natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the German authorities, a simple calculation shows that an increase of fuel consumption with a view to obtaining a higher reimbursement is against all economic logic.
Po mnenju nemških organov preprost izračun kaže, da je povečana poraba goriva z namenom pridobitve višjega vračila v nasprotju z ekonomsko logiko.
Higher consumption would mean that vehicles drive longer than necessary foreseen which would increase time and staff-costs.
Večja poraba bi pomenila, da vozila prevozijo več, kot je nujno predvideno, kar bi podaljšalo čas in povišalo stroške za osebje.
As regards the toll measure, the German authorities first of all note that all arguments related to it are not subject to the current State aid procedure and should therefore be kept outside the scope of this decision.
Nemški organi v zvezi s cestninskim ukrepom zlasti ugotavljajo, da vsi navedeni argumenti za trenutni postopek državne pomoči niso pomembni, zato tudi ne sodijo v področje uporabe te odločbe.
In addition, Germany declares that the toll system has been introduced once all the technical problems have been solved in a way that discrimination on the grounds of nationality or inappropriate hindrance of traffic flows has been excluded.
Poleg tega Nemčija izjavlja, da je bil sistem cestninjenja uveden po razrešitvi vseh tehničnih težav, zaradi česar so bile diskriminacija na podlagi državljanstva ali neustrezne ovire prometnih tokov izključene.
To summarise, the German authorities reply to the main arguments presented by third parties as follows:
Kratek povzetek odgovora nemških organov na glavne argumente, ki so jih predložile tretje stranke:
First, the toll is not discriminatory as 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.
Prvič, cestnina ni diskriminatorna, ker je odločitev o tem, ali naj se rezervoarji za gorivo polnijo v Nemčiji ali ne, povsem ekonomska odločitev, ki jo bodo sprejeli nemški kot tudi nenemški cestni prevozniki.
The connection between toll reduction on the one hand and the payment of excise duties on the other hand is reasonably justified as heavy goods vehicles that use federal motorways are now paying a double contribution to infrastructure costs, in the form of excise duties on fuel and the toll.
Povezava med znižanjem cestnine na eni in plačilom trošarine na drugi strani je zadostno upravičena, saj težka tovorna vozila, ki uporabljajo zvezne avtoceste, trenutno plačujejo dvojni prispevek k infrastrukturnim stroškom v obliki trošarine za gorivo in cestnine.
The TRS takes into account infrastructure costs contributions already paid in Germany and will avoid a double payment.
SPC upošteva prispevke k že plačanim infrastrukturnim stroškom v Nemčiji in bo preprečil dvojno plačilo.
The toll respects Article 7(4) of Directive 1999/62/EC since the toll does not discriminate against any road haulier on the grounds of nationality.
Cestnina upošteva člen 7 (4) Direktive 1999/62/ES, saj cestnina cestnih prevoznikov ne diskriminira na podlagi državljanstva.
Secondly, the toll is not discriminatory just because it is levied only on vehicles of at least 12 tonnes.
Drugič, cestnina ni diskriminatorna zgolj zato, ker se zaračunava samo za vozila, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton.
The threshold of 12 tonnes is reasonably founded and follows the definition of vehicles stipulated in Article 2(d) of Directive 1999/62/EC.
Mejna vrednost 12 ton je zadostno utemeljena in upošteva opredelitev vozil iz člen 2(d) Direktive 1999/62/ES.
In addition, the toll does not favour German road hauliers since it cannot be shown that German road hauliers for international transport are better off using of mixed fleet of vehicles of below and above 12 tonnes in comparison to non-German road hauliers allowing them to partially compensate the toll burden within the fleet of one company.
Poleg tega cestnina ne daje prednosti nemškim cestnim prevoznikom, saj ni mogoče dokazati, da so nemški cestni prevozniki za mednarodni prevoz v boljšem položaju kot nenemški cestni prevozniki, ker uporabljajo raznolik vozni park vozil, katerih masa ne presega in presega 12 ton, kar jim omogoča delno nadomestilo cestnine glede na vozni park.
The toll is calculated in such a way that it respects Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC since the weighted average toll is related to the costs of constructing, operating and developing the infrastructure network concerned.
Izračun cestnine je v skladu s členom 7(9) Direktive 1999/62/ES, saj je ponderirana povprečna cestnina odvisna od stroškov gradnje, obratovanja in razvoja zadevnega infrastrukturnega omrežja.
