investments on the point of completion’ means investments which it was more economic to complete and operate rather than stopping construction.
„Skoraj zaključene naložbe“ so naložbe, za katere je bilo z ekonomskega vidika ustrezneje, da se zaključijo in delujejo, kot ustaviti gradnjo.
The assessment was carried out as at the date of Poland's accession to the European Union.
Ocena je bila opravljena glede na datum pristopa Poljske k Evropski uniji.
Future cash flows were calculated on the basis of the same type of market forecasts as the ones described in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Prihodnji denarni tokovi so bili izračunani na podlagi enake vrste tržnih napovedi, kot so opisane v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
The Polish authorities substantiated their forecasts.
Poljski organi so utemeljili svoje napovedi.
The Act no longer provides for a large initial payment; instead, there are annual instalments with a system of advances which, in particular, take account of the power generator's debt.
Zakon ne predvideva več velikega začetnega izplačila; namesto tega določa letne obroke s sistemom predplačil, pri katerem se zlasti upošteva dolg proizvajalca energije.
The mechanism designed to adapt compensation amounts to actual changes in electricity prices was extended until the originally planned termination of each PPA.
Mehanizem, zasnovan za prilagajanje zneskov nadomestila dejanskim spremembam pri cenah električne energije, je bil podaljšan do prvotno načrtovanega prenehanja vsake pogodbe PNE.
It corresponds to the period referred to in recital 139 used to calculate the maximum amount of compensation for each company.
Ustreza obdobju iz uvodne izjave 139, uporabljenemu za izračun najvišjega zneska nadomestila za vsako družbo.
The Act states that recipients of compensation will not receive rescue or restructuring aid for a period of ten years after the last stranded costs compensation payment provided for by the Act.
Zakon določa, da prejemniki nadomestila ne bodo prejeli pomoči za reševanje ali prestrukturiranje v obdobju desetih let po zadnjem izplačilu nadomestila za nasedle stroške, ki ga predvideva Zakon.
The Act also provides for a new category of stranded costs for the power generators listed in Table 3 which have concluded a long-term gas supply contract containing a take or pay clause relating to the plants' operation under their PPA.
Zakon predvideva tudi novo kategorijo nasedlih stroškov za proizvajalce energije iz preglednice 3, ki so sklenili dolgoročne pogodbe o dobavi plina s klavzulo „vzemi ali plačaj“ v zvezi z delovanjem elektrarn v skladu z njihovimi pogodbami PNE.
Long-term take or pay contracts are contracts in which the buyer undertakes to take a certain quantity of gas for each year of the contract at a price set by a formula and is liable to a fine if it fails to purchase the quantity in question.
Dolgoročne pogodbe „vzemi ali plačaj“ so pogodbe, v katerih se kupec zaveže, da bo vsako leto trajanja pogodbe vzel določeno količino plina po ceni, določeni s formulo, če pa zadevne količine ne kupi, je dolžan plačati kazen.