natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OJ C 53, 6.3.2009, p. 15.
UL C 53, 6.3.2009, str. 15.
The Committee met on 26 March, on 7 May and on 25 and 26 May 2009.
Odbor se je sestal 26. marca ter 7., 25. in 26. maja 2009.
On completion of its discussions, it finalised the opinion and list provided for in Article 3(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Po koncu razprav je pripravil mnenje in seznam v skladu s členom 3(4) Priloge I k Statutu Sodišča.
on aid implemented by Luxembourg in the form of the creation of a compensation fund for the organisation of the electricity market (C 43/02 (ex NN 75/01))
o pomoči v obliki ustanovitve kompenzacijskega sklada za organizacijo trga z električno energijo, ki jo izvaja Luksemburg (C 43/02 (ex NN 75/01))
(notified under document number C(2009) 230)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2009) 230)
By letter dated 2 July 2001, registered as received on 16 July 2001 under number N 475/01, Luxembourg notified the Commission under Article 88(3) of the Treaty of the creation of a compensation fund for the organisation of the electricity market.
Luksemburg je z dopisom z dne 2. julija 2001, evidentiranim 16. julija 2001 pod številko N 475/01, Komisiji v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe priglasil ustanovitev kompenzacijskega sklada za organizacijo trga z električno energijo.
Following an exchange of correspondence with the Luxembourg authorities, the Commission notified Luxembourg by letter dated 5 June 2002 of its decision to open the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the measure.
Komisija je po korespondenci z luksemburškimi organi z dopisom z dne 5. junija 2002 Luksemburg uradno obvestila o odločitvi, da bo v zvezi s tem ukrepom sprožila postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
It also invited Luxembourg to submit its comments and provide any information that might be helpful in assessing the measure within one month from the date of receipt of the letter.
Prav tako je Luksemburg pozvala, naj v enem mesecu od datuma prejema dopisa predloži pripombe in zagotovi vse informacije, potrebne za oceno ukrepa.
The Commission’s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter dated 22 July 2002, registered as received on 26 July 2002, Luxembourg requested an extension of the time limit for sending its comments. The Commission granted the request by letter dated 30 July 2002, fixing the time limit at 5 September 2002.
Luksemburg je z dopisom z dne 22. julija 2002, evidentiranim 26. julija 2002, zaprosil za podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb, ki ga je Komisija z dopisom z dne 30. julija 2002 odobrila in kot novi rok določila 5. september 2002.
The Netherlands sent the Commission its comments on the measure by fax dated 4 December 2002, registered as received on the same day.
Nizozemska je z dopisom, poslanim po telefaksu, z dne 4. decembra 2002, evidentiranim istega dne, Komisiji predložila svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter dated 18 February 2003, the Commission forwarded the Netherlands’ letter to Luxembourg, together with a request that the latter submit its comments within one month.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 18. februarja 2003 dopis Nizozemske posredovala Luksemburgu in ga pozvala, naj ji v enem mesecu predloži svoje pripombe.
After having sent a reminder on 16 May 2003, the Commission received from Luxembourg by fax dated 28 May 2003, registered as received on the same day, a request for an extension of the time limit for replying.
Komisija je po opominu, ki ga je poslala 16. maja 2003, 28. maja 2003 od Luksemburga prejela dopis, poslan po telefaksu, ki je bil evidentiran istega dne in v katerem je ta zaprosil za podaljšanje roka za odgovor.
By letter dated 4 June 2003, registered as received on 5 June 2003, Luxembourg sent the Commission its comments both on the Commission’s letter of 5 June 2002 and on the comments submitted by the Netherlands.
Luksemburg je z dopisom z dne 4. junija 2003, evidentiranim 5. junija 2003, Komisiji predložil svoje pripombe o dopisu Komisije z dne 5. junija 2002 in pripombah Nizozemske.
Luxembourg provided additional information by letter dated 3 May 2004, registered as received on 13 May 2004.
Luksemburg je dodatne podatke predložil z dopisom z dne 3. maja 2004, ki je bil evidentiran 13. maja 2004.
A working meeting between Luxembourg and the Commission was held on 25 January 2005.
Delovno srečanje med Luksemburgom in Komisijo je potekalo 25. januarja 2005.
By letter dated 31 March 2005, the Commission sent Luxembourg a request for information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 31. marca 2005 na Luksemburg naslovila zahtevo za informacije.
The Commission received a reply from Luxembourg by letters dated 20 April and 20 May 2005, registered as received on 27 April and 1 June 2005 respectively.
