natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus no state resources would be involved.
Zato ne bi bila vključena državna sredstva.
The VKO puts forward a similar argument.
Organizacija VKO je predložila podoben argument.
The Commission takes the view that the measure concerns a tax benefit that would be financed by the Dutch State, so that state resources are being forgone.
Komisija meni, da se ukrep nanaša na davčno olajšavo, ki bi jo financirala nizozemska država, tako da bi se odpovedala državnim virom.
Put differently, the proposed tax exemption results in a loss of tax revenue to the Dutch State.
Drugače povedano, predlagana oprostitev plačila davka bi imela za posledico izgubo davčnega prihodka za nizozemsko državo.
Even if the financing of the exemption were indeed to be offset indirectly by an increased rate of energy tax on natural gas in the highest tranche, that conclusion would remain unchanged.
Tudi če bi se financiranje oprostitve plačila davka posredno izravnalo z višjo stopnjo davka na energijo za zemeljski plin v najvišji tranši, se ta ugotovitev ne bi spremenila.
The Commission notes that the Netherlands has acknowledged that, compared with the current tax system, the measure gives rise to an advantage of an estimated EUR 4 million annually, without any quid pro quo on the part of the recipients [16].
Komisija navaja, da je Nizozemska potrdila, da pomeni ukrep v primerjavi z veljavnim davčnim sistemom ugodnost, ki se ocenjuje na štiri milijone EUR letno, brez quid pro quo na strani prejemnikov [16].
The proposed measure is imputable to the Netherlands, as it derives directly from an amendment to the national legislation in force.
Predlagani ukrep se lahko pripiše Nizozemski, ker izhaja neposredno iz spremembe veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje.
Article 2(1) of the Energy Taxation Directive states that the Directive does not apply to the consumption of energy in mineralogical processes and certain other uses of energy products and electricity; it is left to the Member State, therefore, to decide whether or not to tax such processes and if so whether to tax them in their entirety or only in part.
Člen 2(1) Direktive o obdavčitvi energije določa, da se Direktiva ne uporablja za porabo energije v mineraloških postopkih ter določene druge porabe energentov in električne energije; zato lahko država članica sama odloči, ali bo take postopke obdavčila ali ne, in če da, ali jih bo obdavčila v celoti ali samo delno.
Irrespective of the Directive, however, Member States are in any event bound by the Community acquis in matters of State aid.
Ne glede na Direktivo pa države članice na področju državne pomoči vsekakor zavezuje pravni red Skupnosti.
This means that the selectivity of the measure at hand, and hence the existence of State aid, must be assessed by reference to the domestic energy tax system.
To pomeni, da je treba selektivnost zadevnega ukrepa in tako obstoj državne pomoči oceniti na podlagi nacionalnega sistema obdavčitve energije.
There is recent case-law on the interpretation of selectivity.
Za razlago selektivnosti obstaja novejša sodna praksa.
The Gibraltar judgment accepted a standard State aid analysis for tax cases [17].
Gibraltarska sodba je potrdila standardno analizo državne pomoči za davčne primere [17].
The Court said that there had to be an analysis consisting of: (i) a determination of the reference framework, (ii) a determination of the derogation from that reference framework, and (iii) a determination of whether the derogation was justified by the nature and general scheme of the system (that is to say whether the derogation derived directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State concerned).
Sodišče je navedlo, da morajo analizo sestavljati naslednji koraki: (i) določitev referenčnega okvira, (ii) določitev odstopanja od referenčnega okvira in (iii) določitev, ali odstopanje upravičujeta narava in splošna shema sistema (se pravi, ali odstopanje izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel davčnega sistema zadevne države članice).
The Netherlands has explained that the Dutch energy tax system — which is the reference framework — aims at the taxation of electricity and of energy products which are used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Nizozemska je pojasnila, da je cilj nizozemskega sistema obdavčitve energije – ki je referenčni okvir – obdavčitev električne energije in energentov, ki se uporabljajo kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
The Netherlands therefore considers that it is in line with the nature and overall structure of the Dutch energy tax system that certain kinds of use should be exempt from taxation, as already explained in recital 19.
Nizozemska zato meni, da je v skladu z naravo in splošnim ustrojem nizozemskega sistema obdavčitve energije, da se določene vrste uporabe oprostijo plačila davka, kot je že pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 19.
According to the Netherlands, the additional exemption now being introduced for ceramic process fits into this general scheme.
Po mnenju Nizozemske je dodatna oprostitev, ki naj bi se uvedla za keramični postopek, v skladu s splošno shemo.
