natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that the increased toll is levied only on vehicles of at least 12 tonnes is discriminatory since it charges mainly international transport of goods and favours indirectly the mainly national transport of goods on vehicles of less than 12 tonnes [30].
Dejstvo, da se višja cestnina obračuna samo za vozila z maso najmanj 12 ton, je diskriminatorno, saj se s tem zaračuna predvsem mednarodni prevoz blaga in neposredno spodbuja pretežno nacionalni prevoz blaga z vozili, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton [30].
In this respect, interested parties referred to several Court cases [31].
Pri tem so se zainteresirane stranke sklicevale na več sodb Sodišča [31].
According to interested parties, the toll system infringes Directive 1999/62/EC, in particular Article 7(4), since the toll is considered to be discriminatory on the grounds of the nationality of the haulier or the origin or destination of the vehicle [32].
Po mnenju zainteresiranih strank sistem za cestninjenje ni v skladu z Direktivo 1999/62/ES, zlasti členom7(4), saj je cestnina diskriminatorna glede na državljanstvo prevoznika ali izhodiščni ali namembni kraj vozila [32].
The practical difficulties [33] of the toll system create a disadvantage for non-German road hauliers.
Praktične težave [33] sistema cestninjenja povzročajo škodo nenemškim cestnim prevoznikom. Pomanjkanje učinkovitih alternativ za namestitev OBU prav tako ni v skladu s členom 7(5) Direktive 1999/62/ES.
As the costs for the construction of the German motorways seem to be mostly depreciated, the calculation of the costs should mainly be related to the operating and developing costs of the infrastructure network concerned.
Ker so stroški gradnje nemških avtocest večinoma amortizirani, se mora izračun stroškov nanašati predvsem na operativne stroške in stroške za razvoj zadevnega infrastrukturnega omrežja.
In addition, it is argued that the toll system is discriminatory due to the fact that the toll will be levied by 100 % upon heavy goods vehicles of not less than 12 tonnes while — according to information provided by German authorities — they cause only 45 % of the costs.
Poleg tega so trdile, da je sistem cestninjenja diskriminatoren tudi zato, ker se za težka tovorna vozila, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton, zaračunana 100 % cestnina, medtem ko po podatkih nemških organov ta vozila povzročajo samo 45 % stroškov.
The exemption for private vehicles for tourism purposes also seems to be discriminatory.
Tudi izvzetje zasebnih vozil v turistične namene naj bi bilo diskriminatorno.
Furthermore, it is stated that the average toll rate of 12,4 cents/km seems to be too high.
Poleg tega je navedeno, da naj bi bil povprečen znesek cestnine 12,4 centov/km previsok.
It appears that Germany uses the higher toll rate to cross-subsidise other transport modes which would violate both the ‘users-pay’-principle and Article 9(2) of the Directive 1999/62/EC.
Kot kaže, Nemčija uporablja višji znesek cestnine za navzkrižno subvencioniranje drugih načinov prevoza, kar ne bi bilo v skladu z načelom „uporabnik plača“ in členom 9(2) Direktive 1992/62/ES.
It is further argued that the German toll system, as it seems, contradicts with recital 17 of Directive 1999/62/EC, since it will create artificial barriers, distort competition within Europe and lead away from a harmonised European model of infrastructure charging, guaranteeing interoperability.
Poleg tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da nemški sistem cestninjenja nasprotuje „uvodni izjavi 17“ Direktive 1999/62/ES, saj bo ustvaril umetne ovire, izkrivljal konkurenco v Evropi in odvračal od usklajenega evropskega modela zaračunavanja za uporabo infrastrukture, ki zagotavlja interoperabilnost.
The German law introducing the new toll also seems to be discriminatory to the detriment of non-German road hauliers as regards the emission classes of vehicles.
Nemški zakon, ki uvaja novo cestnino, je diskriminatoren tudi na škodo nenemških cestnih prevoznikov glede vrste emisij vozil.