Komisija je odgovor Luksemburga prejela v dopisih z dne 20. aprila in 20. maja 2005, ki sta bila evidentirana 27. aprila in 1. junija 2005.
By letter dated 22 June 2005, the Commission sent Luxembourg a request for additional information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 22. junija 2005 na Luksemburg naslovila zahtevo za dodatne informacije.
By letter dated 27 March 2006, the Commission sent Luxembourg a request for additional information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 27. marca 2006 na Luksemburg naslovila zahtevo za dodatne informacije.
The Commission received a reply from Luxembourg by letter dated 11 April 2006, registered as received on 18 April 2006.
Komisija je odgovor Luksemburga prejela v dopisu z dne 11. aprila 2006, evidentiranem 18. aprila 2006.
A working meeting between Luxembourg and the Commission was held on 12 December 2006.
Delovno srečanje med Luksemburgom in Komisijo je potekalo 12. decembra 2006.
By letter dated 21 November 2007, the Commission sent Luxembourg a request for additional information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 21. novembra 2007 na Luksemburg naslovila zahtevo za dodatne informacije.
A working meeting between Luxembourg and the Commission was held on 27 February 2008.
Delovno srečanje med Luksemburgom in Komisijo je potekalo 27. februarja 2008.
The Commission received additional information from Luxembourg by letter dated 19 June 2008, registered as received on 20 June 2008, and by letter registered as received on 12 September 2008.
Luksemburg je Komisiji dodatne podatke predložil z dopisom z dne 19. junija 2008, evidentiranim 20. junija 2008, in dopisom, evidentiranim 12. septembra 2008.
The legislative framework to the compensation mechanism
Zakonodajni okvir kompenzacijskega mehanizma
The Grand-Ducal Regulation of 30 May 1994 and the electricity market liberalisation process
Uredba Velikega vojvodstva z dne 30. maja 1994 in proces liberalizacije trga z električno energijo
The Grand-Ducal Regulation (GDR) of 30 May 1994 [3] concerning the production of electrical energy using renewable energy sources or cogeneration (green electricity) imposed an obligation to purchase green electricity on Cegedel, at that time the sole general distributor of grid electricity in Luxembourg.
Uredba Velikega vojvodstva z dne 30. maja 1994 [3] o proizvodnji električne energije iz obnovljivih virov energije ali soproizvodnje toplote in električne energije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: okolju prijazna električna energija) zahteva odkup te okolju prijazne električne energije pri podjetju Cegedel, ki je bil takrat edini splošni koncesionar elektroenergetskega omrežja v Luksemburgu.
The scheme involved the production of electricity using hydro, wind and solar energy, biogas and biomass, and cogeneration.
Ureditev zadeva proizvodnjo električne energije iz hidroenergije, vetrne energije, svetlobne energije, bioplina in biomase ter proizvodnjo električne energije iz soproizvodnje.
Article 1 of the 1994 GDR provided that the ‘available quantities of electricity obtained from autoproduction using renewable energy sources or cogeneration shall, at the autoproducer’s request, be acquired by the State of Luxembourg for the account of the public network’.
Člen 1 Uredbe Velikega vojvodstva iz leta 1994 določa, da na zahtevo samoproizvajalca razpoložljivo količino električne energije, samoproizvedene iz obnovljivih virov energije ali soproizvodnje toplote in električne energije, za javno omrežje prevzame Veliko vojvodstvo.
The 1994 GDR also set the prices of such green electricity at a higher level than that of conventionally produced electricity.
Uredba Velikega vojvodstva iz leta 1994 tudi določa, da je cena te okolju prijazne električne energije višja od električne energije, proizvedene na običajni način.
Luxembourg has estimated that, in 2000, the purchasing obligation stemming from the 1994 GDR related to a production of 112 GWh [6], and that these volumes were purchased at a price on average some three times higher than the price resulting from the long-term supply contracts concluded by Cegedel.
Luksemburg je ocenil, da je leta 2000 obveznost odkupa na podlagi Uredbe Velikega vojvodstva iz leta 1994 zajemala proizvodnjo 112 GWh električne energije [6] in da se je ta količina kupila po povprečni ceni, ki je bila približno trikrat višja od cene iz dolgoročnih dobavnih pogodb, sklenjenih s podjetjem Cegedel.
According to the Luxembourg authorities, this resulted in an additional cost of LUF 275 million or EUR 6,8 million.