Thirdly, the new toll system will respect Article 7(5) of Directive 1999/62/EC as a sufficient number of OBUs, as well as other payment mechanisms (such as terminals and the Internet) ensure that the toll is collected in such a way that the free flow of traffic is not hindered.
Tretjič, novi cestninski sistem bo upošteval člen 7 (5) Direktive 1999/62/ES, ker zadostno število OBU in drugih mehanizmov plačevanja (kot so terminali in internet) zagotavlja, da pobiranje cestnine ne ovira prostega pretoka prometa.
Fourthly, the toll measure does not violate Article 9(2) of Directive 1999/62/EC, since it does not prevent Member States from contributing to the balanced development of transport networks a percentage of the amount of the toll.
Četrtič, cestninski ukrep ne krši člena 9(2) Direktive 1999/62/ES, saj državam članicam ne preprečuje, da bi k uravnoteženemu razvoju prometnih omrežij prispevale del cestninskega zneska.
Fifthly, the German authorities note that the toll system will not lead away from a harmonised European model of infrastructure charging guaranteeing interoperability and does therefore not contradict recital 17 of Directive 1999/62/EC.
Petič, nemški organi ugotavljajo, da sistem cestninjenja ne bo odvračal od usklajenega evropskega modela zaračunavanja uporabe infrastrukture, ki zagotavlja interoperabilnost, zato tudi ni v nasprotju z uvodno izjavo 17 Direktive 1999/62/ES.
Sixthly, German authorities note that the administrative requirements for the classification of the emission classes of foreign vehicles is not discriminatory because it is limited to the necessary steps needed in order to classify those vehicles.
Šestič, nemški organi ugotavljajo, da upravne zahteve za razvrščanje tujih vozil v emisijske razrede niso diskriminatorne, saj so omejene na nujne ukrepe, potrebne za razvrščanje teh vozil.
Finally, the German authorities also note that the toll system does not violate any Treaty provision such as Articles 28, 90, 92 and 97.
Nemški organi tudi ugotavljajo, da cestninski sistem ne krši nobene določbe Pogodbe, kot so členi 28, 90, 92 in 97.
Existence of aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
Obstoj pomoči na podlagi člena 87 (1) Pogodbe ES
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty says that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES določa, da je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The Commission considers that the toll reimbursement, which can be requested from the Federal Office for Goods Transport — part of the national administration — concerns State funds and implies a loss of State resources.
Komisija meni, da je vračilo cestnine, ki se ga lahko zahteva od Zveznega urada za prevod blaga, ki je del nacionalne uprave, krito iz državnih sredstev, zato pomeni izgubo državnih sredstev.
The measure by itself provides individual road transport undertakings with a selective advantage over competitors as they get a compensation for the charges for the use of infrastructure they are supposed to bear themselves.
Ukrep sam po sebi posameznim podjetjem za cestni prevoz zagotavlja selektivno prednost pred konkurenti, saj ti prejmejo nadomestilo za cestnino za uporabo infrastrukture, ki naj bi jo krili sami.
The TRS cannot be considered as a general measure as it is only applicable to undertakings using vehicles of not less than 12 tonnes which are liable for the toll and only if and to the extent that they can provide evidence that they have paid excise duties in Germany.
SPC ni mogoče obravnavati kot splošni ukrep, saj se uporablja samo za podjetja z vozili, katerih masa ne presega 12 ton, in za katera so zavezani plačevati cestnino, in sicer samo, če lahko predložijo dokazilo, da so trošarino plačali v Nemčiji.
Furthermore, since access to the road haulage market has been opened up to Community operators completely [39], it can be assumed that public financial aid, which favours certain undertakings performing road transport and, more generally, road transport over other modes, will affect trade between Member States.
Ker je bil trg cestnega prevoza popolnoma odprt za gospodarske subjekte Skupnosti [39], je poleg tega mogoče sklepati, da bo javna finančna pomoč, ki daje prednost določenim podjetjem, ki opravljajo cestni prevoz pa tudi cestnemu prevozu na splošno, prizadela trgovino med državami članicami.
Any such financial aid therefore distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States.
Vsaka takšna finančna pomoč zato izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco ter prizadela trgovino med državami članicami.