Finally, it is argued that the toll system violates other Treaty provisions such as Article 28, 97, 90 and 92 [35].
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da sistem cestninjenja krši tudi druge določbe Pogodbe, kot so členi 28, 97, 90 in 92 [35].
Arguments favouring the reimbursement system
Argumenti v prid sistemu vračila
It is said that the aid is necessary, in the interest of the Community and respects the principle of proportionality by using the following arguments: The Commission’s White Paper on transport policy [36] as well as Article 7 ter of the new draft of the Eurovignette Directive [37], both allow a fiscal compensation for traffic users charged for using the infrastructure in order to avoid an overall increase of taxes.
Navedeno je bilo, da je pomoč potrebna, da je v interesu Skupnosti in da upošteva načelo sorazmernosti, kar je bilo podprto z naslednjimi argumenti: Bela knjiga Komisije o prometni politiki [36] in člen 7 novega osnutka Direktive o evrovinjeti [37] predvidevata vračilo davka za uporabnike prometa, zaračunanega za uporabo infrastrukture, s čimer bi se izognili celotnemu povišanju davkov.
The measure itself does not reduce the mineral oil tax.
Ukrep sam po sebi ne znižuje davčne stopnje za mineralno olje.
The excise duty is only serving as a reference to calculate the reimbursement of the toll.
Trošarina služi samo kot referenca za izračun cestnine.
In addition, it can be shown that the income of mineral oil tax in Germany is declining due to the lesser purchase of fuel in Germany.
Poleg tega je mogoče dokazati, da se prihodek od davka na mineralno olje v Nemčiji zmanjšuje zaradi manjšega nakupa goriva v Nemčiji.
The reimbursement system is therefore considered to be a necessary measure to keep the overall increase of charges proportionate, which is also in the interest of the Community.
Sistem vračila se zato šteje za nujen ukrep, ki bo ohranil sorazmernost celotnega povišanja pristojbin, kar je tudi v interesu Skupnosti.
The aid measure clearly respects the principle of non-discrimination, since German and non-German road hauliers can both benefit from the aid measure.
Ukrep pomoči jasno upošteva načelo nediskriminacije, saj so do ukrepa pomoči upravičeni tako nemški kot tudi nenemški cestni prevozniki.
It is also said that discrimination would only appear if road hauliers not having their office registered in Germany had to bear higher expenses or were submitted to a higher administrative burden for the reimbursement than German road hauliers, which is not the case.
Navedeno je bilo tudi, da bi bila diskriminacija prisotna samo, če bi morali cestni prevozniki, ki svojega sedeža nimajo v Nemčiji, kriti višje stroške ali pa bi bili pri vračilu izpostavljeni višjemu upravnemu bremenu kot nemški cestni prevozniki, kar pa v tem primeru ne velja.
Third parties also stated that the aid measure does not lead to a distortion of competition in view of the fact that the compensation of EUR 600 million per year only corresponds to 17,6 % of the additional costs of the infrastructure charge.
Tretje stranke so tudi navedle, da ukrep pomoči ne povzroča izkrivljanja konkurence, ker nadomestilo v višini 600 milijonov EUR letno ustreza samo 17,6 % dodatnih stroškov pristojbin za uporabo cestnine.
Finally, it is argued that the measure cannot be considered to be State aid since according to paragraph 13 of the Commission Notice 98/C 384/03 [38] tax measures are general measures which do not constitute State aid pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ugotovljeno je, da ukrepa ni mogoče šteti za državno pomoč, saj so v skladu z odstavkom 13 obvestila Komisije 98/C 384/03 [38] davčni ukrepi splošni ukrepi, ki ne predstavljajo države pomoči v skladu s členom 87 (1) ES Pogodbe.
In the view of the German government, the measure does not lead to a direct discrimination as the reimbursement is made available for all road hauliers, regardless of their nationality or residence.
