natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
All processes directly or indirectly linked to the production processes raw material preparation, component mixing, forming and shaping of ware, drying of ware, firing of ware, product finishing and flue gas cleaning are included.
Zajeti so vsi procesi, neposredno ali posredno povezani s proizvodnimi procesi priprave surovin, mešanjem sestavin, oblikovanjem, sušenjem in žganjem izdelkov, zaključnimi procesi in čiščenjem dimnih plinov.
Clay bricks used for flooring according to EN 1344.
Opeka iz gline za tla v skladu z EN 1344.
Clay roofing tiles as defined in EN 1304:2005 excluding blue braised roof tiles and accessories.
Strešna opeka iz gline, kot je opredeljena v EN 1304:2005, razen pomodrenih strešnih opek in dodatkov.
Case C 38/B/04
Zadeva C 38/B/04
By letter dated 4 December 2003, a law firm representing a complainant brought to the Commission’s attention a series of articles published in the Italian press concerning the Italian Government’s intention to introduce preferential electricity tariffs for certain undertakings located in Sardinia.
Z dopisom z dne 4. decembra 2003 je odvetniška pisarna, ki zastopa pritožnika, Komisijo obvestila, da je bilo v italijanskih medijih objavljenih več člankov, v katerih je bilo navedeno, da namerava italijanska vlada uvesti ugodnejše cene električne energije za nekatere družbe na Sardiniji.
The tariffs were introduced by Article 1 of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 6 February 2004 (‘the 2004 Decree’).
Cene so bile uvedene s členom 1 odloka predsednika vlade z dne 6. februarja 2004 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odlok iz leta 2004).
The Decree had two distinct effects: a) it introduced new preferential electricity tariffs for the companies Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA and Eurallumina SpA, and b) it prolonged an existing preferential tariff in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni, a producer of primary aluminium (‘Alcoa’).
Odlok je imel dva različna vpliva: a) uvedel je ugodnejše cene električne energije za družbe Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA in Eurallumina SpA; ter b) podaljšal veljavno ugodnejšo ceno za družbo Alcoa Transformazioni, proizvajalca primarnega aluminija (v nadaljnjem besedilu: družba Alcoa)
By letters dated 22 January 2004 and 19 March 2004, the Commission requested further information on these measures.
Z dopisoma z dne 22. januarja 2004 in 19. marca 2004 je Komisija pozvala Italijo, naj predloži dodatne informacije o zadevnih ukrepih.
By letter dated 16 November 2004, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the measure.
Z dopisom z dne 16. novembra 2004 je Komisija sporočila Italiji, da bo glede ukrepa začela postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) PDEU.
The Commission also received observations from other interested parties, including three of the undertakings benefiting under the measures and a competitor of Portovesme.
Komisija je prejela tudi pripombe drugih zainteresiranih strani, vključno s tremi družbami, ki so prejele pomoč, in konkurenčnega ponudnika družbe Portovesme.
By letter dated 22 March 2005 the Commission forwarded those observations to Italy, which was given the opportunity to comment.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 22. marca 2005 o zadevnih pripombah obvestila Italijo, ki je imela možnost, da nanje odgovori.
On 29 October 2008 the case C 38/04 was split into part A, concerning Alcoa, and part B, concerning Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina.
29. oktobra 2008 se je zadeva C 38/04 razdelila na del A, ki obravnava družbo Alcoa, in del B, ki obravnava družbe Portovesme, ILA in Eurallumina.
On 19 November 2009 the Commission adopted a final negative decision with respect to Alcoa, ordering recovery of the aid [3].
19. novembra 2009 je Komisija sprejela končni negativni sklep v zvezi z družbo Alcoa, s katerim je odredila vračilo pomoči [3].
Case C 13/06
Zadeva C 13/06
By Article 11(12) of Decree-Law No 35 of 14 March 2005, converted into statute by Law No 80/2005 of 14 May 2005 laying down urgent provisions under the Action Plan for Economic, Social and Territorial Development (‘Law No 80/9005’), the Italian authorities prolonged until 2010 the preferential electricity tariff for Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina, and extended the benefit of the tariff to Syndial SpA, a chlorine producer also based in Sardinia.
