natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Given that an appeal has been lodged against the Judgment (Case C 194/09), the Commission is of the view that there is reason here to conduct a thorough analysis of the issue in the light of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which identifies all the categories of existing aid.
Ker je bila zoper sodbo (zadeva C 194/09) vložena pritožba, Komisija meni, da obstaja razlog za natančno analizo vprašanja ob upoštevanju člena 1(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, ki določa vse vrste obstoječe pomoči.
It is undisputed that the challenged measure was not put into effect before Italy’s accession to the EU (paragraph (i) of said Article), is not deemed to have been authorised due to the Commission’s failure to take a decision within the prescribed procedural deadlines (paragraph (iii)) and cannot be considered existing aid because of the expiry of the limitation period (paragraph (iv)) [91].
Nesporno je, da izpodbijani ukrep ni začel veljati pred pristopom Italije k EU (odstavek (i) navedenega člena), se ne šteje za odobrenega, ker Komisija ni sprejela sklepa v predpisanih postopkovnih rokih (odstavek (iii)), in se ne more šteti za obstoječo pomoč zaradi izteka zastaralnega roka (odstavek (iv)) [91].
Article 1(b)(v), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 states that ‘where certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by Community law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation’.
V drugem stavku člena 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 je navedeno: „Če nekateri ukrepi postanejo pomoč zaradi liberalizacije dejavnosti s pravnimi predpisi Skupnosti, se takšni ukrepi ne štejejo kot veljavna pomoč po datumu, določenem za liberalizacijo“.
In the opening decisions the Commission does not rely on this provision to conclude that the Alcoa tariff constitutes new aid.
Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka ne navaja te določbe, da bi sklenila, da cena za družbo Alcoa pomeni novo pomoč.
The Commission shares Alcoa’s view [92].
Komisija se strinja z mnenjem družbe Alcoa [92].
The tariff did not become State aid as a result of the opening up of the electricity sector to competition, since the appropriate reference framework for the appraisal of aid to Alcoa is not the electricity market (on which Alcoa is not active) but the market for primary aluminium.
Cena ni postala državna pomoč zaradi odprtja sektorja električne energije konkurenci, ker ustrezni referenčni okvir za oceno pomoči družbi Alcoa ni trg z električno energijo (na katerem družba Alcoa ni dejavna), ampak trg primarnega aluminija.
There is, moreover, no causal link between the liberalisation of the electricity sector and the decision to finance the tariff through a mandatory contribution.
Poleg tega ni vzročne povezave med liberalizacijo sektorja električne energije in odločitvijo o financiranju cene z obveznim prispevkom.
The Commission has therefore examined whether Article 1(b)(v), first sentence of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 could be applicable to the case at hand.
Komisija je zato preučila, ali bi se lahko prvi stavek člena 1(b)(v) Uredbe 659/1999 uporabil v zadevnem primeru.
This provision confers existing aid status on measures which have become aid ‘due to the evolution of the common market, and without having been altered by the Member State’.
Ta določba podeljuje status obstoječe pomoči ukrepom, ki postanejo pomoč „zaradi razvoja skupnega trga in [jih] država članica ni spremenila“.
The Commission could not identify any evolution of the common market corresponding to the definition given by the Court [93], i.e. ‘a change in the economic and legal framework of the sector concerned by the measure in question’ which might have caused the tariff to become aid.
Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti razvoja skupnega trga, ki bi ustrezal opredelitvi Sodišča9, tj. „spremembi gospodarskega in pravnega okvira v sektorju, na katerega se nanaša zadevni ukrep“, kar bi lahko bilo razlog, da cena postane pomoč [93].
Alcoa itself has failed to identify such change and prove the existence of a causal link with the change in nature of the tariff.
Družba Alcoa ni opredelila takšne spremembe in dokazala obstoja vzročne povezave s spremembo vrste cene.
Moreover, even assuming that an evolution of the common market had occurred — which is denied — it would not be relevant to the assessment of the measure at issue: the existing aid status conferred by a hypothetical evolution of the common market could not last beyond the introduction, by the Member State, of a subsequent substantive alteration of the measure (a financing mechanism based on State resources), in the light among other things of the second criterion of Article 1(b)(v), first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Tudi če bi se skupni trg razvil, kar se zanika, to ne bi bilo pomembno za oceno zadevnega ukrepa: status obstoječe pomoči, ki bi se podelil zaradi hipotetičnega razvoja skupnega trga, ne bi mogel veljati po uvedbi naknadne vsebinske spremembe ukrepa s strani države članice (mehanizem financiranja na podlagi državnih sredstev), med drugim ob upoštevanju drugega merila iz prvega stavka člena 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Since the period under consideration in the present proceedings is subsequent to that alteration, the evolution of the common market cannot play a role in the assessment.