The Netherlands further argues that the departure from the reference framework, i.e. the different tax treatment benefiting the ceramic industry, is justified by the objective distinction between the raw material that is used for the production of ceramics and material that is used in other mineralogical processes.
Nizozemska nadalje zagovarja stališče, da je odstopanje od referenčnega okvira, tj. različna davčna obravnava v korist keramične industrije, upravičeno zaradi objektivne razlike med surovino, ki se uporablja za proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov, in surovino, ki se uporablja v drugih mineraloških postopkih.
Contrary to other mineralogical processes, the traditional ceramic process is irreversible.
Za razliko od drugih mineraloških postopkov je klasični keramični postopek ireverzibilen.
This is not the first time that the Commission has assessed exemptions from energy taxes for mineralogical processes: it did so notably in its decision of 7 February 2007 in case N 820/06 regarding tax exemptions for certain energy-intensive processes in Germany.
Tokrat Komisija ni prvič ocenjevala oprostitve plačila davka na energijo za mineraloške postopke. To je naredila predvsem v svoji odločbi z dne 7. februarja 2007 v primeru N 820/06 o oprostitvi plačila davka za določene energetsko intenzivne postopke v Nemčiji.
The Commission there decided that the measure did not comprise State aid.
Takrat je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep ne vključuje državne pomoči.
It looked in particular at the internal logic of the German energy taxation system, which was in line with the approach taken in the Energy Taxation Directive that fuel would be taxed only when it was used as heating or motor fuel.
Preučila je zlasti notranjo logiko nemškega sistema obdavčitve energije, ki je bila v skladu s pristopom iz Direktive o obdavčitvi energije, da se gorivo obdavči samo, če se uporablja kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
Germany consistently exempted all dual use and any workable mineralogical processes covered by the Directive, and thereby followed the same approach throughout its energy tax system.
Nemčija je dosledno oproščala plačila davka vse dvojne uporabe ter vse uporabne mineraloške postopke iz Direktive in tako upoštevala enak pristop v svojem celotnem sistemu obdavčitve energije.
The Commission concluded that the tax exemption was in line with the nature and overall structure of the national energy taxation system.
Komisija je sklenila, da je oprostitev plačila davka v skladu z naravo in splošnim ustrojem nacionalnega sistema obdavčitve energije.
The tax exemption notified here applies only to the Dutch ceramic industry, and unlike the German measure does not cover all mineralogical processes; the Commission is not satisfied, therefore, that the proposed exemption derives directly from the basic or guiding principles of the Dutch energy taxation system.
Tukaj priglašena oprostitev plačila davka se nanaša samo na nizozemsko keramično industrijo in za razliko od nemškega ukrepa ne vključuje vseh mineraloških postopkov; zato Komisija ni prepričana, da predlagana oprostitev izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel nizozemskega sistema obdavčitve energije.
The Netherlands and the VKO argue that there is an objective distinction between the raw material that is used for the production of ceramics and the material used in other mineralogical processes [18], the ceramic processes being irreversible; but this reasoning does not in fact explain, in terms of the structure of the underlying domestic energy taxation system, why other mineralogical processes that also use natural gas in their production processes, such as the manufacture of glass, should not be eligible for exemption.
Nizozemska in organizacija VKO trdita, da je med surovino, ki se uporablja za proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov, in surovino, ki se uporablja v drugih mineraloških postopkih, objektivna razlika [18], ker so keramični postopki ireverzibilni; vendar ta razlaga v smislu ustroja temeljnega nacionalnega sistema obdavčitve energije dejansko ne pojasnjuje, zakaj ne bi bili drugi mineraloški postopki, ki prav tako uporabljajo zemeljski plin v svojih proizvodnih postopkih, kot je proizvodnja stekla, upravičeni do oprostitve.
In addition, as explained in recital 22 to the Energy Taxation Directive, energy products should be subject to a Community framework essentially when used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Poleg tega uvodna izjava 22 Direktive o obdavčitvi energije pojasnjuje, da za energente praviloma velja pravni okvir Skupnosti, če se uporabljajo kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
It was in this spirit that Article 2(4) of the Directive excluded mineralogical processes.
Glede na to je člen 2(4) Direktive izvzel mineraloške postopke.
In those processes fuel is considered to be used not as motor fuel or heating fuel, but to support the chemical process.
V navedenih postopkih se za gorivo šteje, da se ne uporablja kot pogonsko gorivo ali gorivo za ogrevanje, temveč za podporo kemičnemu postopku.
The common element in the exclusion of all mineralogical processes from the scope of the Energy Taxation Directive, therefore, is that fuel is being used for the chemical process rather than as heating or motor fuel.
