natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following confirmation by the Hungarian authorities of the confidential treatment of information provided by third parties in the context of this procedure [10], the Commission forwarded the above comments to Hungary by letter of 25 April 2006.
Po potrditvi madžarskih organov, da bodo zaupno obravnavali informacije, ki so jih v okviru tega postopka poslale tretje stranke [10], je Komisija posredovala zgornje pripombe Madžarski z dopisom z dne 25. aprila 2006.
The Hungarian authorities submitted the first part of their observations on the third parties’ comments by letter of 28 June 2006, registered on 29 June 2006, and the second part by letter of 24 July 2006, registered on 25 July 2006.
Madžarski organi so posredovali prvi del svojih opažanj glede pripomb tretjih strank z dopisom z dne 28. junija 2006, evidentiranim 29. junija 2006, drugi del pa z dopisom z dne 24. julija 2006, evidentiranim 25. julija 2006.
Aware of the planned legislative changes in the energy sector in Hungary, Commissioner Kroes sent a letter to Minister Kóka on 17 October 2006 urging the Hungarian Government to settle in the new legislation the question of the PPAs and potential compensatory measures in line with EU law.
Ob upoštevanju načrtovanih sprememb zakonodaje v energetskem sektorju na Madžarskem je komisar Kroes 17. oktobra 2006 ministru Kóka poslal dopis, v katerem je madžarsko vlado opomnil, naj v novi zakonodaji uredi vprašanje glede SNEE in možnih kompenzacijskih ukrepov v skladu z zakonodajo EU.
The company AES-Tisza submitted further comments complaining about several aspects of the Commission’s procedure on 19 December 2006.
Podjetje AES-Tisza je dne 19. decembra 2006 poslalo nadaljnje pripombe, v katerih je podalo svojo pritožbo glede več vidikov postopka Komisije,
By letters of 21 November 2006 (registered on 23 November 2006) and 15 January 2007 (registered on the same day) and at meetings on 18 December 2006 and 8 March 2007 with the Commission, the Hungarian authorities confirmed their intention of making legislative amendments in connection with the liberalisation of the energy sector and thereby also changing the existing situation on the wholesale electricity market.
Z dopisoma z dne 21. novembra 2006 (evidentiranim 23. novembra 2006) in 15. januarja 2007 (evidentiranim istega dne) ter na sestankih s Komisijo dne 18. decembra 2006 in 8. marca 2007 so madžarski organi potrdili svoj namen glede uvedbe zakonodajnih sprememb v zvezi z liberalizacijo energetskega sektorja in spremembe obstoječih razmer na veleprodajnem trgu z električno energijo.
By letter dated 4 May 2007 the Hungarian authorities informed the Commission that it was setting up a working committee to conduct negotiations with all the generators concerned regarding the termination or substantial amendment of the PPAs.
Z dopisom z dne 4. maja 2007 so madžarski organi Komisijo obvestili, da pripravljajo delovni odbor, ki bo z vsemi zadevnimi proizvajalci vodil pogajanja glede ukinitve ali korenite spremembe SNEE.
Accordingly, on 11 May 2007 the government adopted Decision No 2080/2007 (V.11) on the long-term power purchase agreements in the energy sector [11], thereby establishing the aforementioned working committee (governed by the Prime Minister's Office) with a view to resolving without delay the matter of the PPAs in accordance with EU State aid rules and ordering the opening of official negotiations in this regard with the power generators concerned.
V skladu s tem je vlada 11. maja 2007 sprejela Odločbo št. 2080/2007 (V.11.) o dolgoročnih sporazumih o nakupu električne energije v energetskem sektorju [11], ter tako vzpostavila prej omenjeni delovni odbor (ki mu predseduje Urad ministrskega predsednika) z namenom takojšnje razrešitve težave s SNEE v skladu z določili EU o državni pomoči, in odredila odprtje uradnih pogajanj v zvezi s tem z zadevnimi proizvajalci električne energije.