S členom 11(12) zakonskega odloka št. 35 z dne 14. marca 2005, spremenjenim v zakon št. 80/2005 z dne 14. maja 2005, ki vsebuje nujne določbe v skladu z akcijskim načrtom za gospodarski, socialni in ozemeljski razvoj (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon št. 80/2005), so italijanski organi podaljšali veljavnost ugodnejše cene električne energije do leta 2010 za družbe Portovesme, ILA in Eurallumina ter podaljšali ugodnost cene za družbo Syndial SpA, proizvajalca klora, ki se prav tako nahaja na Sardiniji.
The Commission received a complaint from a company competing with Syndial by letter dated 22 July 2005, followed by further submissions from the same company dated 7 October 2005 and 7 December 2005.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 22. julija 2005 prejela pritožbo družbe, konkurenčnega ponudnika družbe Syndial, sledili pa sta ji nadaljnji predložitvi iste družbe z dne 7. oktobra 2005 in 7. decembra 2005.
Italy notified the measure to the Commission by letter dated 23 November 2005.
Italija je Komisijo o ukrepu obvestila z dopisom z dne 23. novembra 2005.
By letter dated 28 November 2005, Italy provided additional information.
Z dopisom z dne 28. novembra 2005 je Italija predložila dodatna pojasnila.
By letter dated 22 December 2005 the Commission asked for further information, which Italy provided by letter dated 3 March 2006.
Z dopisom z dne 22. decembra 2005 je Komisija pozvala Italijo, naj predloži nadaljnja pojasnila, ki jih je Italija predložila z dopisom z dne 3. marca 2006.
In the meantime, by letter dated 20 January 2006, the same competitor of Portovesme which had submitted observations in case C 38/B/04 complained about the new measure.
Medtem se je z dopisom z dne 20. januarja 2006 isti konkurenčni ponudnik družbe Portovesme, ki je predložil pripombe v zadevi C 38/B/04, pritožil glede novega ukrepa.
By letter dated 26 April 2006, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the changes and the extension of the special tariff scheme introduced by Law No 80/2005.
Z dopisom z dne 26. aprila 2006 je Komisija obvestila Italijo, da bo glede sprememb in podaljšanja posebne sheme cen, ki so bile uvedene z zakonom št. 80/2005, sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) PDEU.
The Commission asked Italy for further clarification by letter dated 22 August 2006; Italy replied by letter dated 28 September 2006.
Komisija je Italijo z dopisom z dne 22. avgusta 2006 pozvala, naj predloži dodatna pojasnila; Italija je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 28. septembra 2006.
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [4].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [4].
The Commission received observations from interested parties, including the beneficiaries, the two competitors of Portovesme and Syndial, and a producer of renewable energy.
Komisija je prejela pripombe zainteresiranih strani, vključno z upravičenci, dvema konkurenčnima ponudnikoma družb Portovesme in Syndial, ter proizvajalcem električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
By letter dated 5 October 2006 the Commission forwarded those observations to Italy, which was given the opportunity to comment.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 5. oktobra 2006 o zadevnih pripombah obvestila Italijo, ki je imela možnost, da nanje odgovori.
Italy’s comments were received by letter dated 1 December 2006.
Italija je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 1. decembra 2006.
Italy provided additional information by letters of 16 April 2007, 10 May 2007, 14 May 2007 and 22 June 2010.
Italija je z dopisi z dne 16. aprila 2007, 10. maja 2007, 14. maja 2007 in 22. junija 2010 predložila dodatna pojasnila.
Scope of the present Decision
Področje uporabe tega sklepa
The present decision covers both the tariffs introduced by Article 1 of the 2004 Decree for beneficiaries other than Alcoa (‘the 2004 tariffs’) and those introduced by Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005 and subsequently spelt out in decisions taken by the Electricity and Gas Authority (Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas — ‘AEEG’) (‘the 2005 tariffs’).