Zato je skupni element izključitve vseh mineraloških postopkov s področja uporabe Direktive o obdavčitvi energije ta, da se gorivo uporablja za kemični postopek in ne kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
A tax exemption for the processes concerned here [19] would be justified only if it applied to all mineralogical processes across the board, thus ensuring that all mineralogical processes were being treated consistently [20].
Oprostitev plačila davka za zadevne postopke [19] bi bila upravičena samo, če bi se uporabljala za vse mineraloške postopke na splošno, kar bi zagotovilo dosledno obravnavo vseh mineraloških postopkov [20].
As indicated, this would be in line with the Commission’s reasoning in case N 820/06.
Kot je navedeno, bi bilo to v skladu z razlago Komisije v primeru N 820/2006.
That different mineralogical processes may use different raw materials, and that the ceramic process may be irreversible, are considerations which are irrelevant in this context.
Dejstvi, da različni mineraloški postopki lahko uporabljajo različne surovine in da je keramični postopek lahko ireverzibilen, sta v tej zvezi nepomembni.
Moreover, from the parliamentary history of the Act it emerges that the objective of the intended measure is to improve the international competitive position of the ceramic industry in the Netherlands [21].
Poleg tega iz parlamentarne preteklosti Zakona izhaja, da je cilj predvidenega ukrepa izboljšati konkurenčnost nizozemske keramične industrije na mednarodnem trgu [21].
The case-law of the Court of Justice makes it clear that the fact that a measure may bring charges in a particular sector more closely into line with those of competitors in other Member States does not alter the fact that it constitutes aid [22].
Sodna praksa Sodišča pojasnjuje, da dejstvo, da ukrep lahko zagotovi večjo usklajenost stroškov v določenem sektorju s stroški konkurentov v drugih državah članicah, ne spremeni dejstva, da pomeni pomoč [22].
The Commission therefore finds that the tax exemption is selective, in that it favours the production of certain goods and, de facto, certain undertakings, and cannot be justified on the basis of the overall structure of the domestic energy taxation system.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je oprostitev plačila davka selektiven ukrep, ki daje prednost proizvodnji posameznega blaga ter dejansko posameznim podjetjem in se ne more upravičiti na podlagi splošnega ustroja nacionalnega sistema obdavčitve energije.
DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE
IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE IN VPLIV NA TRGOVINO
The VKO has disputed the Commission’s conclusion that because the proposed measure would cover a significant part of operating costs, and would thus allow recipients to charge a lower price for their ceramic products, it would distort competition or threaten to distort competition in the relevant ceramics markets.
Organizacija VKO je izpodbijala ugotovitev Komisije, da bi predlagani ukrep izkrivljal ali lahko izkrivljal konkurenco na upoštevnih trgih keramičnih izdelkov, ker bi pokrival znaten del operativnih stroškov in tako prejemnikom omogočil zaračunavanje nižje cene za svoje keramične izdelke.
According to the VKO, the costs of the delivery and use of energy are a multiple of the cost of the energy tax.
Po mnenju organizacije VKO so stroški dobave in uporabe energije večkratnik stroška davka na energijo.
The Commission considers this argument irrelevant.
Po mnenju Komisije je ta argument nepomemben.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, an improvement in the competitive position of an undertaking resulting from a State aid measure will usually indicate that there is a distortion of competition with other competing undertakings not receiving such assistance [23].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča okrepitev konkurenčnega položaja podjetja zaradi državne pomoči na splošno kaže na izkrivljanje konkurence v škodo konkurenčnim podjetjem, ki take podpore ne prejemajo [23].
Moreover, a measure is caught by Article 107(1) TFEU once it ‘threatens to distort competition’.
Poleg tega je ukrep zajet v členu 107(1) PDEU, takoj ko „bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco“.
The tax exemption at issue has the potential to distort competition in the ceramics markets given that it leads to a decrease in the recipients’ operating costs.
Zadevna oprostitev bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco na trgih keramičnih izdelkov, ker zmanjšuje operativne stroške prejemnikov.
Furthermore, the objective of the proposed measure is in fact to improve the international competitive position of the ceramic industry in the Netherlands.
Poleg tega je cilj predlaganega ukrepa dejansko okrepiti konkurenčnost nizozemske keramične industrije na mednarodnem trgu.
The Netherlands has stated that the tax exemption would, at least to some degree, restore a level playing field for the industry in the internal market.
Nizozemska je navedla, da bi oprostitev plačila davka vsaj do neke mere vzpostavila enake konkurenčne pogoje za keramično industrijo na notranjem trgu.