By letter of 3 July 2007 the Hungarian Government informed the Commission of the outcome of the first negotiations that took place in June 2007.
Z dopisom z dne 3. julija 2007 so madžarski organi obvestili Komisijo o rezultatih prvih pogajanj, ki so potekala junija 2007.
However, the new Act did not alter the PPAs themselves, which remained in force, unchanged, between MVM and the power generators listed in the Opening Decision.
Kljub temu pa novi zakon ni spremenil samih SNEE, ki so ostali enaki in so še naprej veljali med MVM in proizvajalci električne energije, ki so navedeni v Sklepu o začetku postopka.
By letter dated 26 July 2007, the Commission put further questions to the Hungarian authorities.
Z dopisom z dne 26. julija 2007 je Komisija madžarskim organom posredovala nadaljnja vprašanja.
On 7 September 2007, the Commission registered a letter from the Hungarian Government requesting more time to bring the negotiations with the generators to a successful conclusion.
septembra 2007 je Komisija evidentirala dopis madžarske vlade s prošnjo za podaljšanje časovnega roka, v katerem bi uspešno zaključili pogajanja s proizvajalci.
On 24 September and 31 October 2007 the Commission registered Hungary's replies to its questions of 26 July 2007.
septembra in 31. oktobra 2007 je Komisija evidentirala odgovore Madžarske na njena vprašanja z dne 26. julija 2007.
On 14 December 2007, pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the Commission sent a reminder to the Hungarian authorities listing the questions for which the information provided was still incomplete.
decembra 2007 je Komisija v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 (v nadaljevanju „Postopkovna uredba“), madžarskim organom poslala opomnik, v katerem je navedla vprašanja, glede katerih še vedno ni prejela vseh informacij.
The Hungarian authorities replied by letter dated 16 January 2008.
Madžarski organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 16. januarja 2008.
As the companies Dunament and AES-Tisza did not provide the requested data, the Hungarian authorities argued they were not able to furnish a complete answer to the Commission's questions.
Ker podjetji Dunament in AES-Tisza nista zagotovili vseh informacij, so madžarski organi zatrjevali, da niso mogli oblikovati popolnega odgovora na vprašanja Komisije.
Accordingly, on 15 February 2008, the Commission adopted an information injunction enjoining Hungary to supply the data listed in the decision within a period of fifteen days.
Na podlagi omenjenega je Komisija 15. februarja 2008 sprejela odredbo o informacijah, v kateri je Madžarski odredila, naj v roku petnajstih dni zagotovi podatke, ki so navedeni v odločbi.
On 27 February, Dunament power plant sent to the Commission a copy of its reply to the Hungarian authorities’ questions and explained the reasons why it could not answer the questions put to it.
februarja je elektrarna Dunament Komisiji poslala kopijo svojega odgovora madžarskim organom in pojasnila vzroke, zaradi katerih ni mogla odgovoriti na zastavljena vprašanja.
It appears from the Hungarian authorities’ replies that AES-Tisza did not give Hungary any reply.
Iz odgovorov madžarskih organov je razvidno, da podjetje AES-Tisza Madžarski ni odgovorilo.
By fax dated 10 March 2008, AES-Tisza sent a letter to Commissioner Kroes expressing its view that the Hungarian authorities were already in possession of all the data that had been requested by the Commission.
AES-Tisza je dne 10. marca 2008 po faksu poslal dopis komisarju Kroesu, v katerem je pojasnil, da so madžarski organi že prejeli vse potrebne informacije, ki jih je zahtevala Komisija.
In their answer dated 13 March 2008, on the basis of the information available to them the Hungarian authorities provided the Commission with the relevant data for questions (1)(a) to (d) of Chapter III of the information injunction.
Madžarski organi so v svojem odgovoru z dne 13. marca 2008 na podlagi informacij, ki so jim bile na voljo, poslali Komisiji zadevne podatke glede vprašanj od (1)(a) do (d) iz Poglavja III odredbe o informacijah.
However, they did not give any additional data relating to the question asked under point (1)(e) of Chapter III of the information injunction concerning the investments of the two abovementioned power generators.