Po mnenju nemške vlade ukrep ne povzroča neposredne diskriminacije, saj je vračilo zagotovljeno vsem cestnim prevoznikom ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo ali stalno prebivališče.
Neither does the measure leads to a de facto discrimination.
Ukrep tudi ne povzroča dejanske diskriminacije.
First, they argue that there is a direct link between the new charge for the use of German motorways and the fuel consumption which again is directly linked to the amount of excise duties on fuel.
Prvič, obstaja neposredna povezava med novimi pristojbinami za uporabo nemških avtocest in porabo goriva, ki je neposredno vezana na znesek trošarine za gorivo.
In their view, the connection between toll reduction on the one hand and the payment of excise duties on the other hand is reasonably justified as both payments can be considered as a contribution to the cost of infrastructure.
Po njihovem mnenju je povezava med znižanjem cestnine na eni strani in plačilom trošarine na drugi strani zadostno utemeljena, saj se lahko obe plačili štejeta za prispevek k infrastrukturnim stroškom.
In addition, the measure does not foresee any thresholds, e.g. a minimum amount of toll charge or a minimum transport volume.
Poleg tega ukrep ne predvideva nobenih mejnih vrednosti, npr. najmanjšega zneska cestnine ali najmanjšega obsega prevoza.
Furthermore, the decision whether to fill the tank within Germany or not is a purely economic decision which will be taken by German road hauliers as well as by non-German road hauliers.
Poleg tega je odločitev o tem, ali naj se rezervoarji za gorivo polnijo v Nemčiji ali ne, popolnoma ekonomska odločitev, ki jo bodo sprejeli tako nemški kot tudi nenemški cestni prevozniki.
The German authorities argue in this respect that in Germany both the part of the excise duty on the fuel sale price and the sales price itself are among the highest in EU Member States.
Nemški organi v zvezi s tem navajajo, da sta v Nemčiji delež trošarine na prodajne cene goriva in sama prodajna cena med najvišjimi v državah članicah EU.
The German authorities also note that the measure is fully in line with the territoriality principle.
Nemški organi tudi ugotavljajo, da je ukrep v celoti skladen z načelom teritorialnosti.
The German authorities contradict the argument that the TRS can be seen as a reduction of the tax for the use of infrastructure and that it therefore would discriminate against foreign road hauliers.
Nemški organi nasprotujejo argumentu, da se lahko SPC šteje za znižanje davka za uporabo infrastrukture, zaradi česar bi bil diskriminatoren do tujih cestnih prevoznikov.
In the view of German authorities, the reimbursement will be paid out to both German road hauliers and non-German road hauliers.
Po mnenju nemških organov bo vračilo izplačano nemškim in nenemškim cestnim prevoznikom.
The TRS will lead to a situation where both categories will contribute to the financing of German motorways in proportion of their use of the infrastructure.
SPC bo omogočil, da bosta obe kategoriji prevoznikov prispevali k financiranju nemških avtocest, sorazmerno z njihovo uporabo infrastrukture.
As regards the argument of a partial compensation of the price difference of fuel between Germany and other countries, the German authorities cannot see any discrimination against foreign road hauliers.
Nemški organi v zvezi z delnim nadomestilom razlike v ceni goriva med Nemčijo in drugimi državami ne vidijo diskriminacije tujih cestnih prevoznikov.
They agree that the filling of tanks outside the German territory may be cheaper than the filling of tanks within Germany, even after having taken into account the amount of the reimbursement.
Strinjajo se, da je polnjenje rezervoarjev za gorivo izven nemškega ozemlja lahko cenejše kot polnjenje rezervoarjev za gorivo v Nemčiji, tudi ob upoštevanju zneska vračila.
However, this calculation will be done by German and by non-German road hauliers alike.
Vendar bo ta izračun enak za nemške in nenemške cestne prevoznike.
According to the German authorities, over 80 % of the German road hauliers take advantage of lower fuel prices in other countries.
