natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the operating aid was not limited to five years’ duration, it was not degressive, and its intensity was not limited to 50 % of the extra costs (point E.3.3.4 of the 2001 guidelines).
pomoč za tekoče poslovanje ni omejena na pet let, se sčasoma ne znižuje, njena intenzivnost pa ni omejena na 50 % dodatnih stroškov (točka E.3.3.4 smernic iz leta 2001).
Secondly, the Commission considered that the exemption from contribution payments granted to large electricity-consuming enterprises prima facie did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the 2001 guidelines: exempted enterprises had not undertaken to achieve environmental protection objectives [17]; such enterprises were not required to pay a significant proportion of the tax [18]; and lastly, the exemptions were not degressive within the meaning of the 2001 guidelines and their intensity was not limited to 50 % [19].
Drugič, Komisija je ocenila, da oprostitev prispevka, odobrena podjetjem z visoko porabo električne energije, ne izpolnjuje meril, določenih v smernicah iz leta 2001: podjetja, ki so upravičena do oprostitve, se niso zavezala doseganju ciljev varstva okolja [17]; ni jim treba plačati znatnega dela davka [18]; poleg tega se oprostitve sčasoma ne znižujejo v smislu smernic iz leta 2001 in njihova intenzivnost ni omejena na 50 % [19].
Lastly, the Commission questioned the measure’s compatibility with Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty.
Nazadnje je Komisija podvomila o združljivosti ukrepa s členoma 25 in 90 Pogodbe.
The compensation mechanism did not make provision for any exemption from contribution payments for imported electricity or from the tax on exports.
Kompenzacijski mehanizem dejansko ne predvideva oprostitve prispevka za uvoženo električno energijo niti davka na izvoz.
The measure ultimately benefited only domestic producers of green electricity.
Ta ukrep na koncu dejansko koristi le državnim proizvajalcem okolju prijazne električne energije.
Imported electricity was therefore taxed without ultimately benefiting from the support enjoyed by green electricity produced in Luxembourg.
Uvožena električna energija je torej obdavčena, ne da bi na koncu prejela pomoč, ki jo ima okolju prijazna električna energija, proizvedena v Luksemburgu.
The new GDR referred to in paragraph 23, scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2009, amends the compensation mechanism in such a way that it no longer numbers among the reasons for opening the formal investigation procedure.
Nova uredba Velikega vojvodstva, ki je navedena v uvodni izjavi 23 in mora začeti veljati 1. januarja 2009, spreminja kompenzacijski mehanizem, tako da ne bo več eden od razlogov, zaradi katerih je bil sprožen formalni postopek preiskave.
Consequently, this Decision examines the existence of State aid and the compatibility or otherwise of the compensation mechanism under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty up until 31 December 2008.
Zato ta odločba preučuje obstoj državnih pomoči in morebitno združljivost kompenzacijskega mehanizma v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe do 31. decembra 2008.
COMMENTS FROM LUXEMBOURG ON THE OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE LUKSEMBURGA O ZAČETKU FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
On the description of the measure
Opis ukrepa
Luxembourg pointed out first of all that, under the GDR of 30 May 1994, Cegedel was alone obliged to purchase Luxembourg-produced green electricity.
Prvič, Luksemburg poudarja, da je v skladu z Uredbo Velikega vojvodstva z dne 30. maja 1994 k odkupu okolju prijazne električne energije, proizvedene v Luksemburgu, zavezano le podjetje Cegedel.
Other, competing distributors had since emerged owing to liberalisation (they were 13 in number in June 2003).
Zaradi liberalizacije so se nato pojavili drugi konkurenčni distributerji, ki jih je bilo junija 2003 trinajst.
They had all been placed under an obligation to purchase green electricity.
Za vse je bila uvedena obveznost odkupa okolju prijazne električne energije.
In actual fact, however, the additional costs still fell largely on one operator, Cegedel.
Kljub temu je v praksi dodatne stroške vedno nosil zlasti en gospodarski subjekt, tj. podjetje Cegedel.
Consequently, the compensation fund in reality promoted fair competition between distributors since it divided among them the additional costs associated with the green electricity purchasing obligation.
Luksemburg torej ugotavlja, da kompenzacijski sklad dejansko daje prednost enakim konkurenčnim pogojem za distributerje, ker med njimi porazdeli dodatne stroške, povezane z obveznostjo odkupa okolju prijazne električne energije.