Po mnenju luksemburških organov so zaradi tega nastali dodatni stroški v višini 275 milijonov LUF, tj. 6,8 milijona EUR.
After the electricity sector was opened up to competition by the Law of 24 July 2000 [7], the purchasing obligation was extended to include all distributors operating in Luxembourg.
Po odprtju sektorja električne energije za konkurenco z zakonom z dne 24. julija 2000 [7] se je obveznost odkupa razširila na vse distributerje, ki delujejo v Luksemburgu.
In 2001 these were 13 in number, including the largest, Cegedel, and the second largest, Sotel, both of which supplied the steel plants in the south of the country, and local distributors.
Teh je bilo leta 2001 trinajst, pri čemer sta največji, tj. podjetje Cegedel, in drugi največji, tj. podjetje Sotel, oskrbovala jeklarne na jugu države in lokalne distributerje.
In actual fact, however, Cegedel alone purchased the lion’s share of the green electricity produced in Luxembourg.
Vendar je v praksi večino okolju prijazne električne energije, proizvedene v Luksemburgu, kupilo podjetje Cegedel.
The GDR of 22 May 2001
Uredba Velikega vojvodstva z dne 22. maja 2001
In order to spread equitably among distributors the burden of the costs resulting from the obligation to acquire green electricity, Luxembourg decided to set up, through the GDR of 22 May 2001 [8] concerning the introduction of a compensation fund for the organisation of the electricity market, a compensation mechanism.
Za pravično porazdelitev stroškov, povezanih z obveznostjo prevzema okolju prijazne električne energije, med distributerji se je Luksemburg odločil, da bo z Uredbo Velikega vojvodstva z dne 22. maja 2001 [8] o uvedbi kompenzacijskega sklada za organizacijo trga z električno energijo vzpostavil kompenzacijski mehanizem.
The compensation fund became de facto operational on 1 January 2001.
V praksi je kompenzacijski sklad začel delovati 1. januarja 2001.
Under Article 21 of the GDR of 22 May 2001, each electricity distributor in Luxembourg was authorised to collect a contribution to the compensation fund from its final customers.
V skladu s členom 21 Uredbe Velikega vojvodstva z dne 22. maja 2001 je vsak luksemburški distributer pooblaščen, da pri končnih odjemalcih pobira prispevke v kompenzacijski sklad.
The contribution was proportional to a final customer’s electricity consumption.
Prispevek je sorazmeren s količino električne energije, ki jo porabi končni odjemalec.
The compensation fund mechanism made it possible to divide the costs stemming from the green electricity purchasing obligation among all the distributor’s customers.
Poleg tega mehanizem kompenzacijskega sklada omogoča porazdelitev stroškov, povezanih z obveznostjo odkupa okolju prijazne električne energije, na vse odjemalce distributerja.
The level of contributions was set each year by the State so that the fund’s income did not exceed the additional cost of purchasing green electricity.
Višino prispevkov država vsako leto določi tako, da prihodki sklada ne presegajo dodatnih stroškov, povezanih z odkupom okolju prijazne električne energije.
Under Article 23 of the GDR of 22 May 2001, the contribution for 2001 was set for all non-exempted customers at EUR 2,73/MWh.
Tako je v skladu s členom 23 Uredbe Velikega vojvodstva z dne 22. maja 2001 za vse odjemalce, ki niso oproščeni plačila, prispevek za leto 2001 določen v višini 2,73 EUR na MWh.
The GDR of 9 December 2005
Uredba Velikega vojvodstva z dne 9. decembra 2005
category A comprised customers at whose metering points annual electricity consumption was less than or equal to 25 MWh.
razred A vključuje odjemalce, ki na leto porabijo 25 MWh električne energije ali manj.
For 2007, the contribution payable by category A consumers was set at EUR 7,00/MWh,
Leta 2007 so morali odjemalci razreda A plačati prispevek v višini 7,00 EUR na MWh,
category B comprised customers at whose metering points annual electricity consumption was greater than 25 MWh, with the exception of metering points classified in category C. For 2007, the contribution payable by category B consumers was set at EUR 2,70/MWh,
razred B vključuje odjemalce, ki na leto porabijo več kot 25 MWh električne energije, razen tiste, ki so uvrščeni v razred C. Leta 2007 so morali odjemalci razreda B plačati prispevek v višini 2,70 EUR na MWh,
category C concerned customers in category B who, in addition, had to ‘commit themselves to achieving a substantial improvement in their overall energy efficiency by agreement to be concluded between the Government and the enterprise concerned […].
razred C zadeva ustrezne odjemalce razreda B, ki se morajo poleg tega „zavezati k znatnemu povečanju svoje splošne energetske učinkovitosti s sporazumom med vlado in zadevnim podjetjem […].
