natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
in both systems the additional cost resulting from the guaranteed feed-in tariff is borne by electricity suppliers, who have to buy a certain proportion of renewable energy at a fixed price;
v obeh sistemih dodatne stroške, ki nastanejo zaradi zagotovljene odkupne cene, krijejo dobavitelji električne energije, ki morajo določen delež obnovljive energije kupiti po fiksni ceni;
in both systems electricity suppliers are free not to buy renewable electricity for those of their clients who are exempt from the obligation to take such renewable electricity;
v obeh sistemih dobaviteljem električne energije ni treba kupiti električne energije iz obnovljivih virov za tiste odjemalce, ki so oproščeni obveznosti nakupa takšne električne energije iz obnovljivih virov;
in both systems the obligation to buy renewable electricity from producers is imposed upon market participants who are not acting in a public service role; these market participants are entitled by law to pass on the additional costs to electricity suppliers, and purchase obligations and prices are determined by law;
v obeh sistemih velja obveznost kupovanja električne energije iz obnovljivih virov od proizvajalcev za udeležence na trgu, ki ne delujejo v vlogi javnih služb; ti udeleženci na trgu so zakonsko upravičeni, da lahko dodatne stroške prenesejo na dobavitelje električne energije, pri čemer so obveznosti nakupa in cene določene z zakonom;
in both systems, the regulator verifies that there is no overcompensation of an undertaking that has an obligation to purchase renewable electricity from producers.
v obeh sistemih regulator preverja, da ni čezmernih nadomestil podjetja, za katerega velja obveznost nakupa električne energije iz obnovljivih virov od proizvajalcev.
In paragraphs 42–48 of the opening decision, the Commission explained in detail why and in what respects the measure under assessment was comparable to the measure considered by the Court of Justice in the Essent case [14].
Komisija je v odstavkih 42–48 odločitve o začetku postopka podrobno pojasnila, zakaj in v čem je ukrep, ki se ocenjuje, primerljiv z ukrepom, ki ga je obravnavalo Sodišče v zadevi Essent [14].
Austria disputes these findings, on the following grounds.
Avstrija te ugotovitve izpodbija z naslednjimi utemeljitvami:
OeMAG is not a body designated by the State for the purpose of collecting a charge.
družba OeMAG ni organ, ki bi ga država imenovala za pobiranje dajatev.
In Austria’s understanding the grid operators in Germany play exactly the same role as OeMAG did in Austria.
Po mnenju Avstrije imajo upravljavci omrežja v Nemčiji popolnoma enako vlogo, kot jo je imela družba OeMAG v Avstriji;
OeMAG is a private undertaking, and not a body governed by public law like the corporations that were discussed in the judgments in Air France [15] and Salvat Père [16].
družba OeMAG je zasebno podjetje in ne organ, ki ga ureja javno pravo, kot so to gospodarske družbe, ki so bile obravnavane v sodbah v zadevah Air France [15] in Salvat Père [16].
The State has no powers to appoint members of the management or the supervisory board, nor has it any supervisory powers or veto rights over OeMAG’s decisions.
Država ni pristojna za imenovanje članov upravnega ali nadzornega odbora ter nima nobenih nadzornih pooblastil ali pravic veta v zvezi z odločitvami družbe OeMAG.
The State has no power to take over OeMAG’s functions.
Država ni pristojna za prevzem funkcij družbe OeMAG;
Any litigation involving OeMAG is a matter for the ordinary courts.
vsak pravni spor, v katerega je vključena družba OeMAG, se rešuje na rednih sodiščih;
The only public control to which OeMAG is subject is an ex post audit by the Austrian Court of Auditors.
edina vrsta javnega nadzora nad družbo OeMAG je naknadna revizija avstrijskega računskega sodišča;
The State budget does not cover any losses made by OeMAG.
državni proračun ne pokriva nobenih izgub, ki jih ima družba OeMAG.
The role of the public authorities is limited to fixing the prices for the purchase and sale of renewable electricity.
Vloga javnih organov je omejena na določanje cen za nakup in prodajo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
There is therefore no burden on the State budget of the kind shown in Sloman Neptun [17] and Pearle [18].
V tem primeru torej ni obremenitve državnega proračuna, kot je prikazana v zadevah Sloman Neptun [17] in Pearle [18];
E-Control enjoys no discretion as to whether to grant an exemption under Section 22c of the Act.
družba E-Control nima diskrecijske pravice glede odobritve oprostitve v skladu z oddelkom 22c zakona;
The total amount of money the electricity suppliers pay to OeMAG is not affected by the exemption mechanism.
mehanizem oprostitve ne vpliva na skupni znesek denarja, ki ga dobavitelji električne energije plačajo družbi OeMAG.
All that changes is the distribution of the overall amount between the different categories of final electricity consumer.
