natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Case-law and Commission practice have always clearly distinguished between this selectivity inherent to all aid, which means a disadvantage for some operators in relation to others operating in a Member State, and possible discriminations based directly or indirectly on nationality or on the establishment in the Member State in question [47].
Sodna praksa in praksa Komisije sta vedno razlikovali med to selektivnostjo, povezano s celotno pomočjo, kar predstavlja pomanjkljivost za nekatere izvajalce v primerjavi z drugimi, ki delujejo v državi članici, in morebitno diskriminacijo, ki neposredno ali posredno temelji na državljanstvu ali ustanovitvi podjetja v zadevni državni članici [47].
The latter is not compatible with Community law and cannot be approved under State aid rules.
Slednja ni združljiva z zakonodajo Skupnosti in je ni mogoče odobriti na podlagi pravil državne pomoči.
It is settled case-law that discrimination consists in particular in treating like cases differently, involving a disadvantage for some operators in relation to others, without that difference in treatment being justified by the existence of substantial, objective differences.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pomeni diskriminacija predvsem drugačno obravnavanje enakih primerov, vključuje prikrajšanost nekaterih izvajalcev v primerjavi z drugimi, pri čemer različno obravnavanje ni upravičeno s prisotnostjo znatnih, objektivnih razlik.
However, since undertakings not established in a certain territory are in a different position vis-à-vis the authority from undertakings established within that territory, it cannot be said that any mechanism that makes access to aid more difficult to them violates the principle of non-discrimination [48].
Ker pa so podjetja, ki na določenem ozemlju še nimajo sedeža, v drugačnem položaju kot organi podjetij, ki imajo sedež na tem ozemlju, ni mogoče trditi, da kateri koli mehanizem, ki otežuje dostop do pomoči, krši načelo nediskriminacije [48].
In the case at hand, the TRS provides for offsetting the toll only on presentation of German refuelling receipts and vouchers in order to proof that excise duties have been paid in Germany.
SPC v zadevnem primeru predvideva nadomestilo cestnine samo ob predložitvi nemških potrdil in dokazil o polnjenju goriva, ki dokazujejo, da je bila trošarina plačana v Nemčiji.
In this condition the Commission doesn’t see any violation of the principle of territoriality mentioned in recital 20 of Directive 1999/62/EC.
Komisija v tem pogoju ne vidi kršitve načela teritorialnosti, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 20 Direktive 1999/62/ES.
The TRS imposes the same conditions on all hauliers and is accessible for all road hauliers, irrespective of nationality or residence.
SPC postavlja enake pogoje za vse prevoznike in je dostopen za vse cestne prevoznike ne glede na državljanstvo ali stalno prebivališče.
The measure does not foresee any thresholds, e.g. a minimum amount of toll charge or a minimum transport volume.
Ukrep ne predvideva mejnih vrednosti, npr. najnižjega zneska cestnine ali najmanjšega obsega prevoza.
In addition, there is no obligation to buy fuel in Germany nor is there any restriction to do so.
Poleg tega ne uvaja obveznosti nakupa goriva v Nemčiji kot tudi ne prepovedi za to.
Therefore, the Commission considers that there is no direct discrimination on the basis of nationality.
Zato Komisija meni, da ne gre za neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva.
Though there is no direct discrimination, the question arises whether this link leads to a de facto, indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality.
Čeprav ni neposredne diskriminacije, se postavlja vprašanje, ali ta povezava vodi do dejanske, posredne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva.
A difference in treatment exists between road hauliers who fill their tank in Germany and road hauliers who fill their tank in another Member State.
Razlika v obravnavanju obstaja med cestnimi prevozniki, ki svoje rezervoarje za gorivo polnijo v Nemčiji, in cestnimi prevozniki, ki svoje rezervoarje za gorivo polnijo v drugi državi članici.
This difference is caused by the link between the toll reimbursement and the payment of excise duties in Germany.
To razliko povzroča povezava med vračilom cestnine in plačilom trošarine v Nemčiji.
If this difference in treatment produces different effects on German hauliers, on the one hand, and hauliers from other Member States, on the other hand, favouring the former over the latter, and does not reflect an objective difference in the respective situations, it would imply a violation of the principle of non-discrimination.
Če ta razlika v obravnavanju različno učinkuje na nemške prevoznike na eni in prevoznike iz drugih držav članic na drugi strani, ker prvim daje prednost pred slednjimi, in v zadevnih primerih ne odraža objektivne razlike, bi pomenila kršitev načela nediskriminacije.
The question is therefore whether the link between the toll reimbursement and the payment of excise duties can be justified by objective differences.