The agreement to be concluded will include a penalty clause in case of failure to meet commitments’ [13].
Sporazum, ki ga je treba skleniti, bo vključeval klavzulo o sankcijah za nespoštovanje teh zavez“ [13].
Provisions applicable as of 1 January 2009
Določbe, veljavne 1. januarja 2009
The level of the contribution is thus no longer set by the public authorities but is left to distributors’ discretion.
Višino tega prispevka torej ne bodo več določali javni organi, ampak jo bodo ocenili distributerji.
Operation of the compensation mechanism
Delovanje kompenzacijskega mehanizma
From a practical standpoint, the GDRs of 22 May 2001 and 9 December 2005 provided that the principal distributor in Luxembourg, Cegedel, the shares in which were majority privately owned, had to purchase all the green electricity produced in Luxembourg at the price set by the State.
Uredbi Velikega vojvodstva z dne 22. maja 2001 in 9. decembra 2005 na izvedljiv način določata, da mora glavni distributer v Luksemburgu, tj. podjetje Cegedel, katerega kapital je večinoma zasebni, kupiti vso okolju prijazno električno energijo, proizvedeno v Luksemburgu, po ceni, ki jo določi država.
Cegedel made such purchases either in its own name or on behalf of other distributors who had concluded supply contracts with green electricity producers.
To električno energijo kupuje v svojem imenu ali v imenu drugih distributerjev, ki so sklenili dobavne pogodbe s proizvajalci okolju prijazne električne energije.
It then sold the green electricity to its competitors according to their respective market shares in the Luxembourg market and at a selling price set by the State on the basis of the electricity market price established the previous year.
Glavni distributer nato okolju prijazno električno energijo prodaja svojim konkurentom glede na njihove tržne deleže na luksemburškem trgu in po prodajni ceni, ki jo določi država na podlagi tržne cene električne energije, zabeležene prejšnje leto.
The additional costs associated with green electricity corresponded to the difference between the purchase price paid to producers of such electricity (feed-in tariff) and the selling price charged to other distributors, both of which were set by the State.
Dodatni stroški, ki nastanejo zaradi okolju prijazne električne energije, ustrezajo razliki med ceno odkupa pri proizvajalcih električne energije (tarifa za dovajanje) in prodajno ceno pri drugih distributerjih, ki ju določi država.
All distributors reported on their green electricity purchases each month to the Luxembourg energy regulator, the Institut Luxembourgeois de Régulation (ILR).
Vsi distributerji o odkupu okolju prijazne električne energije vsak mesec poročajo luksemburškemu regulatornemu organu za električno energijo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Luksemburški inštitut za regulacijo).
At the end of the year, the regulator performed a compensation operation between distributors: if the share of green electricity produced in Luxembourg and purchased by a distributor was greater than its share of the electricity market, then it received compensation from the fund; conversely, if its share of green electricity purchased was smaller than its share of the domestic market, then it had to pay a corresponding contribution to the fund.
Konec leta regulatorni organ distributerjem dodeli nadomestila; če je delež okolju prijazne električne energije, ki je proizvedena v Luksemburgu in jo kupi distributer, višji od njegovega deleža na trgu z električno energijo, prejme nadomestilo iz sklada; v nasprotnem primeru mora plačati ustrezen prispevek v sklad, če je njegov delež kupljene okolju prijazne električne energije nižji od njegovega deleža na nacionalnem trgu.
The compensation fund was therefore designed to ensure that each distributor active in Luxembourg purchased a share of green electricity produced in Luxembourg that matched its share of the domestic market.
Cilj kompenzacijskega sklada je torej zagotoviti, da vsak distributer, ki deluje v Luksemburgu, kupi delež okolju prijazne električne energije, proizvedene v Luksemburgu, ki je enak njegovemu deležu na nacionalnem trgu.
The diagram below describes the operation of the compensation fund as it was in force until 31 December 2008.
Spodnja shema opisuje delovanje kompenzacijskega sklada, veljavnega do 31. decembra 2008.
REASONS FOR OPENING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETKU FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
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 [14].
Komisija je v svojem sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave ocenila, da kompenzacijski mehanizem pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe [14].