Spremeni se le porazdelitev celotnega zneska med različne kategorije končnih odjemalcev električne energije.
Austria argues that the exemption for energy-intensive businesses does not constitute State aid, because it is not selective.
Avstrija trdi, da oprostitev za energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti ne pomeni državne pomoči, ker ni selektivna.
Energy-intensive businesses are exempted only partially from financing the support provided to producers of green electricity.
Energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti so le delno oproščene financiranja podpore, ki se zagotavlja proizvajalcem električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
They have to make a compensatory payment of 0,5 % of their net production value directly to OeMAG, and thus continue to contribute to the financing of the support for the production of green electricity.
Družbi OeMAG morajo neposredno plačati nadomestilo v višini 0,5 % svoje neto vrednosti proizvodnje, s čimer še naprej prispevajo k financiranju podpore za proizvodnjo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
Citing the judgment in Adria-Wien Pipeline [19], Austria argues that the measure is not restricted to certain sectors of the economy de jure, nor is it selective de facto.
Z navajanjem sodbe v zadevi Adria-Wien Pipeline [19] Avstrija trdi, da ukrep pravno ni omejen na nekatere sektorje gospodarstva in dejansko ni selektiven.
But even if there is prima facie selectivity, it is in any event justified by the rationale of the system.
Vendar je v vsakem primeru upravičen na podlagi utemeljitve sistema, tudi če gre za selektivnost prima facie.
De jure selectivity: The Green Electricity Act does not restrict the measure to certain sectors of the economy or to undertakings of a certain size, nor does it include any other selective criteria.
Pravna selektivnost: zakon o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov ukrepa ne omejuje na nekatere sektorje gospodarstva ali podjetja določene velikosti ter tudi ne vključuje nobenih drugih selektivnih meril.
In support of its argument Austria submits that there is nothing in the case-law to suggest that the selectivity test for State aid is satisfied merely because a net production value threshold has been laid down.
V podporo temu argumentu Avstrija zatrjuje, da sodna praksa ne kaže, da je preskus selektivnosti za državno pomoč izpolnjen zgolj z določitvijo praga za neto vrednost proizvodnje.
In addition, Austria points out that the measure is not restricted to particular sectors of the economy or to undertakings of a certain size, nor is it subject to any other selective criteria: under the temporary arrangements in operation, the measure affects 19 different sectors and approximately 2300 undertakings.
Poleg tega Avstrija poudarja, da ukrep ni omejen na posamezne sektorje gospodarstva ali podjetja določene velikosti in da zanj ne veljajo nobena druga selektivna merila: v okviru veljavne začasne ureditve ukrep vpliva na 19 različnih sektorjev in približno 2300 podjetij.
Thus the measure is not selective de jure.
Ukrep torej ni pravno selektiven.
De facto selectivity: According to Austria, the high number of sectors and undertakings affected by the exemption mechanism and the fact that the measure is not restricted to certain sectors or to undertakings of a certain size, or subject to any other selective criteria, show that the measure is de facto a general measure.
Dejanska selektivnost: po mnenju Avstrije veliko število sektorjev in podjetij, na katere vpliva mehanizem oprostitve, ter dejstvo, da ukrep ni omejen na nekatere sektorje ali podjetja določene velikosti in da zanj ne veljajo nobena druga selektivna merila, kažeta, da je ukrep dejansko splošni ukrep.
Austria submits that this position too is supported by the Adria-Wien Pipeline case.
Avstrija zatrjuje, da je tudi to stališče utemeljeno z zadevo Adria-Wien Pipeline.
In Adria-Wien Pipeline the Court of Justice had to consider a partial reimbursement of an energy tax which was granted to undertakings if the tax exceeded 0,35 % of their net production value.
V zadevi Adria-Wien Pipeline je moralo Sodišče preučiti delno vračilo davka na energijo, ki je bilo odobreno podjetjem, če je davek presegal 0,35 % njihove neto vrednosti proizvodnje.
The Court held that ‘National measures which provide for a rebate of energy taxes on natural gas and electricity do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty [now Article 107 of the TFEU] … where they apply to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity’ [20].
Sodišče je razsodilo, da „nacionalni ukrepi, ki zagotavljajo vračilo davka na energijo za zemeljski plin in električno energijo ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 92 Pogodbe ES [zdaj člen 107 PDEU] […], če se uporabljajo za vsa podjetja na nacionalnem ozemlju, ne glede na njihovo dejavnost“ [20].
Justification by the rationale of the system: With regard to the structure of the refinancing and exemption mechanism, Austria takes the view that the design of the differentiation of charges is analogous to what exists in other tax- and fee-financed systems.
Upravičenost na podlagi utemeljitve sistema: v zvezi s strukturo refinanciranja in mehanizma oprostitve Avstrija meni, da je oblika diferenciacije dajatev podobna temu, kar se uporablja v drugih sistemih financiranja iz davkov in pristojbin.