Ker se je obravnavano obdobje v sedanjem postopku začelo po tej spremembi, razvoj skupnega trga ne more biti pomemben za oceno.
An evolution factor coming into play after the introduction of the new financing mechanism would be equally irrelevant, because the measure would already have constituted State aid at the time the evolution took place.
Dejavnik razvoja, ki postane pomemben po uvedbi novega mehanizma financiranja, bi bil prav tako nepomemben, ker bi ukrep v času razvoja že pomenil državno pomoč.
Therefore, Alcoa’s claim can be dismissed.
Zato je mogoče zavrniti navedbe družbe Alcoa.
Lastly, the Commission has examined whether the Alcoa tariff could be considered existing aid on the basis of Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 concerning ‘authorised aid, that is aid schemes and individual aid which have been authorised by the Commission or the Council’.
Komisija je preučila tudi, ali bi se lahko cena za družbo Alcoa štela za obstoječo pomoč na podlagi člena 1(b)(ii) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, ki zadeva „odobreno pomoč, to je sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki sta jo odobrila Komisija ali Svet“.
Alcoa and Italy’s arguments hinge on the unlimited validity of the Alumix approval decision, making the Alcoa tariff existing aid on the basis of the above provision.
Trditve družbe Alcoa in Italije temeljijo na neomejeni veljavnosti odločbe o odobritvi Alumix, ki ceno za družbo Alcoa opredeljuje kot obstoječo pomoč na podlagi zgoraj navedene določbe.
Alcoa and Italy submit that the Alumix decision was not limited in time (see above recitals 93 and 119).
Družba Alcoa in Italija menita, da je bila odločba Alumix časovno neomejena (glej uvodni izjavi 93 in 119 zgoraj).
In the Alumix decision the Commission is said to have found — indefinitely — that the Alcoa tariff was not an aid. measure Moreover, they say the extension of an existing aid measure would constitute new aid, but there is no new aid where the measure extended had been held not to constitute aid.
V odločbi Alumix naj bi Komisija ugotovila, da cena za družbo Alcoa nikoli ni bila ukrep pomoči. Poleg tega Komisija meni, da bi podaljšanje obstoječega ukrepa pomoči pomenilo novo pomoč, vendar ne pomeni nove pomoči, kadar je bilo ugotovljeno, da podaljšani ukrep ne pomeni pomoči.
Therefore, if the Commission now changes its appraisal and finds the measure to be State aid, the tariff enjoyed by Alcoa until now should at any rate be considered existing aid, or entitled to treatment as existing aid, on the basis of the Belgian Coordination Centres case-law [94] and recovery should be precluded (see recital 94 above).
Če torej Komisija zdaj spremeni svojo oceno in ugotovi, da je ukrep državna pomoč, mora ceno, do katere je bila do zdaj upravičena družba Alcoa, v vsakem primeru šteti za obstoječo pomoč ali mora biti cena upravičena do obravnave kot obstoječa pomoč na podlagi sodne prakse belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje [94], pri čemer mora biti vračilo izključeno (glej uvodno izjavo 94 zgoraj).
Temporal scope of the Alumix decision
Časovni okvir odločbe Alumix
A Commission decision finding that a certain measure does not constitute State aid is by its nature subject to temporal limitation when the finding that there is no aid is based on the market economy operator test, and involves taking a prospective view of market conditions, which can only properly be assessed over a limited period of time [95].
Odločba Komisije, v kateri je bilo ugotovljeno, da določen ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči, je v osnovi predmet časovne omejitve, če ugotovitev, da pomoči ni, temelji na preskusu nosilcev dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu in vključuje izražanje morebitnega stališča do tržnih pogojev, ki jih je mogoče ustrezno oceniti le v omejenem časovnem obdobju [95].
The fact that there is this temporal limitation does not mean that the Commission considers that the measure will necessarily become State aid after the expiry of the period set by the decision.
Obstoj časovne omejitve ne pomeni, da Komisija meni, da bo ukrep v vsakem primeru postal državna pomoč po koncu obdobja, ki ga določa odločba.
Italy’s claim that the Alumix decision was intentionally unlimited in time in recognition of the need for a long-term measure (see recital 119) must also be dismissed.