Po mnenju nemških organov več kot 80 % nemških cestnih prevoznikov izkorišča nižje cene goriva v drugih državah.
However, as German road hauliers in general already suffer from a very high level of excise duties which creates a disadvantage to their competitive position, they will not be able to reduce their price level on the transport of goods, more than any other road haulier availing himself of the measure.
Ker pa so nemški cestni prevozniki na splošno že prizadeti zaradi zelo visoke stopnje trošarine, ki škodi njihovemu konkurenčnemu položaju, svojih cen prevoza blaga ne bodo mogli znižati bolj kot drugi cestni prevozniki, ki uporabljajo ta ukrep.
The effect of the aid measure would therefore only consist in a reduced distortion of competition caused by the very high level of excise duties in Germany, but will not create any advantage to German road hauliers allowing them to reduce the price level for the transport of goods.
Ukrep pomoči bi zato pomenil samo manjše izkrivljanje konkurence, ki jo povzroča zelo visoka stopnja trošarine v Nemčiji, in ne bi nemškim cestnim prevoznikom zagotavljal prednosti, ki bi jim omogočala znižati cene prevoza blaga.
The German authorities argue that the increase of the toll is justified in spite of the TRS, given that not only German road hauliers will benefit from the compensation measure, but also non-German road hauliers.
Nemški organi trdijo, da je povišanje cestnine upravičeno kljub SPC, ker bodo od kompenzacijskega ukrepa imeli koristi tako nemški kot tudi nenemški cestni prevozniki.
Hence, non-German road hauliers will have to pay higher toll rates but benefit from the TRS which will prevent an excessive contribution of non-German road hauliers to the harmonisation of mineral oil tax.
Zato bodo morali nenemški cestni prevozniki plačati višjo cestnino, vendar pa bodo imeli koristi od SPC, saj bo ta preprečil čezmeren prispevek nenemških cestnih prevoznikov k uskladitvi davčne stopnje za mineralno olje.
Interested parties argue that the reimbursement system will favour German filling stations to the detriment of non-German filling stations.
Zainteresirane stranke trdijo, da bo sistem vračila dajal prednost nemškim bencinskih črpalkam v primerjavi z nenemškimi bencinskimi črpalkami.
The German authorities, however, argue that the existing differences in the mineral oil tax between Member States have already the effect of creating so-called ‘fuel tourism’, in particular with neighbouring countries.
Nemški organi kljub temu trdijo, da obstoječe razlike v davčni stopnji za mineralno olje med državami članicami že vplivajo na oblikovanje tako imenovanega „bencinskega turizma“, zlasti s sosednjimi državami.
Measures which help to reduce these differences — such as the TRS — should also help to reduce the so-called ‘fuel tourism’.
Ukrepi, ki pomagajo zmanjševati te razlike, kot je na primer SPC, morajo zmanjšati tudi tako imenovani „bencinski turizem“.
According to the German authorities, it is therefore not the aid measure which will discriminate against foreign filling stations.
Po mnenju nemških organov zato ukrep pomoči ne bo diskriminiral tujih bencinskih črpalk.
On the contrary, the aid measure will only lead to the fact that foreign filling stations will be less favoured than they are now.
Nasprotno, zaradi ukrepa pomoči bodo imele tuje bencinske črpalke manj prednosti, kot jih imajo zdaj.
Third parties argue that as a consequence of the aid measure other Member States, e.g. in neighbouring regions, will loose tax income due to a reduced purchase of fuel.
Tretje stranke trdijo, da bodo zaradi ukrepa pomoči druge države članice, npr. v sosednjih regijah, izgubile prihodek od davka zaradi manjšega nakupa goriva.
However, the German authorities argue that measures which will lead to a reduction of ‘fuel tourism’ are justified even if this would lead to a lower tax income in neighbouring regions.