The differentiation takes account of the capacity of undertakings to bear additional charges; it is in line with the rationale of the system, and consequently does not constitute State aid.
Diferenciacija upošteva zmožnost podjetij za plačevanje dodatnih dajatev; je v skladu z utemeljitvijo sistema in zato ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Austria considers that this position has also been taken by the Commission in two earlier State aid decisions [21].
Avstrija meni, da je bilo takšno tudi stališče Komisije v dveh predhodnih sklepih o državni pomoči [21].
Further, Austria points out that the exemption mechanism does not impair the environmental benefits provided by the Act, since the amount of aid available for supporting the production of green electricity is not reduced.
Poleg tega Avstrija poudarja, da mehanizem oprostitve ne zmanjšuje okoljskih koristi, ki jih zagotavlja zakon, ker obseg pomoči, ki je na voljo za podporo proizvodnji električne energije iz obnovljivih virov, ni zmanjšan.
Reducing environmental charges for certain businesses is the only way to establish a sustainable financing mechanism for green electricity, which is necessary in order to ensure support for renewable energy sources.
Zmanjšanje okoljskih dajatev za nekatere dejavnosti je edini način za vzpostavitev trajnostnega mehanizma financiranja za električno energijo iz obnovljivih virov, ki je potreben za zagotovitev podpore za obnovljive vire energije.
On the question of compatibility, Austria submits that Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines can be applied to the exemption mechanism by analogy.
V zvezi z vprašanjem združljivosti Avstrija zatrjuje, da se lahko poglavje 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja po analogiji uporablja za mehanizem oprostitve.
Chapter 4 of the Guidelines (points 151–159) sets out requirements for State aid granted in the form of reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes.
Poglavje 4 Smernic (točke 151–159) določa zahteve za državno pomoč, odobreno v obliki znižanj ali oprostitev okoljskih davkov.
It provides for two types of assessment.
Določa dve vrsti ocene.
First, if the aid is in the form of a reduction of or exemption from an environmental tax that has been harmonised under Community law, the measure is compatible provided the beneficiaries pay at least the Community minimum tax level set by the Energy Tax Directive [22].
Prvič, če je pomoč v obliki znižanj ali oprostitev okoljskega davka, ki je bil usklajen v okviru zakonodaje Skupnosti, je ukrep združljiv, če upravičenci plačujejo vsaj najnižjo davčno stopnjo Skupnosti, ki jo določa direktiva o davku na energijo [22].
If the measure provides for reductions of or exemptions from harmonised environmental taxes that go beyond these minimum tax levels, or reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes that have not been harmonised, the Member State has to provide detailed information on the necessity and proportionality of the measure.
Če ukrep določa znižanja ali oprostitve usklajenih okoljskih davkov, ki presegajo te najnižje davčne stopnje, ali znižanja ali oprostitve okoljskih davkov, ki niso bile usklajene, mora država članica predložiti podrobne informacije o nujnosti in sorazmernosti ukrepa.
Austria proposes that Chapter 4 of the Guidelines, regarding aid in the form of reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes, should be applied by analogy here.
Avstrija predlaga, da se poglavje 4 Smernic v zvezi s pomočjo v obliki znižanj ali oprostitev okoljskih davkov po analogiji uporabi v tem primeru.
In Austria’s opinion the measure can be assessed by analogy in particular with the provisions on harmonised environmental taxes.
Po mnenju Avstrije se lahko ukrep oceni zlasti po analogiji z določbami o usklajenih okoljskih davkih.
On this legal basis, the exemption mechanism can be held compatible provided that the undertakings in question pay the minimum tax level set by the Energy Tax Directive, i.e. EUR 0,50 per MWh, which indeed they do.
Na tej pravni podlagi se lahko mehanizem oprostitve šteje kot združljiv, če zadevna podjetja plačajo najnižjo davčno stopnjo, ki jo določa direktiva o davku na energijo, tj. 0,50 EUR na MWh, kar dejansko drži.
It follows that the additional relief from the feed-in tariff system in the form of a partial exemption from contributing to its financing can be considered compatible, since the contribution that still has to be made to the financing of support for the production of green electricity continues to function as a supplement to the minimum electricity tax.
To pomeni, da se lahko dodatna pomoč iz sistema zagotovljene odkupne cene v obliki delne oprostitve prispevanja k njenemu financiranju šteje kot združljiva, ker prispevek, ki ga je še vedno treba plačati za financiranje podpore za proizvodnjo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov, še naprej deluje kot dodatek k najnižjemu davku na električno energijo.
Austria considers that the exemption mechanism leads at least indirectly to a higher level of environmental protection.
Avstrija meni, da mehanizem oprostitve vsaj posredno zagotavlja višjo raven varstva okolja.