Zato se postavlja vprašanje, ali je lahko povezava med vračilom cestnine in plačilom trošarine utemeljena z objektivnimi razlikami.
In order to answer this question, the Commission will start examining how this link will work out in practise and which hauliers will benefit from it.
Da bi odgovorila na to vprašanje, bo Komisija začela proučevati, kako ta povezava deluje v praksi in kateri prevozniki bodo imeli od nje koristi.
Located in the core of Europe, the German motorways are already highly frequented by non-German road hauliers.
Ker se nemške avtoceste nahajajo v središču Evrope, jih nenemški cestni prevozniki že zdaj pogosto uporabljajo.
Since fuel prices are currently higher in Germany than in most neighbouring countries, this encourages neither German nor non-German hauliers engaged in international transports to fill their tank in Germany.
Ker so cene goriva v Nemčiji trenutno višje kot v večini sosednjih držav, to ne spodbuja nemških kot tudi nenemških prevoznikov, ki opravljajo mednarodne prevoze, k polnjenju svojih rezervoarjev za gorivo v Nemčiji.
The decision whether to fill the tank within Germany or not is an economic decision which will be taken under the same conditions by both German road hauliers as non-German road hauliers.
Odločitev o polnjenju rezervoarjev za gorivo v Nemčiji je ekonomska odločitev, ki jo bodo pod enakimi pogoji sprejeli tako nemški kot tudi nenemški cestni prevozniki.
Within the limits of their itinerary, all road hauliers will fill their tank where they can see an economic benefit.
Vsi cestni prevozniki bodo v okviru načrtovane poti svoje rezervoarje za gorivo napolnili tam, kjer bodo imeli ekonomske koristi.
After introduction of the TRS, the road hauliers that will fill their tank outside Germany would not benefit from the compensation, but might have an economic advantage to do so.
Cestni prevozniki, ki bodo svoje rezervoarje za gorivo polnili izven Nemčije, po uvedbi SPC ne bodo upravičeni do nadomestila, lahko pa bodo zaradi tega imeli ekonomske koristi.
They will use the possibility of benefiting from the TRS if the price per km resulting from German fuel plus a reduced toll rate is lower than the price per km resulting from fuel outside Germany plus the full toll rate.
Izkoristili bodo možnost koriščenja SPC, če je cena na kilometer, ki izhaja iz cene nemškega goriva in znižane stopnje cestnine, nižja od cene na kilometer, ki izhaja iz cene goriva izven Nemčije.
In practise the benefits of the TRS will mainly concern two groups of hauliers (relative benefits as the toll will increase to an average of 15 cents/km) [50]:
V praksi bodo zlasti dve skupini prevoznikov imele koristi od SPC (relativne koristi, saj se bo cestnina povišala na povprečje 15 centov/km) [50]:
Those hauliers engaged only in national transport and economically forced to use the motorways.
Tisti prevozniki, ki opravljajo samo nacionalne prevoze in so iz ekonomskih razlogov prisiljeni uporabljati avtoceste.
These hauliers are predominantly of the German nationality, though this market segment is open to all EU-15 Member States (cabotage) and will be open to the new Member States after expiry of transitional regulations.
Ti prevozniki so pretežno nemški državljani, čeprav je ta tržni segment odprt za vse države članice EU-15 (kabotaža) in bo za nove države članice odprt po izteku veljavnosti prehodnih predpisov.
All hauliers, German or non-German, who perform international transports from, to or through countries with a relatively high fuel price level.
Tako vsi nemški kot tudi vsi nenemški prevozniki, ki opravljajo mednarodne prevoze iz, v ali prek držav s sorazmerno visoko stopnjo cen goriva.
Such a situation would concern, in particular, hauliers established in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, a group of countries, which perform 32 % of all non-German vehicle kilometres on the German motorways.
Takšne razmere bi se nanašale zlasti na prevoznike s sedežem v Franciji, Belgiji in na Nizozemskem, tj. skupino držav, ki opravi 32 % vseh kilometrov nenemških vozil na nemških avtocestah.
The German authorities have themselves admitted in their observations that a percentage close to 20 % of German road hauliers, presumably those that perform their activities mainly on the national market and particularly in the central regions of Germany, do not take advantage of lower fuel prices in other countries.
Nemški organi so v svojih ugotovitvah navedli, da približno 20 % nemških cestnih prevoznikov, predvidoma tistih, ki svoje dejavnosti opravljajo večinoma na nacionalnem trgu in zlasti v osrednjih regijah Nemčije, ne izkorišča nižjih cen goriva v drugih državah.