On the basis of these considerations the Commission finds that the notified TRS constitutes aid pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija na podlagi teh zaključkov ugotavlja, da priglašeni SPC predstavlja pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Compatibility of the aid
Združljivost pomoči:
Availability of relevant legal basis
Razpoložljivost ustrezne pravne podlage
At the moment the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, it was not in the possession of any legal texts concerning the introduction of the TRS.
Ko je Komisija sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88 (2) Pogodbe ES, ni imela pravnih besedil o uvedbi SPC.
However, on 22 August 2003, the German authorities provided the relevant legal basis.
Vendar pa so nemški organi 22. avgusta 2003 zagotovili ustrezno pravno podlago.
Therefore this lack of information no longer exists.
Zato to pomanjkanje informacij ni več prisotno.
General comments about the toll
Splošne pripombe o cestnini
The introduction of a distance-based user charge, recovering the costs of the infrastructure, is one of the key elements of the EC common transport policy:
Uvedba uporabnine na podlagi razdalje za kritje stroškov je eden od ključnih elementov skupne prometne politike ES:
First, the proposed introduction of the toll is in line with the Commission’s thinking on a more cost-related pricing structure in the European transport policy White Paper [40].
Prvič, predlagana uvedba cestnine je v skladu z mnenjem Komisije o bolj stroškovno povezani cenovni strukturi iz Bele knjige o evropski prometni politiki [40].
The White Paper contains a chapter concerning the gradual charging for the use of the infrastructure.
Bela knjiga vključuje poglavje o postopnem zaračunavanju uporabe infrastrukture.
The European Union is currently made up of a Europe of tolls, where users have to pay on toll motorways, a Europe of ‘eurovignettes’ paid by heavy goods vehicles throughout the entire network, and a Europe where no charges are applied at all.
V Evropski uniji obstajajo trenutno regije, kjer morajo uporabniki avtocest plačevati cestnino, regije z „evrovinjeto“, ki jih plačujejo težka tovorna vozila v celotnem omrežju, in regije brez pristojbin.
This situation can be improved.
To stanje se lahko izboljša.
Secondly, the replacement of user charges currently levied on heavy goods vehicles with a toll system could lead to a fairer share of infrastructure costs because a considerable proportion of the cost of motorway construction, maintenance and operation is due to heavy goods vehicles.
Drugič, nadomestitev uporabnin, ki se trenutno zaračunavajo za težka tovorna vozila s cestninskim sistemom, bi lahko pripomogla k pravičnejšemu deležu infrastrukturnih stroškov, ker se znaten delež stroškov gradnje avtocest, vzdrževanja in obratovanja prenese na težka tovorna vozila.
Thirdly, the toll will serve one of the objectives of the Community as mentioned in Article 2 of the EC Treaty, which is to promote a ‘high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment’.
Tretjič, cestnina bo služila enemu od ciljev Skupnosti, kot je navedeno v členu 2 Pogodbe ES, ki je spodbujati „visoko stopnjo varstva in izboljšanja kakovosti okolja“.
Finally, considering the overall measure, it seems that the same applies to the potential advantages to be derived from shifting goods traffic from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport.
Glede na skupni ukrep enako velja za morebitne prednosti, ki bi izhajale iz preusmeritve prevoza blaga iz cest na okolju bolj prijazne načine prevoza.
The change from a time-based motorway user charge to a mileage-based charge means that short distances become cheaper and long distances more expensive.
Prehod iz uporabnine avtoceste na podlagi časa na uporabnino na podlagi kilometrine pomeni, da kratke razdalje postajajo cenejše in daljše razdalje dražje.
This result does not only meet the need to make users bear a fairer share of the infrastructure costs, it also takes into account the fact that only on longer routes less polluting modes of transport (rail and waterway) offer an alternative to road transport.
Ta rezultat ne izpolnjuje samo cilja, da uporabniki sami krijejo večji del infrastrukturnih stroškov, temveč upošteva tudi dejstvo, da okolju prijaznejši načini prevoza (po železnici in plovnih poteh) ponujajo alternativo cestnemu prevozu samo na daljših razdaljah.
The German Federal Government aims to make users bear a more realistic share of road costs.
Nemška zvezna vlada si prizadeva, da bi uporabniki krili bolj realen del cestnih stroškov.
The stated aim of the toll system is to make the users pay the price of the infrastructure, and the price of 15 cents/km is estimated by Germany as the amount that ‘fully covers the costs of construction, development and operation of the relevant infrastructure in the sense of Directive 1999/62/EC (Eurovignette)’.