Vendar pa nemški organi trdijo, da so ukrepi, ki vodijo k zmanjšanju „bencinskega turizma“, upravičeni tudi, če bi imele sosednje regije zato manjši prihodek od davka.
The German authorities also argue that the measure is not discriminatory against those consumers of fuel using German motorways with vehicles of less than 12 tonnes.
Nemški organi tudi trdijo, da ukrep ni diskriminatoren do tistih potrošnikov goriva, ki uporabljajo nemške avtoceste z vozili, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton.
According to the German authorities, it is clear that the reimbursement is only given under the condition that the toll on lorries exceeding 12 tonnes is paid.
Po mnenju nemških organov je jasno, da se vračilo zagotovi samo, če je bila plačana cestnina za tovornjake, katerih masa presega 12 ton.
Therefore, the reimbursement cannot be seen without the overall effect of a net burden for these lorries.
Zato vračila ni mogoče obravnavati brez celotnega učinka neto obremenitve za te tovornjake.
Since, on balance, they will be charged more than they receive in return, it is difficult to argue that the reimbursement itself favours these vehicles above 12 tonnes, or, in other words, discriminates vehicles of less than 12 tonnes due to an alleged de facto discriminatory effect of a mineral oil tax reduction.
Ker bodo v celoti morali plačati več, kot bo znašalo vračilo, je težko trditi, da vračilo samo po sebi daje prednost vozilom, katerih masa presega 12 ton, oziroma diskriminira vozila, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton zaradi domnevnega dejanskega diskriminatornega učinka znižanja davčne stopnje za mineralno olje.
Hence, in the view of German authorities, the reimbursement can not discriminate vehicles of less than 12 tonnes as they are not subject of the new toll system.
Zato vračilo po mnenju nemških organov ne diskriminira vozil, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton, ker niso predmet novega sistema cestninjenja.
As regards the argument that a difference in the tax burden cannot, by itself, justify the granting of aid, German authorities state that the Italian case quoted by third parties in this connection is not relevant for the German case since the general framework and conditions are not the same.
Nemški organi v zvezi z argumentom, da razlika v davčni obremenitvi sama po sebi ne more upravičiti dodelitve pomoči, izjavljajo, da italijanski primer, ki ga v zvezi s tem navajajo tretje stranke, za nemški primer ni pomemben, ker tudi splošni okvir in pogoji niso enaki.
They argue that in the past a large proportion of the infrastructure costs in Germany have been funded through excise duties on fuel.
Navajajo, da je bil v preteklosti velik del infrastrukturnih stroškov v Nemčiji financiran s trošarino za gorivo.
Heavy goods vehicles that use federal motorways are now paying a double contribution to infrastructure costs, in the form of both excise duties on fuel and the toll.
Težka tovorna vozila, ki uporabljajo zvezne avtoceste, zdaj plačujejo dvojni prispevek k infrastrukturnim stroškom, tj. v obliki trošarine za gorivo in cestnine.
The TRS takes into account infrastructure costs contributions already paid in Germany and will therefore only compensate hauliers for a double payment in the interest of a fair charging for the costs of infrastructure.
SPC upošteva prispevke k že plačanim infrastrukturnim stroškom v Nemčiji in bo zato prevoznikom povrnil samo dvojno plačilo v prizadevanju za pošteno zaračunavanje infrastrukturnih stroškov.
The German authorities also argue that the reimbursement system does not foresee in a mechanism which would allow for the acceptance of all appropriate filling station receipts regardless of the fact of whether the vehicle used German motorways or other roads.
Nemški organi tudi trdijo, da sistem vračila ne predvideva mehanizma, ki bi priznal vsa potrdila bencinskih črpalk ne glede na to, ali je bilo vozilo uporabljeno na nemških avtocestah ali na drugih cestah.
On the contrary, Germany reconfirms that receipts are only acceptable if the voucher indicates the registration number of the refuelled vehicle liable for the toll.
