natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Mining Association goes on to argue that the principle of legal certainty and acquired rights are also enshrined in the Hungarian Constitution and it concludes that on the basis of EU law and constitutional principles legislation must be predictable.
Rudarsko združenje trdi, da sta načeli pravne gotovosti in pridobljenih pravic prav tako vključeni v madžarsko ustavo, ter sklepa, da mora biti na podlagi prava EU in ustavnih načel zakonodaja predvidljiva.
The Mining Association finally adds that the principle of the protection of acquired rights derives from the principle of legal certainty.
Rudarsko združenje nazadnje dodaja, da izhaja načelo zaščite pridobljenih pravic iz načela pravne gotovosti.
This principle of the protection of acquired rights has been respected in the course of national and international legislative procedures governing mining rights.
To načelo pridobljenih pravic se je upoštevalo v nacionalnih in mednarodnih zakonodajnih postopkih, ki urejajo zaščito rudarskih pravic.
Other EU Member States also have stable mining legislation which does not change frequently.
Druge države članice EU imajo prav tako stabilno rudarsko zakonodajo, ki se ne spreminja pogosto.
EXISTENCE OF AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) OF THE TFEU
OBSTOJ POMOČI V SMISLU ČLENA 107(1) PDEU
In order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes state aid, the Commission has to assess whether the contested measure fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Da se prepriča, ali pomeni ukrep državno pomoč, mora Komisija oceniti, ali izpodbijani ukrep izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 107(1) PDEU.
To begin with, it must be recalled that a measure can constitute state aid within the meaning of 107(1) TFEU regardless of its legal form.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da lahko ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ne glede na njegovo pravno obliko.
Even if the extension agreement was concluded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Mining Act and even if it is up to Hungary to set the mining fee by law, this does not in itself mean that these actions, or their effects, are compatible with EU state aid rules.
Čeprav bi bila pogodba o podaljšanju sklenjena v skladu z ustreznimi določbami Zakona o rudarstvu in čeprav bi lahko Madžarska zakonsko določila rudarsko pristojbino, to samo po sebi ne pomeni, da so ti ukrepi ali njihovi učinki v skladu s pravili EU o državni pomoči.
The fact that a measure is compatible with national law does not have a bearing on its compatibility with the state aid rules of the TFEU.
Dejstvo, da je ukrep skladen z nacionalno zakonodajo, ne vpliva na skladnost s pravili PDEU o državni pomoči.
Moreover, as already set out in the opening decision, the Commission does not consider that any of the elements of the case in isolation, i.e. the relevant provisions of the Mining Act, the extension agreement and the amendment of the Mining Act, are contrary to state aid rules.
Kot določa odločitev o začetku postopka, Komisija poleg tega meni, da noben element ločenega primera, npr. ustrezne določbe Zakona o rudarstvu, pogodba o podaljšanju in sprememba Zakona o rudarstvu, ni v nasprotju s pravili o državni pomoči.
Instead, in the present case the Commission regards the entire sequence of the State’s actions as ‘the measure’ and assesses the effect of the extension agreement in combination with the subsequent amendments to the Mining Act.
Komisija v tem primeru obravnava celotno zaporedje državnih ukrepov kot „ukrep“ in ocenjuje učinek pogodbe o podaljšanju v kombinaciji s poznejšimi spremembami Zakona o rudarstvu.
As regards Hungary’s arguments that the mining fee is not a tax, but the State’s share, the Commission notes that this argument is irrelevant from the point of view of state aid assessment.
V zvezi s trditvami Madžarske, da rudarska pristojbina ni davek, ampak državni delež, Komisija ugotavlja, da ta trditev s stališča ocene državne pomoči ni pomembna.
State aid rules are applicable to all kinds of costs which have to be borne by undertakings and from which they are exempted through a state measure.
Pravila o državni pomoči veljajo za vse vrste stroškov, ki jih morajo kriti podjetja in iz katerih so izvzeta na podlagi ukrepa državne pomoči.
In any event, it has to be noted that administrative authorisation of exploitation of mineral and hydrocarbon resources appears to be a typical role of a public authority; payments for such authorisation are comparable to a tax or administrative fee.
V vsakem primeru je treba opozoriti, da naj bi bila upravna odobritev izkoriščanja mineralnih in ogljikovodikovih virov značilna naloga javnega organa; plačila za takšno odobritev so primerljiva s plačilom davka ali upravne takse.