The measure conferred an advantage on green electricity producers, who ultimately benefited from the proceeds of the compensation fund.
Ukrep daje prednost proizvajalcem okolju prijazne električne energije, ki imajo na koncu koristi iz kompenzacijskega sklada.
Moreover, the exemption from compensation payments applicable until 31 December 2005 favoured large electricity-consuming enterprises over other enterprises which had to contribute to the compensation fund.
Poleg tega daje oprostitev nadomestila, ki se uporablja do 31. decembra 2005, prednost podjetjem z visoko porabo električne energije v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki morajo prispevati v kompenzacijski sklad.
On the other hand, distributors enjoyed no advantage as they simply played the part of intermediary in collecting the contributions made by final customers and paid on to green electricity producers.
V nasprotju s tem distributerji nimajo nobene prednosti, ker imajo le vlogo posrednika pri pobiranju prispevkov, ki jih morajo plačati končni odjemalci in jih na koncu prejmejo proizvajalci okolju prijazne električne energije.
This advantage was provided through State resources, not by reason of the introduction of the green electricity purchasing obligation but by reason of the creation of the compensation fund.
Ta prednost se zagotavlja prek državnih sredstev zaradi ustanovitve kompenzacijskega sklada in ne zaradi uvedbe obveznosti odkupa okolju prijazne električne energije.
The latter was set up by the State, was financed by a system of compulsory contributions, and the sums paid into it were controlled by the State.
Kompenzacijski sklad je ustanovila država in se dejansko financira prek sistema obveznih prispevkov, pri čemer zneske, ki so plačani vanj, nadzoruje država.
The measure was selective in that it favoured only certain enterprises or certain activities, and in particular green electricity producers as opposed to other electricity producers and large electricity-consuming enterprises as opposed to other electricity-consuming enterprises.
Ukrep je selektiven, ker daje prednost le nekaterim podjetjem ali dejavnostim, zlasti proizvajalcem okolju prijazne električne energije v primerjavi z drugimi proizvajalci električne energije in podjetjem z visoko porabo električne energije v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so odjemalci električne energije.
Lastly, the granting of an advantage to green electricity producers was liable to affect intra-Community trade in electricity and distort competition, as was the advantage enjoyed by large electricity-consuming enterprises, active as these were in various sectors of the economy.
Nazadnje, zagotavljanje prednosti proizvajalcem okolju prijazne električne energije in podjetjem z visoko porabo električne energije, dejavnim v različnih gospodarskih sektorjih, vpliva na trgovino z električno energijo znotraj Skupnosti ter izkrivlja konkurenco.
The Commission then examined the compatibility of the compensation mechanism with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty in the light of the 2001 Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (the 2001 guidelines) [15].
Komisija je preučila združljivost kompenzacijskega mehanizma s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe glede na smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice iz leta 2001) [15].
It expressed the following concerns in this regard.
V zvezi s to zadevo je izrazila naslednje dvome.
First, the Commission considered that the aid for green electricity producers prima facie did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the following provisions of the 2001 guidelines:
Prvič, Komisija je ocenila, da pomoč za proizvajalce okolju prijazne električne energije ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz naslednjih določb smernic iz leta 2001:
the system did not ensure that the aid was limited to the difference between the production cost and the market price of the energy concerned.
sistem ne zagotavlja omejitev pomoči na dodatne stroške med ceno proizvodnje zadevne električne energije in njeno tržno ceno.
It did not limit the duration of the operating aid to that necessary to cover plant depreciation.
Sistem ne omejuje pomoči za tekoče poslovanje v obdobju, ki je potrebno za amortizacijo obratov.
Nor did it take account of any investment aid received by producers for their plants, such as the ecological premium in Luxembourg [16] (point E.3.3.1 of the 2001 guidelines),the system made no provision for a market mechanism such as green certificates (point E.3.3.2 of the 2001 guidelines),
Prav tako ne upošteva morebitne pomoči za investicije, ki jo prejmejo proizvajalci za obrate, kot je ekološki dodatek v Luksemburgu [16] (točka E.3.3.1 smernic iz leta 2001),sistem ne predvideva tržnega mehanizma, kot so zeleni certifikati (točka E.3.3.2 smernic iz leta 2001),
the operating aid was not calculated on the basis of the external costs avoided (point E.3.3.3 of the 2001 guidelines),
pomoč za tekoče poslovanje ni izračunana na podlagi zunanjih stroškov, katerim so se izognili (točka E.3.3.3 smernic iz leta 2001),