Ta sklep zajema cene, ki so bile s členom 1 odloka iz leta 2004 uvedene za upravičence, razen za družbo Alcoa, (v nadaljnjem besedilu: cene iz leta 2004), in cene, ki so bile uvedene s členom 11(12) zakona št. 80/2005 in podrobneje obrazložene v odločbah, ki jih je sprejel organ za električno energijo in plin (Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas – v nadaljnjem besedilu: AEEG) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: cene iz leta 2005).
The disputed 2004 tariffs
Sporne cene iz leta 2004
This tariff treatment was to be transitory: it was to end ‘upon the completion or upgrade of the connections with the national electricity and gas grids’ and no later than 30 June 2007.
Ta cenovna obravnava naj bi bila prehodna: končala naj bi se „z dokončanjem del ali izboljšanjem povezav z nacionalnimi elektroenergetskimi in plinovodnimi omrežji“ in najkasneje 30. junija 2007.
In practice, the 2004 Decree extended the preferential tariff already enjoyed by aluminium producer Alcoa to three energy-intensive companies located in Sardinia: Portovesme, a producer of zinc, silver and lead [5]; ILA, a producer of processed aluminium products; and Eurallumina, a producer of alumina [6].
V praksi je odlok iz leta 2004 ugodnejšo ceno, do katere je že bil upravičen proizvajalec aluminija Alcoa, razširil na tri energetsko intenzivne družbe na Sardiniji: družbo Portovesme, proizvajalca svinca, srebra in cinka [5]; družbo ILA, proizvajalca proizvodov iz predelanega aluminija; in družbo Eurallumina, proizvajalca aluminijevega oksida [6].
At the regulatory level, the tariff was implemented through decisions (delibere) of the AEEG.
Na regulativni ravni se je cena izvajala z odločbami (delibere) AEEG.
AEEG decision No 110/04 stipulated that the preferential tariffs would be applied only if the notification procedure had a positive outcome.
Odločba AEEG št. 110/04 določa, da bodo ugodnejše cene veljale le, če bo rezultat postopka priglasitve pozitiven.
However, following instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office specifying that the 2004 Decree had not been formally notified under the State aid rules but only ‘presented’ to the Commission in the framework of a ‘preliminary inquiry’ (indagine conoscitiva preliminare), the AEEG implemented the 2004 Decree through decision No 148/04 [7].
Vendar je v skladu z navodili Urada predsednika vlade, ki navajajo, da odlok iz leta 2004 ni bil uradno priglašen v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči, ampak samo „predstavljen“ Komisiji v okviru „predhodnega poizvedovanja“(indagine conoscitiva preliminare), AEEG odlok iz leta 2004 izvedel s sklepom št. 148/04 [7].
The system allowed the beneficiaries to be given compensatory payments on the terms laid down in the Alcoa Decree.
Sistem je upravičencem omogočal, da so pod pogoji iz odloka za družbo Alcoa prejemali kompenzacijska plačila.
For a given plant covered by the scheme, the compensatory payment was equal to the difference between the price paid to the company supplying the plant with electricity and a preferential price set by the State, multiplied by the electricity consumption of the plant.
Za obrat, zajet v shemi, je bilo kompenzacijsko plačilo enako razliki med ceno, plačano družbi, ki je obrat oskrbovala z električno energijo, in ugodnejšo ceno, ki jo je določila država, pomnoženo s porabo električne energije obrata.
The method used to calculate the preferential price (or ‘preferential tariff’) was laid down in decision CIP No 15/1993.
Metoda za izračun ugodnejše cene je bila določena z odločbo CIP št. 15/1993.
The price was subject to an indexation mechanism based on the variation of Italian power generation costs (the ‘Ct component’).
Na ceno je vplival mehanizem za indeksacijo, ki je temeljil na odstopanju italijanskih stroškov proizvodnje energije („komponenta Ct“).