On the contrary, hauliers established in other Member States will generally buy fuel not only and not predominantly in Germany, but in other Member States, notably in those with lower fuel prices, even if they perform part of their activity in Germany or even on the German local market, availing themselves of the freedom to perform cabotage transport.
Nasprotno pa prevozniki s sedežem v drugih državah članicah običajno ne bodo kupovali goriva izključno in pretežno v Nemčiji, temveč v drugih državah članicah, zlasti v tistih z nižjimi cenami goriva, tudi če del svojih dejavnosti opravljajo v Nemčiji ali celo na nemškem lokalnem trgu, pri čemer uživajo svobodo za opravljanje kabotaže.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission foresees that, taken into account the current level of fuel prices in the Member States, a very large portion of non-German vehicle kilometres [51] on the German motorways will not benefit from the TRS as a result of the link between the TRS and the payment of excise duties in Germany.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija predvideva, da se ob upoštevanju trenutne ravni cen goriva v državah članicah za zelo velik delež kilometrov, ki jih prevozijo nenemški vozniki [51] na nemških avtocestah, ne bo koristil SPC zaradi povezave med SPC in plačilom trošarine v Nemčiji.
Such a percentage will obviously be lower in the case of German hauliers.
Ta odstotek bo v primeru nemških prevoznikov nižji.
In addition, occasional users of German motorways, particularly from other Member States, may refrain from requesting the TRS because of administrative burdens and would be further penalised in comparison with regular users, particularly German users.
Poleg tega se lahko občasni uporabniki nemških avtocest, zlasti iz drugih držav članic, zaradi upravnega bremena odpovejo zahtevi po SPC in utrpijo še dodatno škodo v primerjavi z rednimi uporabniki, zlasti nemškimi uporabniki.
This being the case, the Commission stresses that a road haulier using a German motorway and buying his fuel outside Germany is using the German road infrastructure in exactly the same way as a road haulier who fills up his tank in Germany.
Komisija v tem primeru poudarja, da cestni prevoznik, ki uporablja nemško avtocesto in kupuje gorivo izven Nemčije, uporablja nemško cestno infrastrukturo na popolnoma enak način kot cestni prevoznik, ki svoj rezervoar za gorivo polni v Nemčiji.
It can therefore be concluded that the link between the toll reimbursement and the amount of the excise duties paid in Germany resulting in different levels of toll cannot be justified by differences in the use of German motorways.
Zato je mogoče sklepati, da povezave med vračilom cestnine in zneskom trošarine, plačanim v Nemčiji, zaradi katerih obstajajo različne ravni cestnine, ni mogoče upravičiti z razlikami v uporabi nemških avtocest.
As a result of this link, some hauliers, which are predominantly non-German as demonstrated in paragraphs 86 and 87, will have to pay more toll than others while transporting the same heavy goods the same distance on the same motorway.
Zaradi te povezave bodo morali nekateri prevozniki, ki so pretežno nenemški, med prevažanjem enakega težkega tovora na enaki razdalji in enaki avtocesti plačati višjo cestnino kot drugi, kot je pojasnjeno v odstavkih 86 in 87.
In addition, the system in question will favour national transport, largely performed by hauliers that buy fuel in Germany over transport between Member States, performed by hauliers that will more often buy fuel in other Member States, which is another form of discrimination forbidden by Community law [52].
Poleg tega bo zadevni sistem dajal prednost nacionalnemu prevozu, ki ga večinoma opravljajo prevozniki, ki kupujejo gorivo v Nemčiji, v primerjavi s prevozom med državami članicami, ki ga opravljajo prevozniki, ki bodo pogosteje kupovali gorivo v drugih državah članicah, kar je druga oblika diskriminacije, ki jo zakonodaja Skupnosti prepoveduje [52].
Linking the toll reimbursement to the amount of the excise duties paid in Germany may indicate that the system is conceived as a compensation for a high level of excise duties on fuel in Germany.
Povezava med vračilom cestnine in zneskom trošarine, plačanim v Nemčiji, lahko nakazuje, da je sistem zasnovan kot nadomestilo za visoko stopnjo trošarine za gorivo v Nemčiji.
However, the Commission practice and Court jurisprudence are very clear on this point: the difference in the tax burden cannot by itself [53] justify the granting of State aid.
Vendar sta praksa Komisije in sodna praksa Sodišča glede tega zelo jasni: razlika v davčni obremenitvi sama po sebi [53] ne more upravičiti dodelitve državne pomoči.
Granting an aid cannot be justified when the aid is meant to compensate some national operators for their comparative disadvantage resulting from regulatory or fiscal differences compared to other Member States.