Vendar pa niso predložili dodatnih podatkov, ki bi se nanašali na vprašanje, ki je bilo zastavljeno v okviru točke (1)(e) Poglavja III odredbe o informacijah glede naložb zgoraj omenjenih proizvajalcev električne energije.
A substantial part of the information exchanged since the registration of case HU 1/04 concerned the interpretation and concrete application of the Commission Communication relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs (the Stranded Costs Methodology) [14].
Glavni del informacij, ki so se izmenjale v obdobju od evidentiranja primera HU1/2004 je povezanih z razlago in neposredno uporabo obvestila Komisije, ki se nanaša na metodologijo za analizo državne pomoči, povezane z nasedlimi stroški („Metodologija za nasedle stroške“) [14].
On the basis of the documents submitted in the present procedure, it seemed that the Hungarian authorities planned to introduce a system of stranded cost compensations, the assessment of which could have been included in this Decision.
Na podlagi dokumentov, posredovanih v zadevnem postopku, bi lahko sklepali, da so madžarski organi načrtovali uvedbo sistema nadomestil za nasedle stroške, katerih ocena bi lahko bila vključena v to odločbo.
Consequently, substantial discussions took place throughout the present procedure between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities on the details of a compensation system which Hungary could adopt in order for such a system to meet the criteria of the Methodology.
Posledično so se v zadevnem postopku odvijali številni pogovori med Komisijo in madžarskimi organi glede podrobnosti o sistemu nadomestil, ki bi ga Madžarska lahko sprejela in bi izpolnjeval merila te metodologije.
Notwithstanding the technical discussions about a potential future compensation mechanism, the Hungarian authorities, until the date of this Decision, have not submitted to the Commission a comprehensive compensation mechanism officially confirmed by the Hungarian Government.
Navkljub tehničnim pogovorom o možnem prihodnjem mehanizmu nadomestil madžarski organi do datuma te odločbe Komisiji še vedno niso predložili celovitega mehanizma za nadomestila, ki bi ga uradno potrdila madžarska vlada.
In their letter of 13 March 2008, the Hungarian authorities explicitly confirmed that, at present, they did not wish to grant stranded costs compensation; however, they reserved their right to grant such compensation to certain power generators at a later stage.
Z dopisom z dne 13. marca 2008 so madžarski organi izrecno potrdili, da trenutno ne želijo dodeliti nadomestila za nasedle stroške, vendar pa so si pridržali pravico do kasnejše dodelitve takšnega nadomestila določenim proizvajalcem električne energije.
Other connected procedures pending
Drugi zadevni postopki, ki jih je treba še izvesti
The Opening Decision was challenged by Budapest power plant before the Court of First Instance by way of an application lodged on 3 March 2006 and registered as case T-80/06.
Sklep o začetku postopka je elektrarna Budapest izpodbijala že pred sodiščem prve stopnje s pritožbo, vloženo 3. marca 2006 in evidentirano kot zadeva T-80/06.
On 6 June 2006, Csepel power plant requested leave to intervene in the procedure in support of Budapest power plant and this was granted by an order of the Court dated 11 March 2008.
junija 2006 je elektrarna Csepel prosila za dovoljenje za posredovanje pri postopku v podporo elektrarne Budapest. Dovoljenje je bilo dodeljeno z odredbo sodišča 11. marca 2008.
Furthermore, two international arbitrage procedures are pending before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington, D.C, launched against the Republic of Hungary by the electricity generation companies […] and […], both shareholders of power plants under PPA in Hungary.
Nadalje je treba izvesti dva mednarodna arbitražna postopka na Mednarodnem centru za reševanje investicijskih sporov v Washingtonu D.C., ki sta ju proti Republiki Madžarski sprožili podjetji za proizvodnjo elektrike […] in […], obe delničarja elektrarn v okviru SNEE na Madžarskem.
The proceedings are based on the investment protection provisions contained in the Energy Charter Treaty.