Luxembourg pointed out secondly that the measure produced significant environmental benefits and helped to achieve the environmental protection objectives to which Luxembourg has committed itself in accordance with the Community anti-climate change policy: for Luxembourg, the target was to reduce carbon emissions by 28 % compared with 1990.
Drugič, Luksemburg navaja, da ta ukrep pomeni pomembno okoljsko korist in prispeva k doseganju ciljev varstva okolja, h katerim se je Luksemburg zavezal v skladu s politiko Skupnosti v zvezi z bojem proti podnebnim spremembam; cilj Luksemburga je zmanjšati emisije CO2 za 28 % v primerjavi z letom 1990.
The Luxembourg authorities accordingly called on the Commission to assess the potential competition-distorting effects or the effect on intra-Community trade in the light of the environmental benefits of the measure.
Zato luksemburški organi Komisijo pozivajo, naj možne učinke izkrivljanja konkurence ali vplivov na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti ocenjuje glede na okoljsko korist ukrepa.
Luxembourg considered that the creation of the compensation fund did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Luksemburg meni, da ustanovitev kompenzacijskega sklada ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
It maintained first of all that, as the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the Court of Justice) had found in its judgment in PreussenElektra [20], the fund did not involve any State resources.
Prvič, Luksemburg poudarja, da sklad ne vključuje državnih sredstev v skladu s sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče) z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra [20].
Before the fund was introduced, the additional costs associated with the green electricity purchasing obligation had been borne exclusively by the final customers of a private company, Cegedel.
Pred uvedbo sklada so dodatne stroške, povezane z obveznostjo odkupa okolju prijazne električne energije, dejansko krili le končni odjemalci zasebnega podjetja Cegedel.
Since the introduction of the fund, the additional costs had been divided among all customers of all distributors in Luxembourg, without, however, involving more State resources.
Po uvedbi sklada so se dodatni stroški porazdelili med vse odjemalce vseh distributerjev, ki delujejo v Luksemburgu, vendar ne vključujejo državnih sredstev.
In support of its argument Luxembourg cited paragraph 66 of the PreussenElektra judgment: ‘a statutory provision of a Member State which, first, requires private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that type of electricity, and, second, distributes the financial burden resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the Treaty’.
Luksemburg za utemeljitev svojih argumentov navaja odstavek 66 sodbe v zadevi PreussenElektra: „[…] predpis države članice, ki zasebna podjetja za distribucijo električne energije zavezuje k odkupu električne energije iz obnovljivih virov energije na njihovem področju dobave po najnižjih cenah, višjih od dejanske ekonomske vrednosti take vrste energije, in ki finančne stroške te obveznosti porazdeljuje med navedena podjetja za distribucijo električne energije ter zasebne uporabnike električnega omrežja, ki so višje na distribucijski verigi, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 92(1) Pogodbe“ (zdaj člen 87(1) Pogodbe).
Luxembourg pointed out secondly that the compensation fund did not create any advantage for green electricity producers inasmuch as there was no contractual or financial link between the fund and the producers.
Drugič, Luksemburg ugotavlja, da kompenzacijski sklad ne daje prednosti proizvajalcem okolju prijazne električne energije, če ni nobenega pogodbenega ali finančnega razmerja med skladom in proizvajalci.
The compensation fund likewise did not create any advantage for large electricity-consuming enterprises compared with enterprises which contributed to the fund.
Poleg tega kompenzacijski sklad ne daje prednosti podjetjem z visoko porabo električne energije v primerjavi s podjetji, ki prispevajo v sklad.
The beneficiaries of the exemption — the chemical and steel industries — had no competitors in Luxembourg which should have contributed to the fund.
Upravičenca do oprostitve, to sta kemična industrija in jeklarstvo, v Luksemburgu nimata konkurenta, ki bi moral plačevati v sklad.
Luxembourg considered, moreover, that the beneficiaries of the exemption were not placed at an advantage compared with competitors situated outside of Luxembourg.
Poleg tega Luksemburg ocenjuje, da upravičenci do oprostitve nimajo prednosti v primerjavi s konkurenti s sedežem zunaj Luksemburga.
Luxembourg considered lastly that the competition-distorting effect and the effect on intra-Community trade associated with the compensation fund were no more than theoretical.
Nazadnje, Luksemburg ocenjuje, da je učinek izkrivljanja konkurence in vplivov na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, povezan s kompenzacijskim skladom, le teoretičen.