Dodeljevanja pomoči ni mogoče upravičiti, kadar naj bi pomoč nekaterim nacionalnim operaterjem nadomestila njihovo primerljivo prikrajšanost, ki je posledica ureditvenih ali davčnih razlik v primerjavi z drugimi državami članicami.
State aid is not a suitable instrument for levelling out, in favour of certain operators, differences in levels of taxation between the Member States.
Državna pomoč ni ustrezen instrument za izenačevanje razlik v višini obdavčitve med državami članicami v korist nekaterih operaterjev.
As a consequence, the fact that the level of excise duties is high in Germany — and thus diesel prices — in Germany and a need is perceived to alleviate an alleged competitive disadvantage for German hauliers, does not justify the link between the TRS and the payment of excise duties.
Zato dejstvo, da je višina trošarine v Nemčiji visoka – in s tem tudi cene dizelskega goriva v Nemčiji – zaradi česar naj bi bilo treba ublažiti domnevno neugoden konkurenčni položaj nemških prevoznikov, ne utemeljuje povezave med SPC in plačilom trošarin.
In addition, petrol prices are also high in other Member States and hauliers from those Member States, that for geographical and operative reasons are less likely to buy fuel in Germany, will not benefit from the compensation to the same extent as German hauliers.
Poleg tega so cene bencina tudi v drugih državah članicah visoke, zato je iz geografskih in operativnih razlogov manj verjetno, da bodo prevozniki iz teh držav članic upravičeni do nadomestila v enakem obsegu kot nemški prevozniki.
The fact that the German authorities argue that currently 50 % of the revenues of the excise duties is ring-fenced for infrastructure and the TRS is needed to avoid that hauliers will pay twice for the infrastructure does not prejudice to this conclusion.
Dejstvo, da nemški organi trdijo, da trenutno 50 % prihodkov od trošarine predstavlja ločeno obračunsko enoto za infrastrukturo in da je SPC potreben, da se prepreči, da bi prevozniki dvakratno plačevali za infrastrukturo, ne posega v to sklepno ugotovitev.
First, the final destination of tax revenues is not relevant in order to assess whether there is discrimination between German hauliers and hauliers from other Member States.
Prvič, končni cilj davčnih prihodkov ni pomemben za oceno, ali obstaja diskriminacija med nemškimi prevozniki in prevozniki iz drugih držav članic.
The difference in the tax burden cannot justify the granting of aid, irrespective of the destination of tax revenues.
Razlika v davčni obremenitvi ne more upravičiti dodeljevanja pomoči ne glede na končni cilj davčnih prihodkov.
Secondly, only 50 % of the revenues are ring-fenced for infrastructure and of this 50 %, a large share will be used to fund the infrastructure costs of the rest of the German road network for which no toll is required.
Drugič, samo 50 % prihodkov predstavlja ločeno obračunsko enoto za infrastrukturo in velik delež teh 50 % bo namenjen financiranju infrastrukturnih stroškov preostalega nemškega cestnega omrežja, za katerega se ne pobira cestnina.
Therefore, it cannot be held that — as the German authorities argue — hauliers that both pay toll and excise duties are paying a double contribution to the costs of infrastructure, as excise duties revenues are only marginally used to fund infrastructure for which toll is required.
Zato ni mogoče potrditi – kot trdijo nemški organi – da prevozniki, ki plačujejo cestnino in trošarino, plačujejo dvojni prispevek k infrastrukturnim stroškom, saj se samo manjši del prihodkov od trošarine uporablja za financiranje infrastrukture, za katero se pobira cestnina.
Consequently, the fact that the revenues of the excise duties are partially being used to fund infrastructure cannot justify the link between the toll reimbursement and the payment of excise duties either.
Zato dejstvo, da se prihodki od trošarine delno uporabljajo za financiranje infrastrukture, tudi ne more utemeljiti povezave med vračilom cestnine in plačilom trošarine.
In addition, it has to be noted that the character of a toll and an excise duty is different.
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati, da je značaj cestnine in trošarine drugačen.
Toll is a payment for the use of a service, and an excise duty is a tax.
Cestnina je plačilo za uporabo storitve, trošarina pa je davek.
As already pointed out in Chapter 5.2.3 of this Decision, the events giving rise to a perception are different: the use of highway in the case of a toll, and the consumption of the mineral oil in the case of excise duties.
Kot je že poudarjeno v poglavju 5.2.3 te odločbe, je pogoj, iz katere izhajajo obračunavanja, različen: uporaba avtoceste v primeru cestnine in poraba mineralnega olja v primeru trošarine.