Logically it must be concluded, even without detailed data to substantiate the competitive effect of the measure in the ceramic sector, that the measure has the potential to distort competition in the relevant ceramics markets.
Tudi brez podrobnih podatkov za utemeljitev konkurenčnega učinka ukrepa v keramičnem sektorju je treba logično sklepati, da bi ukrep lahko izkrivljal konkurenco na upoštevnih trgih keramičnih izdelkov.
The Netherlands has explained that the brick industry in the Netherlands, which accounts for 85–90 % of natural gas and energy consumption in the Dutch ceramic industry, employs approximately 1500 people.
Nizozemska je pojasnila, da industrija opeke na Nizozemskem, na katero odpade 85–90 % porabljenega zemeljskega plina in energije v nizozemski keramični industriji, zaposluje približno 1500 ljudi.
In 2008 this subsector had a turnover of around EUR 370 million. The Dutch brick industry exports around 20 % of its annual output, whereas the level of imports equals 8 % of annual Dutch production.
Leta 2008 je znašal promet tega podsektorja približno 370 milijonov EUR. Nizozemska industrija opeke izvozi približno 20 % svoje letne proizvodnje, medtem ko znaša uvoz 8 % letne nizozemske proizvodnje.
Because of the weight of bricks, the relevant market is defined as extending about 250 km from the brickworks where they are produced.
Zaradi teže opeke je upoštevni trg opredeljen kot trg, ki zajema območje v razdalji približno 250 km od opekarn, kjer poteka proizvodnja.
Therefore the relevant competing markets for this subsector are the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium.
Zato so upoštevni konkurenčni trgi za ta podsektor Združeno kraljestvo, Nemčija in Belgija.
In the letter of 26 May 2009 the Netherlands asked the Commission to quantify and substantiate its conclusion that the proposed measure distorted competition or threatened to distort competition in the relevant markets in the ceramic sector with reference to data from the Dutch Central Statistics Office (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) which the Netherlands had submitted to the Commission in the preliminary investigation phase, and in particular the import and export figures for bricks which are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Nizozemska je z dopisom z dne 26. maja 2009 Komisijo zaprosila, naj količinsko opredeli in utemelji svojo ugotovitev, da bi predlagani ukrep izkrivljal ali lahko izkrivljal konkurenco na upoštevnih trgih v keramičnem sektorju, na podlagi podatkov Nizozemskega osrednjega statističnega urada (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), ki jih je Nizozemska predložila Komisiji v fazi predhodne preiskave, zlasti podatkov o izvozu in uvozu opeke iz tabel 1 in 2.
Exports of Dutch bricks to Germany and Belgium
Izvoz nizozemske opeke v Nemčijo in Belgijo
Share in EUR
Delež v EUR
59 % of a total of EUR 255 million
59 % od skupno 255 milijonov EUR
150 million
150 milijonov EUR
64 % of a total of EUR 234 million
64 % od skupno 234 milijonov EUR
68 % of a total of EUR 213 million
68 % od skupno 213 milijonov EUR
145 million
145 milijonov EUR
74 % of a total of EUR 242 million
74 % od skupno 242 milijonov EUR
180 million
180 milijonov EUR
82 % of a total of EUR 234 million
82 % od skupno 234 milijonov EUR
191 million
191 milijonov EUR
80 % of a total of EUR 183 million
80 % od skupno 183 milijonov EUR
146 million
146 milijonov EUR
95 % of a total of EUR 189 million
95 % od skupno 189 milijonov EUR
The figures in Table 1, according to the Netherlands, have to be read in the light of the following circumstances.
Številke iz tabele 1 je treba po mnenju Nizozemske razumeti ob upoštevanju naslednjih okoliščin.
At the beginning of the present century there was severe stagnation in the markets for the construction of housing in Germany and the Netherlands (in 2000/2001 the German brick industry experienced a loss of almost 20 % of turnover and sales).
Na začetku tega stoletja so trgi gradnje stanovanj v Nemčiji in na Nizozemskem močno stagnirali (v letih 2000/2001 je znašala izguba nemške industrije opeke skoraj 20 % prometa in prodaje).
Nevertheless, the Netherlands observes that the figures from the Dutch Central Statistics Office that have been submitted show that since then the export of Dutch bricks to Germany has lagged behind.
Vendar Nizozemska ugotavlja, da je iz predloženih podatkov Nizozemskega osrednjega statističnega urada razvidno, da je od tedaj izvoz nizozemske opeke v Nemčijo zaostajal.
In short, at the beginning of the century both the German and the Dutch industry made heavy losses on the German market, but the German brick sector has gained as a result of the recovery of the housing market in Germany, and the Dutch brick producers have not.