Zavrniti je treba tudi navedbe Italije, da je bila odločba Alumix namerno časovno neomejena zaradi upoštevanja potrebe po dolgoročnem ukrepu (glej uvodno izjavo 119).
The paragraph in the Alumix decision relied upon by Italy (‘the restructuring and the restoration of Alumix’s operations to viability ensures that the development of those areas is not short-lived but rather a long-term one’) does not refer to the tariffs which were found not to constitute aid, but to other restructuring aid measures for Alumix.
Odstavek iz odločbe Alumix, na katerega se sklicuje Italija („s prestrukturiranjem in ponovno vzpostavitvijo sposobnosti preživetja dejavnosti družbe Alumix se zagotavlja dolgoročen in ne kratkoročen razvoj zadevnih območij“), ne navaja cen, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da ne pomenijo pomoči, ampak druge ukrepe pomoči za prestrukturiranje za družbo Alumix.
Moreover, the paragraph in question merely states that the continued presence of Alumix will contribute to the long-term development of the areas, and cannot be construed in the way suggested by Italy.
Poleg tega je v zadevnem odstavku navedeno le, da bo nadaljnja prisotnost družbe Alumix prispevala k dolgoročnemu razvoju zadevnih območij, in ga ni mogoče razumeti, kot predlaga Italija.
To conclude, given that the validity of the Alumix decision was limited to 31 December 2005, the tariff applied from 1 January 2006 pursuant to Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005 constitutes new aid owing to the change in the duration of the measure, in line with the judgment in Diputación Foral de Álava [97].
Ker je bila veljavnost odločbe Alumix omejena do 31. decembra 2005, je mogoče ugotoviti, da cena, ki velja od 1. januarja 2006 v skladu s členom 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005, pomeni novo pomoč zaradi spremembe obdobja veljavnosti ukrepa v skladu s sodbo v zadevi Diputación Foral de Álava [97].
Change in circumstances affecting the validity of the Alumix decision
Sprememba okoliščin, ki vplivajo na veljavnost odločbe Alumix
The Commission has examined Alcoa’s argument that there never was a ‘change in circumstances’ that might have put an end to the effectiveness of the Alumix decision, since neither the liberalisation of the market nor the role entrusted to the Equalisation Fund affected the price paid by Alcoa.
Komisija je preučila trditev družbe Alcoa, da nikoli ni bilo „spremembe okoliščin“, zaradi katere bi lahko prenehala veljavnost odločbe Alumix, ker na ceno, ki jo je plačala družba Alcoa, nista vplivali niti liberalizacija trga niti vloga izravnalnega sklada.
That price remained in line with the Alumix criteria, so that the Commission’s finding that there was no aid remains fully valid (see recital 93).
Ta cena je ostala v skladu z merili iz odločbe Alumix, zato ostaja ugotovitev Komisije, da ni bilo pomoči, v celoti veljavna (glej uvodno izjavo 93).
An examination of the facts shows, however, that the tariff arrangement which the Commission had cleared in Alumix underwent a fundamental change, which Alcoa tries to dismiss as a mere administrative detail, that is, the shift from a tariff granted by an electricity supplier on market terms to one that remains so in name only and is subsidised by the State.
Na podlagi preučitve dejstev se je kljub temu pokazalo, da je bil dogovor o ceni, ki ga je Komisija razjasnila v odločbi Alumix, bistveno spremenjen, kar poskuša družba Alcoa zavrniti kot zgolj upravno podrobnost, tj. prehod s cene, ki jo je odobril dobavitelj električne energije pod tržnimi pogoji, na ceno, ki je to le še po imenu in jo subvencionira država.
It is difficult to view this change as being of a ‘purely formal nature’ and ‘not altering the substance of the approved tariffs’, since the new financing mechanism altered the very economic conditions on which the Alumix decision was based.
To spremembo je težko obravnavati kot zgolj „formalno spremembo“, ki „ne spreminja bistva odobrenih cen“, ker je nov mehanizem financiranja spremenil same gospodarske pogoje, na katerih je temeljila odločba Alumix.
It will suffice to recall that, in Alumix, the focus of the assessment was the behaviour of the electricity supplier, ENEL.
Dovolj je navesti, da se je ocena v odločbi Alumix osredotočila na ravnanje dobavitelja električne energije ENEL.
The preferential price did not provide an advantage to Alcoa because the Commission considered, on the basis of the market economy operator test, that it was rational for ENEL to sell electricity at the price in question.
Ugodnejša cena ni zagotovila prednosti družbi Alcoa, ker je Komisija na podlagi preskusa nosilcev dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu menila, da je bila prodaja električne energije družbe ENEL po zadevni ceni razumna.