Finally, with regard to the termination clause, the Commission considers that this is not a state aid issue.
Nazadnje, Komisija v zvezi s klavzulo o prenehanju pogodbe meni, da to ni vprašanje državne pomoči.
The fact that the agreement states that the contract ends if a third party acquires more than 25 % of MOL is a measure which does not involve state resources.
Dejstvo, da pogodba navaja prekinitev, če tretja stranka pridobi več kot 25-odstotni delež družbe MOL, je ukrep, ki ne vključuje državnih sredstev.
To be considered state aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Da bi se ukrep štel za državno pomoč, mora biti specifičen ali selektiven, tako da daje prednost le nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice [37], as regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity, which is a constituent factor in the concept of state aid, Article 107(1) TFEU requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a state measure is such as to ‘favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije [37] in kar zadeva oceno stanja selektivnosti, ki je sestavni dejavnik v konceptu državne pomoči, se na podlagi člena 107(1) PDEU zahteva ocena, ali je v skladu s posamezno predpisano shemo državni ukrep takšen, „da daje prednost le nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga“ v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, ki ga je mogoče primerjati ob upoštevanju cilja zadevnega ukrepa.
The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 107(1) TFEU does not distinguish between the causes or the objectives of state aid, but defines them in relation to their effects [38].
Sodišče je poleg tega večkrat odločilo, da člen 107(1) PDEU ne razlikuje vzrokov ali ciljev državne pomoči, ampak jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke [38].
The concept of state aid does not apply, however, to state measures which differentiate between undertakings where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of which they form part.
Vendar se pojem državne pomoči ne uporablja za državne ukrepe, ki razlikujejo med podjetji, kadar ta razlika nastane zaradi narave ali splošne strukture sistema, katerega del so.
The Commission disagrees with the Hungarian authorities’ and interested parties’ argumentation on the absence of selectivity.
Komisija se ne strinja s trditvijo madžarskih organov in zainteresiranih strani glede pomanjkanja selektivnosti.
In order to determine whether a measure is selective, the applicable system of reference must be defined [39].
Za odločitev, ali je ukrep selektiven, je treba opredeliti veljavni referenčni sistem [39].
In the case at issue the Commission considers that the applicable system of reference for the assessment is the authorisation regime.
V zadevnem primeru Komisija meni, da je veljavni referenčni sistem za presojo režim podelitev.
MOL did not have to enter into competitive bidding for the right to obtain a concession in a closed area.
Družbi MOL ni bilo treba sodelovati na konkurenčnem razpisu, da bi pridobila pravico za koncesijo na zaprtem območju.
Instead, it obtained the mining right for its fields under the authorisation regime and competes with market participants under this regime.
Namesto tega je pridobila rudarsko pravico za svoja polja, za katera velja režim podelitev, in je konkurenčna udeležencem na trgu, ki delujejo v skladu s tem režimom.
The extension agreement forms part of the authorisation regime.
Pogodba o podaljšanju je del režima podelitev.
The mere fact that MOL was not able to commence extraction within the stipulated deadline and needed to request an extension agreement cannot result in a change of the system of reference.
Zaradi samega dejstva, da družba MOL ni mogla začeti s črpanjem v določenem roku in je morala prositi za pogodbo o podaljšanju, se referenčni sistem ne more spremeniti.
Accepting such an argument would lead to a situation where individual treatment is given to one company, as is the case under the concession regime, but without a competitive public tender.
Potrditev takega argumenta bi povzročila položaj, v katerem se posamezna obravnava nameni eni družbi, kot to velja v skladu z režimom koncesij, vendar brez konkurenčnega javnega razpisa.
In fact, it is a discretionary decision by the Hungarian authorities to determine whether the field is under concession or authorisation.
Dejansko gre za diskrecijsko odločitev madžarskih organov, da bi ugotovili, ali za polje velja koncesija ali podelitev.
Thus, if the Hungarian authorities wish to award mining rights on a contractual basis they can opt for a transparent concession procedure which includes an open tendering process.
Če torej želijo madžarski organi podeliti rudarsko pravico na podlagi pogodbe, se lahko odločijo za pregleden koncesijski postopek, ki vključuje odprt razpisni postopek.
The Commission cannot accept that an opaque so-called ‘quasi-concession’, which currently applies only to one company (MOL), could be regarded as a separate system of reference.
