natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Danish authorities, all businesses presently regulated by the EU ETS are energy intensive as defined in the Energy Taxation Directive.
Po mnenju danskih organov so vsa podjetja, ki jih trenutno ureja sistem EU ETS, energetsko intenzivna, kakor so opredeljena v Direktivi o obdavčitvi energije.
In consequence, the fuel consumption of the entire EU ETS-regulated process in industry would be eligible for refunding in full of the CO2 tax if the notified measure were approved.
Posledično bi bila poraba goriv celotnega procesa v industriji, ki ga ureja sistem EU ETS, upravičena do vračila davka na CO2 v celoti, če bi bil priglašeni ukrep odobren.
The notified exemption applies only to the fuel (mineral oil products, gas and coal) used in business covered by the EU ETS.
Priglašena oprostitev velja samo za goriva (izdelke iz mineralnih olj, plin in premog), ki jih uporabljajo podjetja v sistemu EU ETS.
It does not cover electricity and heat consumption and, in addition, it does not concern fuel used for room heating and hot water.
Ne vključuje porabe električne energije in ogrevanja ter se, poleg tega, ne nanaša na gorivo, uporabljeno za gretje prostora in toplo vodo.
The legal basis for the proposed exemptions is Act No 464 of 9 June 2004.
Zakonska podlaga za predlagano oprostitev je Zakon št. 464 z dne 9. junija 2004.
All industrial activities which are covered by the Emission Trading Directive, with the exception of electricity and heat production, are proposed to be fully or partially exempted from the CO2 tax for their use of fuel as described above.
Za vse industrijske dejavnosti, ki jih zajema Direktiva za trgovanje z emisijami, razen proizvodnje električne energije in ogrevanja, je predlagana delna ali popolna oprostitev davka na CO2 za zgoraj opisano porabo goriv.
The number of beneficiaries is foreseen to be about 85 production processes spread out among some 120 production units.
Predvideno število upravičencev je okrog 85 proizvodnih procesov v približno 120 proizvodnih enotah.
The Danish authorities have estimated the annual loss of tax revenue due to this measure to be about DKK 30 million (about EUR 4 million).
Danski organi so ocenili, da bi bila letna izguba davčnega prihodka zaradi tega ukrepa približno 30 milijonov DKK (približno 4 milijone EUR).
However, in their letter of 22 July 2008, the Danish authorities indicate that the budget of the scheme will be below that estimate.
Vendar pa v dopisu z dne 22. julija 2008 danski organi navajajo, da bo proračun sheme nižji od te ocene.
The Danish authorities adopted the legal basis for the proposed scheme in 2004, but have ensured that they will only implement it if the Commission authorises it.
Danski organi so zakonsko podlago za predlagano shemo sprejeli leta 2004, vendar so zagotovili, da bodo shemo izvajali samo, če jo Komisija odobri.
If so, it will apply as from 1 January 2005.
V tem primeru bo veljala od 1. januarja 2005.
The duration of the scheme is not limited, but if it is approved, the Danish authorities have undertaken to re-notify it after 10 years.
Trajanje sheme ni omejeno, vendar so se danski organi obvezali, da bodo to shemo, če bo odobrena, po 10 letih ponovno priglasili.
GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE IN ARTICLE 88(2)
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE IZ ČLENA 88(2)
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission found that the measure is funded by State resources.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija ugotovila, da se ukrep financira iz državnih virov.
It applies only to companies covered by the EU ETS and relieves these companies from costs that they would otherwise bear from their operating budget, i.e. the measure gives an economic advantage to these companies.
Velja samo za podjetja v sistemu EU ETS in ta podjetja oprošča stroškov, ki bi jih običajno morala poravnati iz svojih operativnih proračunov, torej daje ukrep tem podjetjem ekonomsko prednost.
The Commission doubted that the selectivity of the measure was justified by the nature and structure of the tax system.
Komisija je podvomila, da narava in struktura davčnega sistema upravičujeta selektivnost ukrepa.
The beneficiaries are active in markets that are open for competition and trade between Member States.
Upravičenci so dejavni na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco in trgovanje med državami članicami.
The measure can, thus, distort competition and affect trade on the internal market.
Ukrep lahko torej izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino na notranjem trgu.
Therefore, the Commission took the view that the measure could constitute State aid.