Navedeni cilj sistema cestninjenja je, da uporabniki plačajo ceno infrastrukture, ceno 15 centov/km pa Nemčija ocenjuje kot znesek, ki „v celoti krije stroške gradnje, razvoja in obratovanja zadevne infrastrukture v smislu Direktive 1999/62 (Evrovinjeta)“.
But this goes hand in hand with putting a greater burden on the road haulage industry.
Vendar pa je to povezano z večjim bremenom za cestno prevozniško industrijo.
Non-application of Article 19(1) of Directive 2003/96/EC [41]
Neuporaba člena 19(1) Direktive 2003/96/ES [41]
The Commission notes that the purchase of fuel and the payment of excise duties by qualifying vehicles in Germany offer a mechanism to calculate the reimbursement of the toll.
Komisija ugotavlja, da nakup goriva in plačilo trošarine za kvalificirana vozila v Nemčiji ponujata mehanizem za izračun vračila cestnine.
A clear legal distinction exists between the levy of excise duties and the levy of toll for heavy goods vehicles for the use of infrastructure.
Obstaja jasno pravno razlikovanje med pobiranjem trošarine in pobiranjem cestnine za težka tovorna vozila za uporabo infrastrukture.
The two systems are based on different legal acts like the Directives on excise duties (92/12/EEC [42] and 2003/96/EC) and the Directive 1999/62/EC (Eurovignette).
Oba sistema temeljita na različnih pravnih aktih, tj. direktiv o trošarinah (92/12/EGS [42] in 2003/96/ES) in Direktivi 1999/62/ES (Evrovinjeta).
The Court has recognised the difference between toll and other levies for the use of roads on the one hand, and taxes on the other hand.
Sodišče je priznalo razliko med cestnino in drugimi pristojbinami za uporabo cest na eni ter davki na drugi strani.
According to the case-law toll is not qualified as a tax, but as a payment for using a service.
Cestnina v skladu s sodno prakso ni kvalificirana kot davek, temveč kot plačilo za uporabo storitve.
The same reasoning goes for other levies for the use of roads due to the direct link between the levy and the infrastructure that can be used [43].
Enaka obrazložitev velja za druge pristojbine za uporabo cest zaradi neposredne povezave med pristojbino in infrastrukturo, ki se lahko uporablja [43].
On the basis of this case-law and taking into consideration that the excise duty only serves as a reference to calculate the reimbursement and that there is a clear distinction between the financial flows of excise duties on one side and the toll payment and toll reimbursement on the other, the Commission considers that the current reimbursement of the toll cannot be qualified at the same time as a reimbursement of the excise duties.
Komisija na podlagi te sodne prakse in ob upoštevanju, da trošarina služi samo kot referenca za izračun vračila ter da obstaja jasno razlikovanje med finančnimi tokovi trošarin na eni in plačilom cestnine na drugi strani, meni, da trenutnega vračila cestnine ni mogoče šteti za vračilo trošarine.
Such a qualification would lead to the situation in which the reimbursement would fall under two different legal frameworks which would violate the principle of legal certainty.
Takšna uvrstitev bi povzročila, da bi vračilo sodilo v dva različna pravna okvira, kar bi kršilo načelo pravne varnosti.
The fact that the reimbursement is linked to the payments of excise duties cannot change the legal qualification of the reimbursement, especially taking into account that the two financial flows are not linked.
Dejstvo, da je vračilo vezano na plačilo trošarine, ne more spremeniti pravne uvrstitve vračila, zlasti ob upoštevanju, da oba finančna tokova nista povezana.
If this were to be the case, any new condition that should be added, for example the limitation of the reimbursement to a certain type of truck, would risk changing the legal qualification and, as a consequence, the legal framework, which would violate the principle of legal certainty.
Če bi to veljalo, bi vsak nov pogoj, ki bi ga bilo treba dodati, na primer omejitev vračila na določeno vrsto tovornjaka, tvegal spremembo pravne opredelitve in posledično pravnega okvira, s čimer bi bilo kršeno načelo pravne varnosti.
It should also be pointed out that there is no fiscal link between the toll rate and the excise duty on gas oil.
Treba je tudi poudariti, da ni pravne povezave med stopnjo cestnine in trošarino za plinsko olje.
They have each one their own source (the use of the motorway on the one hand, the consumption of the mineral oil on the other hand).