Postopki temeljijo na uredbah o zaščiti naložb, ki so vključene v Pogodbo o energetski listini.
Historical background to the PPAs
Zgodovinsko ozadje SNEE
From 31 December 1991 to 31 December 2002 the Hungarian electricity market was structured around a ‘Single Buyer’, the company Magyar Villamos Művek (MVM).
Od 31. decembra 1991 do 31. decembra 2002 je bil madžarski trg z električno energijo organiziran okoli „pooblaščenega kupca“, podjetja Magyar Villamos Művek (MVM).
MVM is a 99,9 % State-owned entity whose activities comprise power generation, wholesale, transmission and retail.
99,9 % MVM je v lasti države, med njegove dejavnosti pa spadajo pridobivanje električne energije, veleprodaja, prenos in maloprodaja.
Under the ‘Single Buyer’ model, the power generators could supply energy directly to MVM only (unless MVM cancelled the regional distribution companies’ contracts) and MVM was the only company authorised to supply electricity to the regional distribution companies.
V okviru modela „pooblaščenega kupca“ lahko proizvajalci električne energije dobavljajo električno energijo samo neposredno MVM (razen če je MVM prekinil pogodbo s podjetji, ki se ukvarjajo z regionalno distribucijo) in MVM je edino podjetje, ki je pooblaščeno za oskrbo z električno energijo podjetij za regionalno distribucijo.
Under Act XLVIII of 1994 on Electric Energy (Energy Act I), MVM was required to ensure security of energy supply in Hungary at the lowest possible cost.
V okviru Zakona XLVIII iz leta 1994 o električni energiji („Zakon o električni energiji I“) je moral MVM zagotoviti varnost dobave električne energije na Madžarskem po najnižji možni ceni.
Under this dual model there was a public utility segment and a competitive segment, and eligible customers (the scope of which gradually enlarged) were allowed to switch to the competitive segment.
V okviru omenjenega dvojnega modela sta obstajala segment javne porabe in konkurenčni segment, upravičeni kupci (področje, ki se je postopoma večalo) pa so se lahko preusmerili na konkurenčni segment.
On the public utility segment, MVM remained the only wholesaler, whereas in the free market segment other traders appeared.
V segmentu javne porabe je MVM ostal edini prodajalec na debelo, medtem ko so se v segmentu prostega trga pojavili tudi drugi trgovci.
Energy Act III put an end to the existence of the public utility segment but nevertheless kept household customers and some commercial customers – as permitted by the second Electricity Directive [15] – under a universal service obligation.
Z Zakonom o električni energiji III je prenehal obstajati segment javne porabe, vendar so se kljub temu ohranile stranke iz gospodinjstev in nekatere komercialne stranke – kot to dopušča Druga direktiva o električni energiji [15] – v okviru obveznosti zagotavljanja univerzalnih storitev.
Energy Act I required MVM to assess the country's total energy demand and to prepare, every two years, a National Power Plant Construction Plan (Országos Erőműépítési Terv).
Zakon o električni energiji I je zahteval, da MVM oceni celotno povpraševanje po električni energiji v državi in vsaki dve leti pripravi nacionalni načrt za gradnjo elektrarn (Országos Erőműépítési Terv).
This Plan had then to be submitted to and accepted by the Hungarian Government and the Parliament.
Načrt je bilo treba kasneje posredovati madžarski vladi in parlamentu, ki sta ga nato sprejela.
It appears from Energy Act I and from the submissions of the Hungarian government [16] that the most urgent objectives on the Hungarian energy market in the mid-1990s were security of supply at the lowest possible cost, modernisation of the infrastructure with particular regard to the prevailing standards of environmental protection, and the necessary restructuring of the power sector.
Iz Zakona o električni energiji I in ugotovitev madžarske vlade je razvidno [16], da so bili sredi devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja prednostni cilji na madžarskem trgu z električno energijo varnost dobave po najnižji možni ceni, modernizacija infrastrukture, zlasti glede prevladujočih standardov okoljevarstva, in potrebna rekonstrukcija energetskega sektorja.