In 2004 the preferential price applied to the Sardinian beneficiaries ranged between EUR 26 and EUR 35 per MWh.
V letu 2004 je ugodnejša cena za upravičence s Sardinije znašala med 26 EUR in 35 EUR/MWh.
The administrative management of the scheme was entrusted to the Electricity Industry Equalisation Fund (Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico) [8].
Za upravno poslovodenje sheme je bil zadolžen izravnalni sklad za sektor električne energije (Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico) [8].
In practice, the tariff system worked as follows. The beneficiaries sent the Equalisation Fund detailed monthly data on the quantities of electricity they had consumed and the prices they had paid to their power suppliers.
V praksi je sistem cen deloval na naslednji način: upravičenci so izravnalnemu skladu poslali podrobne mesečne podatke o količini električne energije, ki so jo porabili, in cenah, ki so jih plačali svojim dobaviteljem električne energije.
They then received from the Equalisation Fund cash payments calculated as indicated above [9].
Nato so od izravnalnega sklada prejeli gotovinska plačila, izračunana, kot je navedeno zgoraj [9].
The resources required to finance the compensatory payments were raised through a parafiscal charge imposed on all Italian electricity consumers via component A4 of the standard electricity tariff [10].
Sredstva, potrebna za financiranje kompenzacijskih plačil, so bila zbrana z drugimi dajatvami, ki so jih morali plačati vsi italijanski odjemalci električne energije na podlagi sestavnega dela A4 standardne cene za električno energijo [10].
The disputed 2005 tariffs
Sporne cene iz leta 2005
By Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005, the Italian authorities extended ‘the tariff treatment laid down in the Decree of the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Crafts of 19 December 1995 to energy supplies for the production and processing of aluminium, lead, silver and zinc and for the chlorine-soda cycle, by reference to prices applied to similar supplies on the European markets, but only in respect of plants already in existence at the date of entry into force of the present Decree, located in Sardinia and connected to the high-voltage network. This tariff treatment shall be subject to long-term commitments to be agreed between the beneficiaries, the Sardinian local authorities and the responsible Ministries.’
S členom 11(12) zakona št. 80/2005 so italijanski organi razširili „cenovno obravnavo iz odloka ministrstva za industrijo, trgovino in obrt z dne 19. decembra 1995 na dobavo energije za proizvodnjo in predelavo aluminija, svinca, srebra in cinka ter klorovih preparatov glede na cene, ki se za podobno preskrbo uporabljajo na evropskih trgih, vendar le za obrate, ki so bili ob datumu veljavnosti tega odloka že ustanovljeni in se nahajajo na Sardiniji ter so priključeni na visokonapetostno omrežje. Za to cenovno obravnavo veljajo dolgoročne obveznosti, za katere se dogovorijo upravičenci, lokalni organi Sardinije in odgovorna ministrstva.“
Thus Law No 80/2005 in substance reintroduced the tariff scheme implemented in 2004, which extended the Alcoa treatment to other energy-intensive beneficiaries based in Sardinia.
Tako je zakon št. 80/2005 pravzaprav ponovno uvedel shemo cen, uvedeno leta 2004, ki je obravnavo družbe Alcoa razširila na druge energetsko intenzivne upravičence na Sardiniji.
In practice, the Law applied only to Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina, and to Syndial, a chlorine-soda producer which had not benefited from preferential prices before.
V praksi je zakon veljal samo za družbe Portovesme, ILA in Eurallumina ter Syndial, proizvajalca klorovih preparatov, ki pred tem ni koristil ugodnejših cen.
It should be noted that from 2005 onwards the preferential price was no longer pegged to the historical tariff originally laid down in the 1995 Alcoa Decree, but was now to be set independently by the AEEG so as to match the average electricity prices paid by the beneficiaries’ competitors on the European market [12].