Zato je Komisija menila, da lahko ta ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission queried whether the measure could be found compatible with the then applicable Community Guidelines on State aid for Environmental Protection [13] (EAG 2001), since the tax paid by the firms under the proposed scheme would be below the minimum levels of the Energy Taxation Directive, without the beneficiaries entering into any voluntary commitments or agreements to undertake measures that go beyond the fulfilment of a harmonised EU obligation.
Komisija se je spraševala, ali bi bil ukrep lahko združljiv s tedaj veljavnimi smernicami Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja [13] (EAG 2001), saj bi bili davki, ki bi jih podjetja plačala glede na predlagano shemo, pod najnižjimi ravnmi iz Direktive o obdavčitvi energije, ne da bi se upravičenci prostovoljno obvezali ali dogovorili za sprejetje ukrepov, ki presegajo izpolnitev usklajenih obveznosti EU.
The Commission examined whether the potential aid could be found compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty based on the alleged need to eliminate the double regulation.
Komisija je preverila, ali bi bila morebitna pomoč lahko združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES na podlagi domnevne potrebe po odpravi dvojne ureditve.
In this context, the Commission pointed out that the national CO2 taxes are counted towards the national level of energy taxation for the purpose of complying with the Energy Taxation Directive.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija poudarila, da se nacionalni davki na CO2 obračunajo na nacionalni ravni obdavčitve energije zaradi izpolnjevanja Direktive o obdavčitvi energije.
Therefore, the proposed tax relief could distort competition on the internal market, since it would increase tax differentiation in an area where taxes have been harmonised at Community level.
Zato bi lahko predlagana davčna olajšava izkrivljala konkurenco na notranjem trgu, saj bi povečala diferencirano obdavčitev na področju, na katerem je bila davčna uskladitev izvedena na ravni Skupnosti.
Furthermore, it could run against the ‘polluter-pays’ principle to grant CO2 tax relief to all companies participating in the EU ETS, since it would include companies that have received emission allowances for free.
Nadalje bi lahko bila v nasprotju z načelom „onesnaževalec plača“ za zagotavljanje olajšave davka na CO2 vsem podjetjem v sistemu EU ETS, saj bi vključevala podjetja, ki brezplačno dobijo pravice do emisij.
The Commission invited Denmark to submit information on the mechanism in order to ensure that the existence and amount of a possible extra burden on top of the CO2 tax could be established at the level of each individual company, and that only companies that actually suffered from such a burden would benefit from the tax exemptions.
Komisija je pozvala Dansko, naj predloži informacije o mehanizmu ter s tem zagotovi, da se obstoj in količina morebitne dodatne obremenitve na davek na CO2 določita za vsako podjetje, kakor tudi, da bodo imela korist od oprostitve davkov samo podjetja, ki so dejansko občutila posledice zaradi te obremenitve.
The Commission noted, however, that it could go against the environmental logic to grant relief only to those companies that have to buy additional allowances, since this could favour those who did not limit their pollution.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je lahko odobritev oprostitve samo tistim podjetjem, ki morajo kupiti dodatne pravice, v nasprotju z okoljsko logiko, saj lahko pomeni dajanje prednosti podjetjem, ki niso zmanjšala svojega onesnaževanja.
The Swedish authorities stated that the Commission should make a comprehensive, economic as well as legal, analysis of the notified tax relief.
Švedski organi so izjavili, da bi morala Komisija izvesti celovito, tako gospodarsko kot pravno, analizo priglašene davčne olajšave.
They referred to the arguments submitted in their own notification of a similar case [14] on which the Commission had also opened the formal investigation procedure.
Sklicevali so se na argumente, podane v njihovi priglasitvi podobnega primera [14], za katerega je Komisija prav tako začela formalni postopek preiskave.
Dansk Industri argued that it should be specified, first, that the measure does not constitute State aid and, secondly, that it is compatible with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Dansk Industri je trdil, da bi moralo biti opredeljeno, prvič, da ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči, in drugič, da je združljiv s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
In this context, it should be kept in mind that Dansk Industri has to pay CO2 tax, energy tax, SO2 tax and a price supplement which is administrated by Energinet.dk and distributed to producers of green electricity.
V zvezi s tem je treba upoštevati, da mora Dansk Industri plačati davek na CO2, davek na energijo, davek na SO2 in dodatek k ceni, ki ga Energinet.dk ureja in razdeli med proizvajalce okolju prijazne električne energije.
Therefore, Danish companies pay much more for their energy consumption than their European and international competitors.
Zato danska podjetja za porabo energije plačajo veliko več kot njihovi evropski in mednarodni konkurenti.