With a view to achieving these general objectives, long-term power purchase agreements were proposed to foreign investors that would undertake to invest in the construction and modernisation of power plants in Hungary.
Z namenom doseganja omenjenih splošnih ciljev so bili tujim investitorjem predlagani dolgoročni sporazumi o nakupu, ki bi investitorje zavezali k naložbam v gradnjo in modernizacijo elektrarn na Madžarskem.
The PPAs were signed by the power generators on the one hand and by the company MVM on the other hand.
SNEE so na eni strani podpisali proizvajalci električne energije, na drugi strani pa podjetje MVM.
The PPAs
SNEE
The PPAs entered into between MVM and individual power plants [17] established a balanced production portfolio enabling MVM to meet its obligation of ensuring security of supply.
SNEE med MVM in posameznimi elektrarnami [17] so vzpostavili portfelj uravnotežene proizvodnje, ki je omogočal, da je MVM izpolnjeval svojo obveznost zagotavljanja varnosti dobave.
They allow MVM to satisfy both base load demand (with lignite-fired and nuclear power stations) and peak load demand (with gas-fired power plants).
MVM omogočajo, da zadosti tako povpraševanju po osnovni obremenitvi (elektrarne na lignit in jedrske elektrarne) kot tudi obremenitvi ob konični porabi (plinske elektrarne).
The PPAs require the power generators to duly maintain and operate their generation facilities.
SNEE od proizvajalcev električne energije zahtevajo, da ustrezno vzdržujejo in upravljajo svoje obrate.
They reserve all or the bulk of the power plants’ generation capacities (MW) for MVM.
Za MVM rezervirajo vse ali večino zmogljivosti proizvodnje elektrarne (MW).
This capacity allocation is independent of the actual use of the power plant.
Dodelitev zmogljivosti ni odvisna od dejanske porabe elektrarne.
Beyond the reserved capacities, the PPA requires MVM to purchase a specific minimum quantity of electricity (MWh) from each power plant.
Ko so rezervirane zmogljivosti presežene, SNEE zahteva od MVM, da od vsake izmed elektrarn kupi določene najmanjše količine električne energije (MWh).
Some PPAs include so-called ‘system services’ [18] in the case of power plants technically capable of providing them, which MVM provides to the system operator, MAVIR.
Nekateri SNEE vključujejo tako imenovane „sistemske storitve“ [18] v primeru, da imajo elektrarne tehnične zmogljivosti in jih lahko nudijo, MVM pa jih omogoča sistemskemu operaterju MAVIR.
The PPAs signed in 1995-1996 (seven of the ten PPAs under assessment) were awarded in view of the privatisation of the power plants.
SNEE, ki so bili podpisani v letih 1995–1996 (sedem od desetih SNEE v okviru presoje), so bili dodeljeni zaradi privatizacije elektrarn.
These PPAs followed a model agreement drafted by an international law firm at the Hungarian Government's request.
SNEE so bili osnovani po modelu sporazumov, ki ga je zasnovalo mednarodno pravno podjetje na zahtevo madžarske vlade.
There was no tendering procedure for the signature of these PPAs.
Za podpis omenjenih SNEE ni bilo razpisnega postopka.
There was, however, a tendering procedure for the privatisation of the power plants.
Razpisni postopek se je izvedel za privatizacijo elektrarn.
The PPAs (signed before privatisation) formed part of the privatisation package.
SNEE (podpisani pred privatizacijo) so bili del privatizacijskega svežnja.
Some of these agreements (mainly the Mátra, Tisza and Dunament agreements) were partially amended by the parties after privatisation.
Nekatere izmed omenjenih sporazumov (večinoma sporazumi Mátra, Tisza in Dunament) so podpisniki po privatizaciji delno spremenili.
The PPA of Csepel power plant was signed in 1997 and followed a somewhat different model.
SNEE elektrarne Csepel je bil podpisan leta 1997 in je sledil nekoliko drugačnemu modelu.