Obe imata svoj lasten vir (uporaba avtoceste na eni in poraba mineralnega olja na drugi strani).
The revenues of the toll will fully be used to cover the costs of construction, exploitation and improvement of the infrastructure, contrary to the revenues on the excise duty on gas oil.
Prihodki iz cestnine se bodo v nasprotju s prihodki iz trošarine za plinsko olje v celoti uporabili za kritje stroškov gradnje, uporabe in izboljšanja infrastrukture.
The reimbursement is generally deducted from the amount of toll payment due, or, it is refunded using the resources collected on the basis of the tolls.
Vračilo se običajno odtegne od zneska zapadlega plačila cestnine ali pa se povrne s sredstvi, zbranimi s cestninami.
In view of the above, the Commission comes to the conclusion that Article 19(1) of Directive 2003/96/EC on the Community Framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity which replaces Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC is not applicable [44].
Komisija glede na navedeno sklepa, da se člen 19(1) Direktive 2003/96/ES o okviru Skupnosti za obdavčitev energentov in električne energije, ki nadomešča člen 8(4) Direktive 92/81/EGS, ne uporabi [44].
As a consequence, the German authorities do not have to notify the aid measure under the framework of the procedure laid down in Article 19(1) of Directive 2003/96/EC.
Zato nemškim organom ukrepa pomoči ni treba priglasiti v okviru postopka iz člena 19(1) Direktive 2003/96/ES.
Assessment of the compatibility with the common market
Ocena združljivosti s skupnim trgom
According to Article 73 of the EC Treaty, aids which meet the needs of coordination of land transport are compatible with the Treaty.
V skladu s členom 73 Pogodbe ES so pomoči, ki izpolnjujejo potrebe usklajevanja kopenskega prometa, združljive s Pogodbo.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aid for transport by rail, road and inland waterway [45] implements Article 73 of the Treaty and provides for specific exemptions for aid, which are deemed to meet the needs of coordination of inland transport.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1107/70 z dne 4. junija 1970 o dodeljevanju pomoči v železniškem in cestnem prevozu ter prevozu po celinskih plovnih poteh [45] izvaja člen 73 Pogodbe in predvideva posebne izjeme za pomoč, za katere velja, da izpolnjujejo potrebe po usklajevanju kopenskega prometa.
In particular, Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 stipulates that Member States may, until the entry into force of common rules on the allocation of infrastructure cost, provide aid to undertakings that have to bear expenditure relating to the infrastructure used by them while other undertakings are not subject to a like burden.
Zlasti člen 3(1)(b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1107/70 določa, da lahko države članice do začetka veljavnosti skupnih pravil o razporeditvi stroškov za infrastrukturo zagotovijo pomoč podjetjem, ki morajo nositi stroške, povezane z infrastrukturo, ki jo uporabljajo, medtem ko drugim podjetjem tega bremena ni treba nositi.
According to the Commission’s practice in the handling of State aid cases, three requirements must be fulfilled, so that the aid meets the needs of coordination of transport within the meaning of Article 73 of the EC Treaty [46] and the requirements laid down in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70:
V skladu s prakso Komisije pri obravnavanju primerov državne pomoči morajo biti te zahteve izpolnjene, da pomoč izpolnjuje potrebe usklajevanja prometa v smislu člena 73 Pogodbe ES [46] in zahteve iz člena 3 (1) (b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1107/70:
the aid is necessary to enable the realisation of the measure in the interest of the Community and respects the principle of proportionality;
pomoč je potrebna, da se omogoči uresničevanje ukrepa v interesu Skupnosti in upošteva načelo sorazmernosti;
access to the aid is granted on non-discriminatory terms;
dostop do pomoči se odobri pod nediskriminatornimi pogoji;
the aid does not give rise to a distortion of competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.
pomoč ne povzroča izkrivljanja konkurence v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Regarding the principle of non-discrimination, the Commission considers that all aid is by definition selective.
Komisija v zvezi z načelom nediskriminacije meni, da je vsaka pomoč po definiciji selektivna.
If a measure is not qualified as selective it is not an aid measure in the sense of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
Če ukrep ni opredeljen kot selektiven, ni ukrep pomoči v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe ES.
If the measure has been qualified as an aid, the Commission should assess the compatibility with the common market.
Če je bil ukrep opredeljen kot pomoč, mora Komisija oceniti združljivost s skupnim trgom.