According to Novo Nordisk A/S, their annual tax saving under the proposed measure will be DKK 200000.
Po besedah Novo Nordisk A/S bo njihov letni prihranek pri davku na podlagi predlaganega ukrepa 200000 DKK.
The company claims that such saving will not be able to distort competition, particularly as, under the emission quota system, they have to spend approximately DKK 400000 in order to achieve lower CO2 emissions.
Podjetje trdi, da takšen prihranek ne bo mogel izkrivljati konkurence, še zlasti ker morajo po sistemu stopenj zniževanja emisij porabiti približno 400000 DKK, da bi dosegli nižje emisije CO2.
They refer to the de minimis rules which allow them to receive aid up to EUR 200000 (ca. DKK 1,5 million) over a period of 3 years.
Sklicujejo se na pravila de minimis, ki jim dovoljujejo prejem pomoči do 200000 EUR (pribl. 1,5 milijonov DKK) v obdobju treh let.
As regards compliance with the Energy Taxation Directive, Novo Nordisk referred to the fact that they use energy from combined heat and power production and, thus, can be allowed an exemption or reduction of the tax in accordance with Article 15(1)(c) of the Directive.
Glede skladnosti z Direktivo o obdavčitvi energije Novo Nordisk navaja dejstvo, da uporabljajo energijo iz kombinirane proizvodnje električne in toplotne energije, zaradi česar bi jim lahko bila dovoljena oprostitev ali zmanjšanje davka v skladu s členom 15(1)(c) Direktive.
Furthermore, they are energy-intensive and the costs they have for their energy consumption (the tax in question plus costs for cutting CO2 emissions) are in total higher than the Community minima.
Poleg tega so energetsko intenzivno podjetje in stroški, ki jih imajo zaradi svoje porabe energije (zadevni davek in stroški za zmanjšanje emisij CO2), so skupno višji od najnižjih stopenj Skupnosti.
Novo Nordisk further referred to point 7 of the preamble of the Energy Taxation Directive, which states that energy taxation can be one instrument to reach the Kyoto Protocol objectives (i.e. the same objective as for the EU ETS) and concludes that in this case, there is double regulation.
Novo Nordisk se je nato skliceval na točko 7 preambule Direktive za obdavčitev energije, ki navaja, da je lahko obdavčitev energije eden izmed instrumentov za dosego ciljev Kjotskega protokola (tj. enakih ciljev kot pri sistemu EU ETS), in zaključuje, da v tem primeru obstajajo dvojni predpisi.
Finally, as regards the proposal by the Commission to assess the potential burden at the level of each beneficiary, Novo Nordisk pointed out that such an approach would lead to serious difficulties with allocation to the correct period, etc., inter alia, because the time of purchase of the allowances does not necessarily have to reflect the time of consumption of the energy.
Nenazadnje je Novo Nordisk v zvezi s predlogom Komisije o oceni morebitne obremenitve za vsako podjetje izpostavil, da bi tak pristop pomenil resne težave pri razporeditvi v pravo obdobje itd., med drugim zato, ker ni nujno, da obdobje nakupa pravic izraža tudi obdobje, ko je energija porabljena.
Novozymes A/S commented that, in connection with its production of enzymes, it produces electricity and heating at industrial combined heat and power installations.
Novozymes A/S je pripomnil, da v povezavi s proizvodnjo encimov proizvaja tudi električno energijo in toploto v industrijskih toplarnah-elektrarnah.
Its production is considered as a heavy process, which means that it is subject to a tax of between DKK 3 and 25 per tonne CO2 of the used fuels.
Njegova proizvodnja se šteje za težki proces, kar pomeni, da je podjetje dolžno plačati davek med 3 in 25 DKK na tono CO2 porabljenega goriva.
It is also covered by the EU ETS.
Vključeno je tudi v sistem EU ETS.
Novozymes’ comments are identical to those submitted by Novo Nordisk.
Pripombe Novozymes so enake tistim, ki jih je podal Novo Nordisk.
COMMENTS FROM DENMARK
PRIPOMBE DANSKE
There is no selective advantage
Ni selektivne prednosti
The Danish authorities argue, with reference to the judgment of the Court of 16 May 2000 in Case C-83/98 P (France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission [15]), that there is no selective advantage in the case at hand.
S sklicevanjem na sodbo Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2000 v zadevi C-83/98 P (Francija proti Ladbroke Racing Ltd in Komisiji [15]) danski organi trdijo, da v zadevnem primeru ni selektivne prednosti.