However, there was no tendering procedure in this case either and the signature of the PPA was similarly linked to the power plant's privatisation.
Kljub temu pa tudi v tem primeru ni bilo razpisnega postopka in podpis SNEE je bil na podoben način povezan s privatizacijo elektrarne.
The PPA of Ujpest power plant (one of the three plants of Budapest power plant) was signed with Budapest power plant in 1997, likewise without a specific tendering procedure.
SNEE elektrarne Ujpest (enega izmed treh obratov elektrarne Budapest) je bil podpisan leta 1997, prav tako brez posebnega razpisnega postopka.
Only the PPA of the Kispest plant (another – aging – plant of Budapest power plant which was essentially rebuilt at the time) was signed in 2001 as a result of an open tendering procedure.
Samo SNEE elektrarne Kispest (še en, zastarel, obrat elektrarne Budapest, ki je bil takrat temeljito preurejen) je bil podpisan leta 2001 kot posledica razpisnega postopka.
From 2000 to 2004, the capacities reserved by the PPAs covered approximately 80 % of total Hungarian electricity demand (MW).
Od leta 2000 do 2004 so zmogljivosti, rezervirane s SNEE, pokrivale približno 80 % celotnega madžarskega povpraševanja po električni energiji (MW).
From 2005 to the date of this Decision, the share has been around 60-70 %.
Od leta 2005 do datuma te odločbe je bil delež okoli 80–70 %.
It was expected that this would gradually decrease in the period between 2011 and 2024 [19].
Pričakovano je bilo, da se bo delež v obdobju med letoma 2011 in 2024 postopoma znižal [19].
Of the nearly twenty PPAs signed between 1995 and 2001, ten were still in force at the date of Hungary's accession to the EU (1 May 2004).
Od skoraj dvajset podpisanih SNEE med letoma 1995 in 2001 jih je bilo na dan pristopa Madžarske k EU (1. maja 2004) veljavnih še deset.
Although some PPAs (see recital 28 above) were ended by the parties in April 2008, this Decision covers these and assesses their State aid nature and compatibility with the common market in the period between 1 May 2004 and their end date (April 2008).
Čeprav so nekatere SNEE (glej uvodno izjavo 29) podpisniki zaključili pred aprilom 2008, jih ta odločba vključuje ter presoja njihovo naravo glede državne pomoči in skladnosti s skupnim trgom v obdobju med 1. majem 2004 in njihovim datumom izteka (april 2008).
The power plants under PPA and the duration of the PPAs
Elektrarne v okviru SNEE in trajanje SNEE
The power plants under PPA covered by this Decision are listed in the table below.
Elektrarne v okviru SNEE, ki jih vključuje ta odločba, so navedene na spodnjem seznamu.
The duration shown refers to the initially scheduled end date of the PPAs as established in the PPAs themselves.
Navedeno trajanje se nanaša na prvotno načrtovani datum prenehanja veljavnosti SNEE, kot je bil določen v samih SNEE.
Overview of the generation companies under PPA, the main shareholders and the duration of the PPAs
Pregled podjetij proizvajalcev v okviru SNEE, večinskih delničarjev in trajanje SNEE
Name of generation company
Naziv podjetja proizvajalca
Majority shareholder group
Skupina večinskih delničarjev
Power plant under PPA
Elektrarna v okviru SNEE
Duration of PPA
Trajanje SNEE
Dunament F blocks
Bloki F elektrarne Dunament
(signed in 1995, entered into force in 1996)
(podpisan leta 1995, začel veljati leta 1996)
Dunament G2 block
Blok G2 elektrarne Dunament
(initial duration until 2015, extended to 2022 in 2005)
(začetno trajanje do leta 2015, leta 2005 podaljšan do leta 2022)
(signed in 1997, entered into force in 2000)
(podpisan leta 1997, začel veljati leta 2000)
1995-2017 [20](signed in 1995, entered into force in 1996)
1995–2017 [20](podpisan leta 1995, začel veljati leta 1996)