Komisija ne more sprejeti, da se lahko nejasna, tako imenovana koncesiji podobna rešitev, ki trenutno velja za eno družbo (MOL), obravnava kot ločeni referenčni sistem.
Moreover, Hungary had a wide margin of discretion for extending the authorisation, as well as for subsequently amending the relevant provisions of the Mining Act (despite knowing the advantageous effects this would have on MOL, this company being the sole market player for hydrocarbons to have concluded an extension agreement).
Poleg tega je Madžarska imela širok manevrski prostor pri presoji glede podaljšanja podeljene pravice in tudi pri poznejši spremembi ustreznih določb Zakona o rudarstvu (kljub zavedanju, da bo to imelo koristne učinke za družbo MOL, je ta družba edina akterka na trgu za ogljikovodik, ki je sklenila pogodbo o podaljšanju).
Hungary was free to determine the mining fee at any time, i.e. it could have decided not to amend the Mining Act at all.
Madžarska je lahko kadar koli prosto določila rudarsko pristojbino, kar pomeni, da bi se lahko odločila, da Zakona o rudarstvu sploh ne spremeni.
From the point of view of its effects, the sequence of acts unequivocally favoured one particular undertaking.
S stališča učinkov je zaporedje dejanj nedvoumno dajalo prednost enemu podjetju.
In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the system of reference is the authorisation regime.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da je referenčni sistem režim podelitev.
In the framework of the authorisation regime, the extension agreement is clearly selective.
V okviru režima podelitev je pogodba o podaljšanju brez dvoma selektivna.
Indeed, as the Hungarian authorities themselves confirm, the parties, when negotiating the terms of this agreement, have a certain margin of manoeuvre to stipulate the different payment components and, more importantly, may even decide not to conclude the agreement at all.
Kot madžarski organi sami potrjujejo, imajo stranke pri pogajanju o pogojih pogodbe določen manevrski prostor za določitev različnih elementov plačila in, kar je pomembneje, lahko se odločijo, da pogodbe sploh ne sklenejo.
Thus, the Hungarian authorities had the discretion to conclude such an agreement with MOL (or with any other market participant) [40].
Tako so madžarski organi imeli diskrecijsko pravico, da tako pogodbo sklenejo z družbo MOL (ali s katerim koli udeležencem na trgu) [40].
Such treatment cannot be explained through the logic and nature of the system.
Takšne obravnave ni mogoče pojasniti na podlagi logike in narave sistema.
On the one hand, mining fees are imposed to ensure revenue for the State on the extracted value.
Na eni strani se rudarske pravice uvedejo za zagotovitev prihodka države na podlagi vrednosti načrpane količine.
On the other hand, the payment components under the extension agreement are paid in exchange for the extension as an extra charge.
Na drugi strani se elementi plačila v okviru pogodbe o podaljšanju v zameno za podaljšanje plačajo kot dodatna taksa.
In the present case, however, the conclusion of the extension agreement and the subsequent increase in the fees for MOL led to the paradoxical situation that MOL, having failed to commence production on time, benefits from lower mining fees until 2020 for practically all of its fields under authorisation; whereas its competitors, who are equally subject to the authorisation regime and who started production on time and therefore have not concluded an extension agreement, have to pay higher statutory fees.
V tem primeru se je družba MOL zaradi sklenitve pogodbe o podaljšanju in posledičnega povišanja pristojbin znašla v paradoksnem položaju, pri čemer bo zaradi zamude pri začetku izkoriščanja polj do leta 2020 plačevala nižje rudarske pristojbine za skoraj vsa svoja polja v okviru podelitev; medtem ko morajo konkurenčne družbe, za katere prav tako velja režim podelitev in ki so pravočasno začele izkoriščati polja ter zato niso sklenile pogodbe o podaljšanju, plačevati višje zakonsko določene pristojbine.
This was the only extension agreement concluded for hydrocarbons.
To je bila edina pogodba o podaljšanju za ogljikovodike.
MOL noted that there are other extension agreements in force for solid minerals.
Družba MOL ugotavlja, da obstajajo za trdne minerale še druge veljavne pogodbe o podaljšanju.
The Commission observes, however that this concerns other types of minerals which are subject to a different mining fee under the Mining Act than hydrocarbons.
Komisija kljub temu ugotavlja, da to zadeva druge vrste mineralov, za katere velja v skladu z Zakonom o rudarstvu drugačna rudarska pristojbina kot za ogljikovodike.