The Court has established in several cases [16] that in the situation where a scheme is of a general economic-political or social-political character and does not favour certain activities or business sectors, the scheme falls outside of the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Sodišče je v več zadevah ugotovilo [16], da če je shema splošnega gospodarsko-političnega ali socialno-političnega značaja in ne daje prednosti določenim dejavnostim ali poslovnim sektorjem, ne sodi v področje člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In the Adria-Wien judgment, an energy tax relief provided undertakings producing goods with an economic advantage in comparison with those in the service sector, despite the fact that undertakings in the service sector can also be relatively large energy consumers.
V sodbi Adria-Wien je oprostitev davka na energijo podjetjem za proizvodnjo blaga zagotovila ekonomsko prednost v primerjavi s podjetji iz storitvenega sektorja, kljub dejstvu, da so tudi podjetja iz storitvenega sektorja sorazmerno veliki porabniki energije.
The Danish authorities argue that the scheme in question does not provide an advantage for a specific group of businesses, but consists in a tax relief for all businesses in the same legal and factual situation [17].
Danski organi trdijo, da zadevna shema ne daje prednosti določeni skupini podjetij, temveč vključuje davčno olajšavo za vsa podjetja v enakem pravnem in dejanskem položaju [17].
This is why the Danish authorities consider that the proposed scheme falls outside of the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato danski organi menijo, da predlagana shema ne sodi v področje člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Moreover, they refer to the conclusion of the Court in Adria-Wien that a scheme which fairly certainly constitutes an advantage for the recipient, but which is justified by the character or structure of the system, does not fulfil the selectivity criteria.
Poleg tega se sklicujejo na sklep Sodišča v zadevi Adria-Wien, da shema, ki z veliko verjetnostjo daje prednost prejemniku, vendar je upravičena z naravo ali strukturo sistema, ne izpolnjuje merila selektivnosti.
In the case at hand, after the introduction of the EU ETS, the Danish authorities take the view that the tax no longer has an environmental value.
V zadevnem primeru, po uvedbi sistema EU ETS, danski organi menijo, da davek nima več okoljske vrednosti.
Since the purpose of the tax can no longer be fulfilled or is reduced, it is in the logic and nature of the tax system to exempt the undertakings concerned from the tax.
Ker namen davka ne more biti več izpolnjen ali je zmanjšan, je v logiki in naravi davčnega sistema, da zadevna podjetja oprosti davka.
Both the EU ETS allowances and the CO2 tax are cost-effective market-based instruments with the objective to reduce CO2 emissions when consuming energy.
Tako dovoljenja sistema EU ETS kot davek na CO2 sta stroškovno učinkovita tržna instrumenta z namenom zmanjšanja emisij CO2 pri porabi energije.
Both instruments lead to an increase of the marginal cost of energy consumption, even if the allowances are distributed for free.
Oba instrumenta vodita do povečanja mejnih stroškov porabe energije, četudi so pravice dodeljene brezplačno.
Allowances, as well as taxes, result in higher production costs.
Pravice in davki se izražajo v višjih proizvodnih stroških.
The total CO2 emissions are limited to the total amount of allowances.
Skupne emisije CO2 so omejene na skupno število pravic.
If one undertaking therefore, for example due to taxes, reduces its emissions, it will provide scope for other undertakings to increase their emissions.
Če zato eno podjetje, na primer zaradi davkov, zmanjša svoje emisije, to omogoči drugim podjetjem, da svoje emisije povečajo.
Under the double regulation the tax is therefore no longer a cost-effective steering instrument.
Zaradi dvojnih predpisov davek torej ni več stroškovno učinkovit usmerjevalni instrument.
It has no additional environmental effect, but only an additional financial burden for the undertakings in question.
Nima nobenega dodatnega okoljskega učinka, ampak pomeni dodatno finančno breme za zadevna podjetja.
Therefore, the Danish authorities take the view that the scheme at hand is in the nature and logic of the tax system.
Zato danski organi menijo, da je zadevna shema v naravi in logiki davčnega sistema.
The proposed scheme is in line with the 2001 Environmental Aid Guidelines
Predlagana shema je v skladu s smernicami za okoljsko pomoč iz leta 2001
First, the Danish authorities point out that the EAG 2001 are only so-called soft law containing criteria for the State aid assessment by the Commission.
Prvič, danski organi izpostavljajo, da so EAG 2001 tako imenovani nezavezujoči pravni akti, ki vsebujejo merila za oceno državne pomoči s strani Komisije.