In view of the above, the Commission does not see an objective justification for linking a reduction in toll fees to the amount of excise duties paid on German territory.
Komisija glede na zgornje navedbe ne vidi objektivne utemeljitve za povezavo med znižanjem cestnin in zneski trošarine, plačanih na nemškem ozemlju.
As a consequence, there is no objective justification that could support the difference in treatment between hauliers that fill their tank in Germany and hauliers that fill their tank outside Germany will be subjected to since they are objectively in the same situation.
Zato ni objektivne utemeljitve, ki bi lahko podprla različno obravnavanje prevoznikov, ki svoje rezervoarje za gorivo polnijo v Nemčiji, in prevoznikov, ki svoje rezervoarje za gorivo polnijo izven Nemčije, saj so objektivno v enakem položaju.
In the light of these arguments, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the aid measure does not respect the principle of non-discrimination as the measure results in a de facto discrimination against foreign road hauliers and, for this reason already, must be considered as incompatibile with the common market.
Komisija glede na te argumente zaključuje, da ukrep pomoči ne upošteva načela nediskriminacije, saj ukrep dejansko diskriminira tuje cestne prevoznike in ga je treba že iz tega razloga obravnavati kot nezdružljivega s skupnim trgom.
In addition, the aid measure does not respect Article 7(4) of Directive 1999/62/EC either, which stipulates that toll and user charges may not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of nationality of the haulier or the origin or destination of the vehicle.
Poleg tega ukrep pomoči tudi ne upošteva člena 7(4) Direktive 1999/62/ES, ki določa, da cestnine in uporabnine ne smejo biti posredno ali neposredno diskriminatorne glede na državljanstvo prevoznika ali izhodiščni ali namembni kraj vozila.
This provision is only a particular expression of a general principle of Community law and, in particular, of transport law, namely the prohibition of any discrimination based on nationality, place of establishment or the starting point or destination the transport.
Ta določba je samo poseben izraz splošnega načela zakonodaje Skupnosti in zlasti prometne zakonodaje, in sicer prepovedi kakršne koli diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, sedeža ali izhodiščnega ali namembnega kraja prevoza.
This principle has been consistently applied by the Community judges [54], including in the specific case of road tolls [55].
To načelo so dosledno uporabljali sodniki Skupnosti [54], med drugim tudi v posebnem primeru o cestninah [55].
In accordance with a well-established case-law, it is clear from the general scheme of the Treaty that a procedure concerning the compatibility of State aid with the common market must never produce a result which is contrary to the specific provisions of the Treaty [56].
V skladu z dobro uveljavljeno sodno prakso o Pogodbi je razvidno, da postopek v zvezi z združljivostjo državne pomoči s skupnim trgom ne sme nikoli ustvariti rezultata, ki je v nasprotju s posebnimi določbami Pogodbe [56].
The Court has also held that those aspects of aid which contravene specific provisions of the Treaty other than Articles 87 and 88 may be so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately [57].
Sodišče je tudi presodilo, da so lahko tisti vidiki pomoči, ki so v nasprotju s posebnimi določbami Pogodbe, razen členov 87 in 88, tako močno povezani s predmetom pomoči, da jih ni mogoče oceniti ločeno [57].
For the reasons explained above, the measure at stake would violate the principle of non-discrimination and, in particular, Article 7(4) of Directive 1999/62/EC.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov bi zadevni ukrep kršil načelo nediskriminacije in zlasti člen 7(4) Direktive 1999/62/ES.
This violation is inherent in the mechanism of the TRS and therefore is indissolubly linked to it.
Ta kršitev izhaja iz mehanizma SPC in je zato neločljivo povezana z njim.
This constitutes another reason that must lead the Commission to declare the aid incompatible with the common market.
To je še eden od razlogov, zaradi katerega mora Komisija pomoč razglasiti za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.
The Commission reminds the German authorities that, in case they consider the overall charges for road hauliers in Germany too high, they could modify, within the limits of existing harmonisation measures on Community level, the vehicle tax or the level of excise duties.
Komisija nemške organe opozarja, da lahko, če menijo, da so skupne dajatve za cestne prevoznike v Nemčiji previsoke, v okviru omejitev obstoječih usklajevalnih ukrepov na ravni Skupnosti spremenijo davek na vozila ali višino trošarine.
These are horizontal and general measures that would in principle result neither in a direct nor in a de facto discrimination.
To so horizontalni in splošni ukrepi, ki načeloma ne povzročajo neposredne niti dejanske diskriminacije.
Necessity and proportionality
Nujnost in sorazmernost