Povedano na kratko, na začetku stoletja sta imeli nemška in nizozemska industrija na nemškem trgu velike izgube, vendar si je nemški sektor opeke opomogel zaradi okrevanja stanovanjskega trga v Nemčiji, nizozemski proizvajalci opeke pa ne.
According to the Netherlands, this is confirmed by the figures for imports from Germany shown in Table 2.
Po mnenju Nizozemske to potrjujejo podatki iz tabele 2 o uvozu iz Nemčije.
Imports from Germany into the Netherlands
Uvoz iz Nemčije na Nizozemsko
42 % of a total of EUR 91 million
42 % od skupno 91 milijonov EUR
36 million
36 milijonov EUR
25 % of a total of EUR 101 million
25 % od skupno 101 milijona EUR
25 million
25 milijonov EUR
22 % of a total of EUR 82 million
22 % od skupno 82 milijonov EUR
18 million
18 milijonov EUR
17 % of a total of EUR 121 million
17 % od skupno 121 milijonov EUR
21 million
21 milijonov EUR
16 % of a total of EUR 110 million
16 % od skupno 110 milijonov EUR
18 % of a total of EUR 107 million
18 % od skupno 107 milijonov EUR
20 million
20 milijonov EUR
11 % of a total of EUR 124 million
11 % od skupno 124 milijonov EUR
14 million
14 milijonov EUR
12 % of a total of EUR 155 million
12 % od skupno 155 milijonov EUR
19 million
19 milijonov EUR
The Netherlands points out that the figures in Table 2 show strong growth in imports of German brick into the Netherlands from 2006/2007 onward.
Nizozemska poudarja, da kažejo številke v tabeli 2 intenzivno rast uvoza nemške opeke na Nizozemsko od 2006/2007 naprej.
The figures submitted by the Netherlands for the first quarter of 2008 show that this trend continued.
Podatki, ki jih je predložila Nizozemska za prvo četrtletje leta 2008, kažejo, da se je to gibanje nadaljevalo.
According to the Netherlands, the German ceramic industry has enjoyed exemption from energy tax since August 2006, an exemption that entered into force on 1 January 2004.
Po podatkih Nizozemske je bila nemška keramična industrija oproščena plačila davka na energijo od avgusta 2006, oprostitev pa je začela veljati 1. januarja 2004.
Exports from the Netherlands to Member States other than Belgium and Germany (mainly the UK and Ireland)
Izvoz iz Nizozemske v države članice, razen Belgije in Nemčije (predvsem v Združeno kraljestvo in na Irsko)
40 % of a total of EUR 255 million
40 % od skupno 255 milijonov EUR
102 million
102 milijona EUR
37 % of a total of EUR 234 million
37 % od skupno 234 milijonov EUR
86 million
86 milijonov EUR
32 % of a total of EUR 213 million
32 % od skupno 213 milijonov EUR
68 million
68 milijonov EUR
17 % of a total of EUR 242 million
17 % od skupno 242 milijonov EUR
41 million
41 milijonov EUR
10 % of a total of EUR 234 million
10 % od skupno 234 milijonov EUR
23 million
23 milijonov EUR
18 % of a total of EUR 183 million
18 % od skupno 183 milijonov EUR
32 million
32 milijonov EUR
12 % of a total of EUR 189 million
12 % od skupno 189 milijonov EUR
On these figures the Netherlands has commented that an important factor helping to explain the increased exports to these countries is the very advantageous exchange rate between sterling and the euro.
V zvezi z navedenimi podatki je Nizozemska pripomnila, da je pomemben dejavnik, ki pomaga pojasniti povečan izvoz v navedene države, zelo ugoden menjalni tečaj med britanskim funtom in eurom.
This factor, they argue, compensates for the high transport costs.
Trdijo, da ta dejavnik izravnava visoke prevozne stroške.
These figures are informative regarding trade flows in the brick segment between the Netherlands and its surrounding countries Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom, but they do not allow the conclusion to be drawn that the tax measure is incapable of distorting competition in the relevant markets in the ceramic industry.
To so informativni podatki o trgovinskih tokovih v segmentu opeke med Nizozemsko in njenimi sosednjimi državami Nemčijo, Belgijo in Združenim kraljestvom, ki pa ne omogočajo sklepanja, da davčni ukrep ne more izkrivljati konkurence na upoštevnih trgih v keramični industriji.
For a measure to fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, as has been said, it is enough that there should be the potential for such distortion.
Da bi ukrep spadal na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, kot je bilo navedeno, zadostuje, da obstaja možnost takega izkrivljanja.