In particular, it was not proven that the exemptions from which Luxembourg heavy industry benefited affected trade between Member States.
Zlasti ni dokazano, da oprostitve, ki veljajo za težko industrijo v Luksemburgu, vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
On the infringement of Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty
Kršitev členov 25 in 90 Pogodbe
Luxembourg considered that the compensation mechanism did not infringe Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty.
Luksemburg dejansko ocenjuje, da kompenzacijski mehanizem ne krši členov 25 in 90 Pogodbe.
According to Luxembourg, the system did not treat electricity produced in Luxembourg any differently from imported electricity.
Luksemburg pojasnjuje, da sistem električne energije, proizvedene v Luksemburgu, in uvožene električne energije ne obravnava različno.
Moreover, green electricity produced in accordance with the GDR of 30 May 1994 was not exported.
Poleg tega se okolju prijazna električna energija, proizvedena v skladu z Uredbo Velikega vojvodstva z dne 30. maja 1994, ne izvaža.
Therefore, a producer situated in another Member State but having customers in Luxembourg was treated in exactly the same way as a producer situated in Luxembourg and selling in the domestic market.
Tako je proizvajalec s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki ima odjemalce v Luksemburgu, obravnavan enako kot proizvajalec s sedežem v Luksemburgu, ki prodaja na domačem trgu.
The same was true if the customers of the two producers were situated in another Member State.
Enako velja, če imajo odjemalci teh dveh distributerjev sedež v drugi državi članici.
On the compatibility of potential State aid with the Treaty
Združljivost morebitne državne pomoči s Pogodbo ES
Although they challenged the assertion that the exemption from contribution payments for large electricity-consuming enterprises constituted State aid, the Luxembourg authorities maintained that the measure might be deemed compatible with the 2001 guidelines.
Čeprav se luksemburški organi ne strinjajo, da oprostitev prispevka za podjetja z visoko porabo električne energije pomeni državno pomoč, poudarjajo, da bi se lahko presojalo, ali je ta ukrep združljiv s smernicami iz leta 2001.
Luxembourg pointed out that the exemption was granted on the basis of a voluntary agreement comprising energy efficiency improvement objectives for signatory companies.
Prvič, Luksemburg ugotavlja, da je oprostitev odobrena na podlagi prostovoljnega sporazuma, ki vključuje cilje glede večje energetske učinkovitosti proizvajalcev podpisnikov.
The voluntary agreement had been concluded between Luxembourg and the Fédération Nationale des Industries (National Industries Federation — FEDIL) in March 1996 and renewed in April 2001.
Prostovoljni sporazum je bil med Luksemburgom in nacionalnim združenjem industrij (FEDIL) sklenjen marca 1996 in podaljšan aprila 2001.
While it acknowledged that the agreement did not stipulate any penalties in case of failure to meet commitments, Luxembourg undertook to include such a mechanism in order to bring the agreement into line with point 51.1(a) of the 2001 guidelines.
Drugič, Luksemburg priznava, da sporazum kljub temu ne predvideva sankcij za neizpolnjevanje zavez, vendar se zavezuje k vključitvi takšnega mehanizma za uskladitev s točko 51.1(a) smernic iz leta 2001.
Only the Netherlands submitted comments following the opening of the formal investigation into the Luxembourg compensation mechanism.
Pripombe je po začetku formalnega postopka preiskave glede kompenzacijskega mehanizma v Luksemburgu predložila le Nizozemska.
The Netherlands pointed out that aid to domestic green electricity producers was authorised on condition that it did not exceed the unprofitable extra cost of producing such electricity.
Nizozemska opozarja, da se lahko pomoč za nacionalne proizvajalce okolju prijazne električne energije odobri le, če ne presega nerentabilnih dodatnih stroškov proizvodnje te električne energije.
The Dutch authorities were in favour of compensating fully for such unprofitable extra cost in order to develop green electricity production.
Nizozemski organi podpirajo celotno nadomestilo nerentabilnih dodatnih stroškov, da se razvije proizvodnja okolju prijazne električne energije.
Such support was necessary to enable Member States to achieve the environmental objectives to which they had committed themselves by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol [21].
Ta pomoč je potrebna, da se državam članicam omogoči izpolnitev okoljskih ciljev, h katerim so se zavezale z ratifikacijo kjotskega protokola [21].
The Netherlands pointed out further that each Member State had to be left some latitude when it came to achieving the environmental objectives of the Kyoto Protocol.