However, the market economy operator test becomes meaningless in a situation where the tariff is no longer willingly offered by ENEL (which receives the ordinary price) but is the result of a compensation payment made by the State.
Vendar preskus nosilcev dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu ni smiseln, če ENEL (ki prejme običajno ceno) ne zagotavlja več cene prostovoljno, ampak je cena rezultat nadomestila, ki ga plača država.
In the new arrangement the conduct of the electricity supplier is no longer an issue.
V novem dogovoru ravnanje dobavitelja električne energije ni več pomembno.
Moreover, the introduction on 1 January 2006 of an indexation mechanism with a 4 % cap in the yearly increase of the Alcoa price (see recital 49) constitutes an additional substantive alteration of the original tariff arrangement, and one that can hardly be taken as in conformity with the market, considering that as of 2005 onwards electricity prices on wholesale markets were constantly increasing.
Poleg tega pomeni uvedba mehanizma za indeksacijo z omejitvijo letnega povečanja cene za družbo Alcoa na 4 % (glej uvodno izjavo 49) z dne 1. januarja 2006 dodatno vsebinsko spremembo prvotnega dogovora o ceni, ki ga je težko upoštevati kot skladnega s trgom, če se upošteva, da so se od leta 2005 cene električne energije na veleprodajnih trgih stalno povečevale.
Contrary to what Alcoa maintains, the fact that the price paid by Alcoa under the new arrangement until the end of 2005 is identical to the price that was held not to constitute aid in the Alumix decision cannot justify the conclusion that the measure has not been significantly amended, if the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Italy and Sardegna Lines v. Commission is to be followed [98].
V nasprotju z mnenjem družbe Alcoa dejstvo, da je cena, ki jo je družba Alcoa plačevala na podlagi novega dogovora do konca leta 2005, enaka ceni, za katero je bilo v odločbi Alumix ugotovljeno, da ne pomeni pomoči, ne more utemeljiti sklepa, da ukrep ni bil bistveno spremenjen, če se upošteva mnenje generalnega pravobranilca Fennellyja v zadevi Italija in Sardegna Lines proti Komisiji [98].
In assessing what constitutes a substantive change to an aid measure, Advocate General Fennelly stated that ‘the introduction of a wholly new method of providing effectively the same level of aid manifestly constituted a significant amendment of the original regime’.
Generalni pravobranilec Fennelly je pri oceni, kaj je vsebinska sprememba ukrepa pomoči, navedel, da „je uvedba popolnoma nove metode za zagotavljanje dejansko enakega obsega pomoči bistveno spremenila prvotno ureditev“.
The tariff at issue is, thus, completely different from the scheme assessed in the Alumix decision.
Zadevna cena se zato v celoti razlikuje od sheme, ocenjene v odločbi Alumix.
The Alumix findings are therefore irrelevant to the present case, and would remain irrelevant even if it were to be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Alumix decision was not limited in time.
Ugotovitve iz odločbe Alumix zato niso pomembne za obravnavano zadevo in bi bile nepomembne tudi ob teoretični domnevi, da je odločba Alumix časovno neomejena.
For similar reasons, the Belgian Coordination Centres judgment, relied upon by Alcoa, is not a valid basis on which to request the application of the same procedural safeguards that would apply to existing aid.
Iz podobnih razlogov sodba v zadevi belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje, na katero se sklicuje družba Alcoa, ni veljavna podlaga, na kateri bi se lahko zahtevala uporaba enakih postopkovnih zaščitnih ukrepov, kot se uporabljajo za obstoječo pomoč.
That judgment refers to cases in which the Commission changes its appraisal of a scheme which had previously been found not to constitute aid.
Ta sodba navaja zadeve, v katerih Komisija spreminja oceno sheme, za katero je bilo predhodno ugotovljeno, da ne pomeni pomoči.
In paragraph 77, the Court established the principle that, in such cases, the Commission must follow the procedure for the monitoring of existing aid.
Sodišče je v točki 77 uveljavljalo načelo, da mora Komisija v takšnih primerih upoštevati postopek za spremljanje obstoječe pomoči.
However, this principle can apply only if the regime has not been materially altered.
Vendar se lahko to načelo uporabi le, če ureditev ni bila bistveno spremenjena.
In the present case, the Alcoa tariff arrangement has been materially altered by the Member State, as shown in recitals 205 to 208.
V obravnavani zadevi je država članica bistveno spremenila dogovor o ceni za družbo Alcoa, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 205 do 208.