It also has to be noted that for solid minerals there was no change in the mining fee introduced by the amendment to the Mining Act, (i.e. the market players having concluded such an agreement have not been affected by the same ‘sequence of measures’ and therefore no advantage has accrued to them).
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da se za trdne minerale rudarska pristojbina, uvedena s spremembo Zakona o rudarstvu (za udeležence na trgu, ki so sklenili takšno pogodbo, ni veljajo enako „zaporedje ukrepov“ in zato niso imeli nobene prednosti), ni spremenila.
On the basis of the foregoing, despite the arguments put forward by Hungary, the Commission considers that the sequence of actions, i.e. the way Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act is worded, the extension agreement concluded on its basis, and the subsequent amendment to the Mining Act, was selective in favour of MOL.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega in kljub trditvam, ki jih je predložila Madžarska, meni, da so bili zaporedje ukrepov, tj. besedilo oddelka 26/A(5) Zakona o rudarstvu, pogodba o podaljšanju, sklenjena na tej podlagi, in poznejša sprememba Zakona o rudarstvu selektivni v korist družbe MOL.
The combined effects of the sequence of measures is that, among holders of mining authorisations granted under Section 5 of the Mining Act, only MOL was subject to a specific regime which shielded it against any increase in the mining fee normally due for hydrocarbons extraction.
Kombinirani učinki zaporedja ukrepov so takšni, da je med imetniki dovoljenj za rudarjenje, podeljenimi v skladu z oddelkom 5 Zakona o rudarjenju, poseben režim veljal le za družbo MOL, na podlagi katerega je bila zavarovana pred vsakim povišanjem rudarske pristojbine, ki običajno velja za črpanje ogljikovodikov.
In conclusion, due to the wide discretion in the granting of an extension agreement and in view of the fact that, actually, the exemption is directed to one individual company, the selectivity criterion is met.
Nazadnje, zaradi splošne diskrecijske pravice pri priznavanju pogodbe o podaljšanju in glede na dejstvo, da je izvzetje dejansko namenjeno eni sami družbi, je merilo selektivnosti izpolnjeno.
Contrary to the Hungarian authorities’ arguments, the Commission takes the view that the State does not exercise an economic activity by authorising mining activities.
V nasprotju s trditvami madžarskih organov Komisija meni, da država ne izvaja gospodarske dejavnosti na podlagi odobritev rudarskih dejavnosti.
Rather, the granting of administrative concessions or mining authorisations is connected with the exercise of powers which are typically those of a public authority because this activity cannot be originally exercised by a private actor [41].
Namesto tega je podelitev upravnih koncesij ali dovoljenj za rudarjenje povezana z izvajanjem pooblastil, ki so značilna za javni organ, saj dejavnosti prvotno ne more izvajati zasebni akter [41].
In Hungary – as in other Member States of the EU – no private actor is the original owner of mineral resources.
Na Madžarskem in v tudi v drugih državah članicah EU prvotni lastnik mineralnih virov ne more biti zasebni akter.
Member States’ legal systems generally attribute control over mineral resources to the public authorities [42].
Pravni sistemi držav članic na splošno dodeljujejo nadzor nad mineralnimi viri javnim organom [42].
Therefore, the decision to allow a company to exploit mineral resources, in the form the Member State chooses and against payment of certain fees, is, by reason of its nature and rules, a matter for the public authorities and can be categorised as the exercise of public authority powers.
Zato je odločitev, da se družbi omogoči izkoriščanje mineralnih virov v obliki, ki jo izbere država članica, in na podlagi plačila določenih pristojbin, zaradi njene narave in pravil v pristojnosti javnih organov ter jo je mogoče opredeliti kot izvajanje pristojnosti javnih organov.
Hungary’s intervention in making mining activity subject to administrative supervision serves the general interest and not commercial ones.
Posredovanje Madžarske, da se rudarska dejavnost podredi upravnemu nadzoru, služi splošnemu pomenu in ne poslovnim interesom.
This behaviour must therefore be considered a form of state intervention by a public authority not akin to the behaviour of a private investor in a market economy [43].
Takšno ravnanje je treba zato obravnavati kot državni poseg javnega organa, ki se razlikuje od ravnanja zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu [43].
Even if in the present case authorisation for mining exploitation were deemed to be an economic activity whereby the State pursues commercial purposes (which it is not), the Commission notes that there is no clear and direct link in monetary terms between the level of the mining fees set by Hungary for MOL and the value of the mining authorisation.