Poleg tega Nizozemska poudarja, da je treba vsaki državi članici omogočiti manevrski prostor za izpolnjevanje okoljskih ciljev iz kjotskega protokola.
It suggested, therefore, that the Commission should adopt a case-by-case approach to the green electricity support measures taken by each Member State.
Zato predlaga, da Komisija za vsak primer posebej sprejme pristop glede ukrepov podpore za okolju prijazno električno energijo, ki jih sprejme posamezna država.
In conclusion, the Netherlands called on the Commission to view the measure proposed by Luxembourg favourably given the current need to further promote green electricity production.
Nazadnje, Nizozemska Komisijo poziva, naj pozitivno preuči predviden ukrep Luksemburga ob upoštevanju dejanske potrebe po dodatnem razvoju proizvodnje okolju prijazne električne energije.
LUXEMBOURG’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
KOMENTARJI LUKSEMBURGA NA PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
Luxembourg did not respond to the comments submitted by the Netherlands.
Luksemburg ni predložil komentarjev na pripombe Nizozemske.
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission took the view that the compensation mechanism prima facie constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty [22].
Komisija je v svojem sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave ugotovila, da kompenzacijski mehanizem pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe [22].
The two categories of beneficiary of this State aid were green electricity producers and, through the exemption from contributing to the compensation fund, large electricity-consuming enterprises.
Dva razreda upravičencev do te državne pomoči so sestavljali proizvajalci okolju prijazne električne energije in podjetja z visoko porabo električne energije prek oprostitve plačila prispevka v kompenzacijski sklad.
In previous decisions, the Commission also took the view that feed-in tariff schemes, financed in a manner similar to the one in the present case, constituted State aid.
V prejšnjih odločbah je Komisija prav tako ugotovila, da sistemi tarif za dovajanje, ki so financirani podobno kot v tem primeru, pomenijo državno pomoč.
This was so, for example, in the decisions in Case N 504/2000 [23] (United Kingdom), Joined Cases N 707/02 and N 708/02 [24], prolonged by measure N 543/05 [25] then by measure N 478/07 [26] (Netherlands), Cases NN 162/03 and N 317/06 [27] (Austria) and Case C 7/05 (Slovenia) [28].
Enako je veljalo v odločbah o zadevah N 504/2000 [23] (Združeno kraljestvo), združenih zadevah N 707/02 in N 708/02 [24], ki sta se nadaljevali z ukrepom N 543/05 [25] in ukrepom N 478/07 [26] (Nizozemska), zadevah NN 162/03 in N 317/06 [27] (Avstrija) ter zadevi C 7/05 [28] (Slovenija).
It will be examined below whether the compensation mechanism constituted State aid during the period in question, i.e. up to 31 December 2008.
V nadaljevanju je treba preučiti, ali je kompenzacijski mehanizem v analiziranem obdobju, in sicer do 31. decembra 2008, pomenil državno pomoč.
Determination of the presence of State resources
Ugotovitev prisotnosti državnih sredstev
According to case-law, in order to be capable of being categorised as State aid a measure must, first, be granted directly or indirectly through State resources and, second, be imputable to the State [29].
Da se ukrep opredeli kot državna pomoč, mora biti v skladu s sodno prakso zlasti neposredno ali posredno dodeljen iz državnih sredstev in bremeniti državo [29].
On the question of the existence of State resources, the Court of Justice has held that the financial resources of a measure do not necessarily have to constitute permanent assets of the public sector in order for them to be categorised as State resources; in order for such resources to be so categorised, it is sufficient that they constantly remain under public control and therefore available to the competent national authorities [30].
V zvezi z obstojem državnih sredstev se je Sodišče strinjalo, da ni nujno, da so finančna sredstva za ukrep stalna sredstva v lasti javnega sektorja, da bi pomenila državno pomoč; da se sredstva opredelijo kot državna pomoč, dejansko zadostuje, da so stalno pod javnim nadzorom in tako na razpolago pristojnim državnim organom [30].
Conversely, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice [31], State resources are not involved where the public authorities at no stage enjoy or acquire control over the funds which finance the economic advantage in issue.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [31] državna sredstva niso vključena, če državni organi na nobeni stopnji nimajo ali ne pridobijo nadzora nad sredstvi, iz katerih se financira zadevna gospodarska prednost.