Opozoriti je treba, da od leta 2005 naprej ugodnejša cena ni bila več vezana na zgodovinsko ceno, ki je bila prvotno uvedena z odlokom za družbo Alcoa, ampak jo je od takrat neodvisno določal AEEG tako, da je ustrezala povprečnim cenam električne energije, ki so jo konkurenčni ponudniki upravičencev plačevali na evropskem trgu [12].
The price was subject to annual updates: according to Article 11(13) of the Law, ‘the tariff terms referred to in Articles 11 [13] and 12 shall apply from 1 January 2005 and shall be updated by the AEEG, which shall each year increase the nominal values of the tariffs by 4 %, or, if this latter value be higher, by the percentage increase in the average wholesale price of electrical energy recorded on the main European electrical energy exchanges, principally Frankfurt and Amsterdam.’ In decision No 217/05, the AEEG gave an interpretation of this update mechanism which was more favourable to the beneficiaries, as it laid down that the annual increase in the tariff could not exceed 4 %.
Na ceno so vplivale letne posodobitve: v skladu s členom 11(13) zakona, „pogoji glede cen iz člena 11 [13] in 12 veljajo od 1. januarja 2005 in jih posodablja AEEG, ki nominalne zneske cen vsako leto zviša za 4 %, ali, če je ta slednja vrednost višja, za odstotek povečanja povprečne veleprodajne cene, zabeležene na glavnih evropskih borzah električne energije, predvsem v Frankfurtu in Amsterdamu.“ V odločbi št. 217/05 je AEEG navedel razlago tega mehanizma posodabljanja, ki je ugodnejši za upravičence, saj je določil, da letno zvišanje cen ne sme preseči 4 %.
In the same decision, the AEEG set the preferential prices applicable to the various industries for the year 2005 as follows:
V isti odločbi je AEEG določil ugodnejše cene, ki veljajo za različne sektorje za leto 2005, kot sledi:
Industries qualifying for preferential tariffs
Sektorji, upravičeni do ugodnejših cen
Preferential price
Ugodnejša cena
Aluminium processing
Predelava aluminija
Lead and zinc
Svinec in cink
Chlorine cycle
Klorov cikel
Like the 2004 tariffs, the 2005 tariffs were to be financed by means of a parafiscal levy charged to all electricity end-users via component A4 of the standard electricity tariff.
Tako kot cene iz leta 2004 so se tudi cene iz leta 2005 financirale z drugimi dajatvami, zaračunanimi vsem končnim uporabnikom na podlagi sestavnega dela A4 standardne cene za električno energijo.
The management of the financial flows of the system was again entrusted to the Equalisation Fund.
Za upravljanje finančnih tokov sistema je bil ponovno zadolžen izravnalni sklad.
Entitlement to the tariff was conditional upon a commitment by which the beneficiaries undertook to carry out productive investment in Sardinia on the basis of industrial plans to be submitted to the regional authorities.
Upravičenost do cene je bila pogojena z obveznostjo, s katero so se upravičenci zavezali, da bodo na Sardiniji izvajali produktivne naložbe na podlagi industrijskih načrtov, ki jih bodo predložili regionalnim organom.
For example, Portovesme undertook to invest in the self-generation of electricity or to participate in the construction of new power plants.
Na primer, družba Portovesme se je obvezala, da bo vlagala v lastno proizvodnjo električne energije ali sodelovala pri izgradnji novih elektrarn.
Italy notified Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005 in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU.
Italija je člen 11(12) zakona št. 80/2005 priglasila v skladu s členom 108(3) PDEU.
Payment of the 2005 tariffs was subject to the authorisation of the scheme by the Commission.
Plačilo cen iz leta 2005 je bilo pogojeno z odobritvijo sheme s strani Komisije.
The 2005 tariffs have consequently not been implemented.
Zato shema cen iz leta 2005 ni bila izvedena.