At the time of the notification and of the decision of the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, the relevant applicable guidelines were contained in the EAG 2001.
V času priglasitve in odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES je EAG 2001 vsebovala ustrezne veljavne smernice.
These guidelines cannot be deemed to contain criteria for assessing schemes like the one in question, since they entered into force more than two years before the Emission Trading Directive and the Energy Taxation Directive were adopted.
Teh smernic ni mogoče šteti za ustrezna merila pri oceni shem, kot je ta, saj so začele veljati več kot dve leti pred sprejetjem Direktive za trgovanje z emisijami in Direktive o obdavčitvi energije.
Therefore, the Danish authorities find that the Commission’s interpretation of voluntary agreements and commitments in point 51(1)(a) is too strict, in particular since the second paragraph of that point states that the provisions also apply where a Member State makes a tax reduction subject to conditions that have the same effect as agreements or commitments in the nature of voluntary agreements.
Zato danski organi menijo, da je razlaga Komisije glede prostovoljnih sporazumov in obvez iz točke 51(1)(a) prestroga, še zlasti ker drugi odstavek te točke navaja, da določbe veljajo tudi v primerih, ko za davčno olajšavo v državi članici veljajo pogoji, ki imajo enak učinek kot sporazumi ali obveze iz prostovoljnih sporazumov.
The Danish authorities take the view that the EU ETS results in the same effects as those that would have been achieved under voluntary agreements or with the CO2 tax.
Danski organi menijo, da sistem EU ETS dosega enake učinke, kot bi bili doseženi s prostovoljnimi sporazumi ali davkom na CO2.
The proposed scheme can be approved on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty
Predlagana shema se lahko odobri na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES
If the Commission does not find the scheme compatible with the EAG 2001, it is the opinion of the Danish authorities that it can instead be approved directly on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty due to the fact that the situation has changed considerably since the adoption of the Energy Taxation Directive and the EU ETS Directive, and the undertakings concerned are now subject to double regulation.
Če shema po mnenju Komisije ni združljiva z EAG 2001, danski organi menijo, da se lahko neposredno odobri na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, saj so se razmere od sprejetja Direktive o obdavčitvi energije in sistema EU ETS bistveno spremenile, za zadevna podjetja pa zdaj veljajo dvojni predpisi.
Denmark has referred to a Commission Staff Working Paper [18] drawn up in the context of the adoption of the Energy Taxation Directive.
Danska se je sklicevala na delovni dokument Komisije [18], sestavljen v okviru sprejetja Direktive o obdavčitvi energije.
In that paper, the Commission stated that a CO2 tax exemption, granted in favour of companies which would be subject to the Community emissions trading scheme, might not constitute State aid since imposing both a CO2 tax and an emissions cap could lead to a form of double taxation which needs to be avoided.
V tem dokumentu je Komisija navedla, da oprostitev davka na CO2, odobrena podjetjem, za katera bi veljal sistem Skupnosti za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije, morda ne bo pomenila državne pomoči, saj bi lahko uvedba davka na CO2 in zgornjih mej emisij vodila do oblike dvojne obdavčitve, ki se ji je treba izogniti.
Moreover, in its minutes [19] concerning the Directive the Council undertook, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, to examine positively tax measures which will accompany the implementation of the EU ETS, particularly in order to avoid double taxation cases.
Poleg tega se je Svet v svojem zapisniku [19] v zvezi z Direktivo na podlagi predloga Komisije zavezal, da bo podrobneje pregledal davčne ukrepe, ki bodo spremljali uvedbo sistema EU ETS, predvsem da se izogne primerom dvojne obdavčitve.
The proposed schemes is in line with the Energy Taxation Directive
Predlagana shema je v skladu z Direktivo o obdavčitvi energije
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission asked the Danish government to submit information showing that the scheme would lead to the achievement of environmental objectives or increased energy efficiency, broadly equivalent to what would have been achieved if the standard community minimum rate had been observed.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija pozvala danske organe, naj predložijo informacije, iz katerih je razvidno, da bo shema vodila do izpolnitve okoljskih ciljev ali povečane energijske zmogljivosti v približno enaki meri, kot če bi bile upoštevane najnižje stopnje Skupnosti.
The Danish authorities claim that such information was already apparent from their comparison between the price of allowances and the Community minima.
Danski organi trdijo, da so bile te informacije razvidne že iz njihove primerjave med cenami pravic in najnižjimi stopnjami Skupnosti.