Nasprotno, Nemčija ponovno potrjuje, da so potrdila priznana samo, če je na dokazilu navedena registrska številka z gorivom napolnjenega vozila, zavezanega za plačilo cestnine.
Hence, German authorities can exclude that the measure would favour German road hauliers with a mixed fleet of vehicles below and above 12 tonnes such as has been argued by interested parties.
Zato nemški organi izključujejo, da bi ukrep dajal prednost nemškim cestnim prevoznikom z raznolikim voznim parkom vozil, katerih masa ne presega ali presega 12 ton, kot so trdile zainteresirane stranke.
Germany also argues that since the payment mechanism is the same for all users of German motorways, it is not clear why the system would discriminate against non-German road hauliers which might use the motorways only occasionally.
Nemčija tudi trdi, da ker je plačilni mehanizem enak za vse uporabnike nemških avtocest, ni jasno, zakaj bi sistem diskriminiral nenemške cestne prevoznike, ki bi avtoceste uporabljali samo občasno.
The total toll reimbursement accumulated in any one calendar year may be offset against the toll debt in the following year.
Celoten znesek vrnjene cestnine, zbran v koledarskem letu, se lahko krije iz cestnine za naslednje leto.
The German authorities note that the measure does not contradict Directive 1999/62/EC since the administrative obstacles for non-German road hauliers are not considered to be higher than for German road hauliers.
Nemški organi ugotavljajo, da ukrep ni v nasprotju z Direktivo 1999/62/ES, saj upravne ovire za nenemške cestne prevoznike niso večje kot pri nemških cestnih prevoznikih.
According to German authorities, standardised forms will be available in an appropriate number of EU languages and the information requested will be mainly figures, so that foreign hauliers will have an easy access to the reimbursement system.
Po mnenju nemških organov bodo standardizirani obrazci na voljo v ustreznem številu jezikov EU, zahtevane informacije pa bodo večinoma številke, tako da bodo imeli tuji prevozniki enostaven dostop do sistema vračila.
The administrative burden of keeping vouchers up to one year corresponds to other procedures such as the VAT-reimbursement.
Upravna obremenitev hranjenja dokazil do enega leta ustreza drugim postopkom, kot je npr. vračilo DDV-ja.
It can also be shown that in many cases vouchers have to be kept until the end of the year also for other reasons such as company audits of national tax authorities.
Dokazano je, da je treba v številnih primerih dokazila hraniti do konca leta iz drugih razlogov, npr. revizije podjetij s strani nacionalnih davčnih organov.
Therefore, Germany concludes that the reimbursement system does not create administrative obstacles or practical burdens that would lead to a discrimination against non-German road hauliers.
Zato Nemčija sklepa, da sistem vračila ne povzroča upravnih ovir ali praktičnih obremenitev, ki bi lahko vodile do diskriminacije nenemških cestnih prevoznikov.
With regard to the criticism of the TRS, such as the insufficient number of OBUs which might have an indirect impact on the aid measure itself, the German authorities argue that the practical aspects of the toll do not have any influence on the TRS.
Na kritiko SPC, da bi nezadostno število OBU lahko neposredno vplivalo na sam ukrep pomoči, nemški organi odgovarjajo, da praktični vidiki cestnine ne vplivajo na SPC.
The German authorities do not consider that Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC is violated since the measure only reduces the level of the toll rate and is not intended to reduce excise duties on mineral oil as stipulated in this Directive.
Nemški organi menijo, da člen 8(4) Direktive 92/81/EGS ni kršen, saj ukrep znižuje samo znesek cestnine in ni namenjen znižanju trošarine za mineralno olje, kot določa ta direktiva.
As regards the effect of the measure on the environment, Germany contradicts the argument that the aid measure would favour the consumption of fuel and therefore would have negative effects on the environment.
Nemčija v zvezi z vplivom ukrepa na okolje nasprotuje argumentu, da bi ukrep pomoči spodbujal porabo goriva in bi zato negativno vplival na okolje.