Proceedings before national courts
Postopki pred nacionalnimi sodišči
Solvay Chimica Italia and Solvay Chimica Bussi SpA, which operate in the chlorine-soda cycle and are located outside Sardinia, brought legal proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy [14] challenging the decisions taken by the AEEG in implementation of Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005, on the grounds that they involved the granting of unlawful State aid and that they breached other provisions of Italian law [15].
Družbi Solvay Chimica Italia in Solvay Chimica Bussi SpA, ki izdelujeta klorove preparate in se ne nahajata na Sardiniji, sta pri regionalnem upravnem sodišču v Lombardiji [14] vložili tožbo zoper odločbe, ki jih je v zvezi z izvajanjem člena 11(12) zakona 80/2005 sprejel AEEG, z utemeljitvijo, da te odločbe dodeljujejo nezakonito državno pomoč in da so kršile druge določbe italijanske zakonodaje [15].
On 27 November 2006 the Court stayed the proceedings before it, pending the conclusion of the State aid investigation initiated by the Commission in Case C 13/06.
27. novembra 2006 je sodišče postopek, o katerem je odločalo, prekinilo do zaključka preiskave državne pomoči, ki jo je Komisija sprožila v zadevi C 13/06.
Combination with previous incompatible aid — Deggendorf
Kombinacija s prejšnjo nezdružljivo pomočjo – zadeva Deggendorf
After the opening of proceedings, Italy indicated that Eurallumina had not reimbursed the incompatible aid which had been the subject of Case C 80/01 (aid for alumina production) [16], but that, according to the company, the Sardinian regional authorities had issued a recovery order in respect of this measure on 8 May 2006.
Po sprožitvi postopka je Italija navedla, da družba Eurallumina ni povrnila nezdružljive pomoči, ki je bila predmet postopka v zadevi C 80/01 (pomoč za proizvodnjo aluminijevega oksida) [16], vendar so, po navedbah družbe, 8. maja 2006 glede tega ukrepa regionalni organi Sardinije izdali odredbo za vračilo.
DECISION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 108(2) TFEU
ODLOČITEV O SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA NA PODLAGI ČLENA 108(2) PDEU
The Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation on the following grounds.
Komisija se je odločila, da formalno preiskavo sproži na podlagi naslednjih utemeljitev:
In its decision to open the formal investigation [17], the Commission considered whether it might be that the 2004 tariffs for Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina did not constitute State aid, on the ground that they were similar to the preferential tariff granted to Alcoa in 1996, which the Commission had held not to constitute State aid in its decision of 4 December 1996 (‘the Alumix decision’) [18].
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalne preiskave [17] preučila, ali obstaja možnost, da cene iz leta 2004 za družbe Portovesme, ILA in Eurallumina ne pomenijo državne pomoči, ker so podobne ugodnejši ceni, ki je bila družbi Alcoa dodeljena leta 1996, za katero je Komisija v svoji odločbi z dne 4. decembra 1996 odločila, da ne pomeni državne pomoči (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba Alumix) [18].
The opening decision classified the tariffs introduced by the 2004 Decree as operating aid, and assessed whether that aid could be authorised on the basis of the Guidelines on National Regional Aid (‘the Regional Aid Guidelines’) [19], since Sardinia was an assisted region within the scope of Article 107(3)(a) until the end of 2006.
Odločitev o sprožitvi postopka je cene, uvedene z odlokom iz leta 2004, opredelila kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje in ocenila, ali bi se lahko taka pomoč odobrila na podlagi smernic o državni regionalni pomoči (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice o regionalni pomoči) [19], glede na to, da je bila do konca leta 2006 Sardinija območje, ki je prejemalo pomoč in ki spada na področje uporabe člena 107(3)(a).
The Commission doubted whether the aid could be authorised on that basis, since ad hoc aid of that kind, granted to a limited number of undertakings, did not seem to promote regional development.
Komisija je imela pomisleke glede tega, ali se lahko pomoč odobri na tej podlagi, ker se zdi, da taka ad hoc pomoč, odobrena omejenemu številu družb, ne spodbuja regionalnega razvoja.