Therefore, in the present instance, the Commission is not departing from its previous assessment of the same measure, but is rather assessing a new and different measure.
Zato se v tem primeru Komisija ne oddaljuje od svoje prejšnje ocene istega ukrepa, ampak ocenjuje nov in drugačen ukrep.
The changes described cannot be severed from the initial scheme, since they affect the actual substance of the mechanism, and the tariff in dispute therefore constitutes aid in its entirety, in line with the Gibraltar judgment [99].
Navedenih sprememb ni mogoče ločiti od prvotne sheme, ker vplivajo na dejansko vsebino mehanizma, zadevna cena pa zato v skladu s sodbo v zadevi Gibraltar [99] pomeni pomoč v celoti.
Conclusions on the definition of the tariff as new aid
Sklepne ugotovitve v zvezi z opredelitvijo cene kot nova pomoč
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the prolongation of the Alcoa tariff at issue constitutes new aid as from 1 January 2006, the date when Law No 80/2005 took effect.
Komisija ob upoštevanju navedenega meni, da podaljšanje zadevne cene za družbo Alcoa pomeni novo pomoč od 1. januarja 2006, tj. datuma začetka veljavnosti zakona št. 80/2005.
Pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, Member States must notify any plans to grant or alter aid, and may not put the proposed measures into effect until the notification procedure has resulted in a final decision.
Država članica mora v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES priglasiti vse načrte za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči, pri čemer predlaganih ukrepov ne sme izvajati, dokler v postopku priglasitve ni sprejet z dokončen sklep.
Since Italy failed to notify Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005, the aid is unlawful.
Ker Italija ni priglasila člena 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005, je pomoč nezakonita.
In derogation from the general prohibition on State aid laid down in Article 87(1) of the EC treaty, aid may be declared compatible if it qualifies for one of the exceptions enumerated in the Treaty.
Z odstopanjem od splošne prepovedi državne pomoči iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES se lahko pomoč razglasi za združljivo, če izpolnjuje pogoje za uporabo ene od izjem iz Pogodbe.
The State aid granted to Alcoa pursuant to Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005 can be classified as operating aid, which, in principle, is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, odobrena družbi Alcoa v skladu s členom 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005, se lahko šteje za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki načeloma ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
In Case 86/89 Italy v Commission, the Court of Justice found that ‘the aid in question, which was granted without any specific conditions and solely according to the quantities used, should be regarded as an operating aid to the undertakings concerned and that, as such, it affected trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’ [100].
Sodišče je v zadevi 86/89, Italija proti Komisiji, ugotovilo, da „je treba zadevno pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena brez posebnih pogojev in le v zvezi z uporabljenimi količinami, obravnavati kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za zadevna podjetja, ter je kot taka vplivala na pogoje trgovanja v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom“ [100].
In the Siemens v Commission case [101] as well, the Court of First Instance recalled the principle that ‘operating aid, that is to say, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities, does not in principle fall within the scope of Article 92(3) [now Article 87(3)]… According to the relevant case-law, the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sectors in which it is granted, while nevertheless being incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives of the aforesaid exceptions’.
Sodišče prve stopnje je tudi v zadevi Siemens proti Komisiji opozorilo na načelo, da „pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, tj. pomoč, ki je namenjena zmanjšanju stroškov podjetja, ki bi jih to običajno moralo nositi v okviru tekočega poslovanja oziroma običajnih dejavnosti, načeloma ne spada v področje uporabe člena 92(3) [zdaj člen 87(3)] […] Glede na ustrezno sodno prakso takšna pomoč načeloma izkrivlja konkurenco v sektorjih, v katerih je dodeljena, pri čemer zaradi svoje narave ne more izpolniti nobenega cilja, določenega z zgoraj navedenimi določbami o odstopanjih“ [101].
Nevertheless, there are clearly defined situations in which operating aid may be granted.
Kljub temu obstajajo jasno opredeljene okoliščine, v katerih se lahko dodeli pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
In particular, operating aid for environmental purposes may be granted under the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [102].
Zlasti pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za okoljske namene se lahko dodeli v skladu s smernicami Komisije o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja [102].
Operating aid can also be authorised on an exceptional basis as regional aid in assisted areas.
Pomoč za tekoče poslovanje se lahko izjemoma odobri tudi kot regionalna pomoč za območja, ki prejemajo pomoč.
The Commission has assessed whether the Alcoa tariff might correspond to one of these categories.
Komisija je ocenila, ali cena za družbo Alcoa morda ustreza kateri od navedenih kategorij.