Tudi če bi se v tem primeru dovoljenje za izkoriščanje rudnin štelo za gospodarsko dejavnost, pri kateri ima država poslovne interese (vendar ni tako), Komisija ugotavlja, da v denarnem smislu ni jasne in neposredne povezave med stopnjo rudarskih pristojbin, ki jih je Madžarska določila za družbo MOL, in vrednostjo dovoljenja za rudarjenje.
Hungary’s reasoning, namely that it acted as a market operator when it concluded the extension agreement, is not borne out.
Argument Madžarske, in sicer da je pri sklenitvi pogodbe o podaljšanju delovala kot akter na trgu, ni utemeljen.
In particular, there is no indication that tendering the concession for the twelve fields (which would have not been extended) would not have resulted in a higher bid from a competitor.
Zlasti ni dokazov, da v okviru javnega razpisa za podelitev koncesije (ki ne bi bila podaljšana) za 12 polj konkurenčna družba ne bi oddala višje ponudbe.
Hungary also failed to demonstrate that it took into account all relevant factors and risks from a commercial point of view when concluding the extension agreement, i.e. all payment components in the extension agreement, the possible higher fees set by the Mining Act until 2020, the duration of the agreement and possible competitors.
Madžarska prav tako ni dokazala, da je pri sklenitvi pogodbe o podaljšanju upoštevala vse pomembne dejavnike in tveganja s tržnega vidika, tj. vse elemente plačila v pogodbi o podaljšanju, možne višje pristojbine, ki so določene z Zakonom o rudarstvu in veljajo do leta 2020, trajanje pogodbe ter morebitne konkurenčne družbe.
A further argument by Hungary is that after the disputed amendment of the Mining Act, no other market participant actually had to pay a higher fee than MOL, because in fact there were no competitors falling into the categories with higher mining fees in the relevant period.
Madžarska je nadalje trdila, da po sporni spremembi Zakona o rudarstvu nobenemu drugemu udeležencu na trgu dejansko ni bilo treba plačati višje pristojbine, kot jo je plačevala družba MOL, ker v zadevnem obdobju nobena konkurenčna družba ni bila uvrščena v kategorije z višjimi rudarskimi pristojbinami.
Summary of the applicable mining fees before and after the amendments to the Mining Act
Povzetek veljavnih rudarskih pristojbin pred spremembami Zakona o rudarstvu o in po njih
Fee for the fields under MOL’s contract
Pristojbina za polja iz pogodbe družbe MOL
Applicable until 2020
Velja do leta 2020
J % [46](at least 12 %)
(vsaj 12 % [46])
J % × c [47](at least 12 %)
J % c [47](vsaj 12 %)
This argument has to be dismissed.
Ta argument je treba zavrniti.
Table 4 above summarises the extent to which the extension agreement and the subsequent amendment of the Mining Act resulted in fees for MOL lower than stipulated by the Mining Act.
Preglednica 4 zgoraj povzema, v kolikšnem obsegu sta pogodba o podaljšanju in poznejša sprememba Zakona o rudarstvu vplivali na nižje pristojbine za družbo MOL, kot je določeno z Zakonom o rudarstvu.
Firstly, the data submitted by the Hungarian authorities show that in fact there were some market players operating fields under the authorisation regime who have been subject to a higher mining fee obligation than paid by MOL, between 8 January 2008 and 23 January 2009 owing to the first amendment to the Mining Act and also from 23 January 2009 to date owing to the second amendment to the Mining Act.
Prvič, podatki, ki so jih predložili madžarski organi, kažejo, da je za nekatere akterje na trgu, ki so upravljali polja v skladu z režimom podelitev, veljala obveznost višje rudarske pristojbine, kot jo je plačevala družba MOL, in sicer med 8. januarjem 2008 in 23. januarjem 2009 zaradi prve spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu ter od 23. januarja 2009 do danes zaradi druge spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu.
The submissions from the Hungarian authorities show that in 2008 there were mining fields operated under authorisation by companies other than MOL who paid more than 12 % (between 14,24 % and 18 %) owing to the application of the Brent Clause [48].
Predložitve madžarskih organov kažejo, da so leta 2008 za rudna polja, ki so jih v skladu s podelitvijo upravljale druge družbe in ne družba MOL, te družbe na podlagi uporabe klavzule Brent [48] plačevale več kot 12 % (med 14,24 % in 18 %).