It must be determined, therefore, whether the State exercised direct or indirect control over the resources in question, despite the fact that the funds did not come directly from the State budget.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, ali država neposredno ali posredno nadzoruje zadevna sredstva, čeprav ta sredstva ne izhajajo neposredno iz državnega proračuna.
In the PreussenElektra case, the feed-in tariffs were financed directly by private electricity suppliers who had to purchase electricity from green electricity producers at a price higher than the market price for electricity.
V zadevi PreussenElektra so tarife za dovajanje neposredno financirali zasebni dobavitelji električne energije, ki so morali električno energijo kupiti pri proizvajalcih okolju prijazne električne energije po ceni, višji od tržne cene električne energije.
In the present case, from January 2001 to December 2008 the State collected from consumers compulsory contributions which were then passed on to green electricity producers via distributors.
V tem primeru je država v obdobju od januarja 2001 do decembra 2008 odjemalcem naložila plačilo obveznih prispevkov, ki so se prek distributerjev prenesli na proizvajalce okolju prijazne električne energije.
The compensation fund, which was set up by the Luxembourg State, saw to the allocation of the compensation among distributors.
Poleg tega se iz kompenzacijskega sklada, ki ga je ustanovila država Luksemburg, distributerjem dodeljujejo nadomestila.
In its judgment in Stardust Marine [32], the Court of Justice held that, once resources came under State control, they remained State resources.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Stardust Marine [32] odločilo, da so sredstva, ki jih v nekem trenutku nadzoruje država, vedno državna sredstva.
The Commission considers, therefore, that the aid was granted directly or indirectly through State resources.
Zato Komisija meni, da je pomoč neposredno ali posredno dodeljena iz državnih sredstev.
As regards imputability, the ILR calculated the aid and distributed it to each beneficiary according to a formula laid down by law.
Kar zadeva odgovornost, Luksemburški inštitut za regulacijo določa in dodeljuje pomoč posameznim upravičencem na podlagi formule, določene v zakonodaji.
The State thus exercised control, through the law, not only over the amounts distributed and the beneficiaries, but also over the granting of the aid.
Država tako prek zakonodaje ne nadzoruje le porazdeljenih zneskov in upravičencev, ampak tudi dodelitev pomoči.
The Commission considers, therefore, that the aid was imputable to the State.
Zato Komisija meni, da je za pomoč odgovorna država.
The compensation mechanism was directed only at some electricity producers, namely green electricity producers in Luxembourg.
Kompenzacijski mehanizem se uporablja le za nekatere proizvajalce električne energije, v tem primeru za proizvajalce okolju prijazne električne energije v Luksemburgu.
The mechanism provided for exemption from compensation payments or, as from 1 January 2006, a reduced contribution for one category of consumer only, namely large electricity consumers [33].
Mehanizem prav tako predvideva oprostitev plačila prispevka ali od 1. januarja 2006 zmanjšanje prispevka le za en razred odjemalcev, in sicer tistih z visoko porabo električne energije [33].
The compulsory contribution imposed by the compensation mechanism manifestly conferred an advantage on green electricity producers, since the very aim of the scheme was to enable such producers to sell their electricity at a price higher than the market price.
Jasno je, da obvezni prispevek, ki ga uvaja kompenzacijski mehanizem, proizvajalcem okolju prijazne električne energije daje prednost, ker je cilj sistema tem proizvajalcem omogočiti prodajo električne energije po ceni, ki je višja od tržne cene.
Large electricity-consuming enterprises manifestly enjoyed an advantage due to the exemption from — or, from 1 January 2006, the reduction in — the contribution to the compensation mechanism.
Jasno je, da imajo podjetja z visoko porabo električne energije prednost zaradi oprostitve ali od 1. januarja 2006 zmanjšanja prispevka v kompenzacijski mehanizem.
The measure affected economic operators in sectors open to competition, be they the electricity production sector or sectors in which large electricity-consuming enterprises operate (including chemicals and steel) and which engage in trade with other Member States.
Ukrep vpliva na gospodarske subjekte, ki so dejavni v sektorjih, odprtih za konkurenco, ne glede na to, ali gre za proizvodnjo električne energije ali sektorje, v katerih delujejo podjetja z visoko porabo električne energije (zlasti kemična industrija in jeklarstvo), ter ki trgujejo z drugimi državami članicami.
Consequently, the aid was liable to distort competition and affect intra-Community trade.
Zato bi lahko pomoč izkrivljala konkurenco in vplivala na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
Conclusion on the existence of State aid
Sklep o obstoju državne pomoči