In its view, the exemption mechanism is necessary in order to render possible a general increase in the amount that electricity consumers pay for renewable electricity.
Po njenem mnenju je mehanizem oprostitve potreben, da se omogoči splošno povečanje zneska, ki ga odjemalci električne energije plačajo za električno energijo iz obnovljivih virov.
Austria supports this argument by comparing the wordings of point 152 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines and Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation [23].
Avstrija ta argument podpira s primerjavo besedila točke 152 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja in člena 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah [23].
After comparing the wordings of the General Block Exemption Regulation in several language versions, Austria comes to the conclusion that Article 25 of the Regulation is broader in scope than point 152 of the Guidelines: the reductions in environmental taxes referred to in point 152 of the Guidelines require energy taxes that have been fully harmonised, but from Article 25 of the Regulation it is clear that reductions in environmental taxes — such as reductions in an electricity charge under the Energy Tax Directive — are exempted provided that the conditions of the Energy Tax Directive are fulfilled.
Po primerjavi besedila Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah v več jezikovnih različicah Avstrija ugotavlja, da je področje uporabe člena 25 Uredbe širše od področja uporabe točke 152 Smernic: znižanje okoljskih davkov iz točke 152 Smernic se nanaša na davke na energijo, ki so bili v celoti usklajeni, medtem ko je na podlagi člena 25 Uredbe jasno, da so znižanja okoljskih davkov, kot so znižanja dajatev na električno energijo v skladu z direktivo o davku na energijo, izvzeta, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz direktive o davku na energijo.
The exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses in fact reproduces the requirements for tax reductions in the Energy Tax Directive.
Mehanizem oprostitve za energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti dejansko vsebuje zahteve za znižanje davkov iz direktive o davku na energijo.
The rationale, the evaluations and the approach in the Energy Tax Directive and provisions that refer to it, such as Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation, are consequently applicable to the proposed exemption mechanism.
Utemeljitev, ocene in pristop direktive o davku na energijo ter določbe, ki se nanjo sklicujejo, kot je člen 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah, se posledično uporabljajo za predlagani mehanizem oprostitve.
Both the exemption mechanism and the system for placing the cost on electricity consumption meet the conditions of the Energy Tax Directive, and are therefore justified under Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation, or compatible with the internal market by analogy with that Article [24].
Mehanizem oprostitve in sistem določanja stroškov za porabo električne energije izpolnjujeta pogoje iz direktive o davku na energijo ter sta zato upravičena v skladu s členom 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah ali združljiva z notranjim trgom po analogiji z navedenim členom [24].
It was part of the nature and logic of environmental taxes and charges that there should be exemptions or differentiated rates.
Narava in logika okoljskih davkov in dajatev sta takšni, da omogočata izjeme ali različne stopnje.
The Member States therefore felt that the Environmental Aid Guidelines and the General Block Exemption Regulation should be interpreted broadly.
Zato so države članice menile, da je treba smernice o pomoči za varstvo okolja in Uredbo o splošnih skupinskih izjemah razlagati širše.
Finally, Austria submits detailed argument to show that similar systems are in place in other Member States, and stresses that the Green Electricity Act is largely comparable to the German Renewable Energy Act.
Nazadnje, Avstrija navaja podroben argument za prikaz, da so podobni sistemi na voljo v drugih državah članicah, in poudarja, da je zakon o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov zelo primerljiv z nemškim zakonom o obnovljivi energiji.
Since energy-intensive businesses in Austria compete with undertakings in other Member States (e.g. Germany) and outside the EU, the exemption mechanism is essential in order to ensure that they are not placed at a disadvantage in international competition.
Ker energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti v Avstriji konkurirajo podjetjem v drugih državah članicah (npr. Nemčiji) in zunaj EU, je mehanizem oprostitve bistven za zagotovitev, da niso v slabšem položaju glede na mednarodno konkurenco.
OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
The Austrian Chamber of Employees submitted observations on the opening of the formal investigation.
Avstrijska delavska zbornica je predložila pripombe v zvezi z začetkom formalne preiskave.
The organisation, which had 3,2 million members, considered that the financing system of the Green Electricity Act involved State aid.
Organizacija, ki je imela 3,2 milijona članov, je menila, da sistem financiranja iz zakona o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov vključuje državno pomoč.
It did not share Austria’s view that the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive consumers was compatible with State aid law.
Ni se strinjala s stališčem Avstrije, da je mehanizem oprostitve za energetsko intenzivne odjemalce združljiv z zakonodajo o državni pomoči.
The mechanism placed an additional burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and households, which were obliged to pay the extra costs of green energy even though they were not the main consumers.
Mehanizem je dodatno obremenil mala in srednja podjetja (MSP) ter gospodinjstva, ki so morala kriti dodatne stroške obnovljive energije, čeprav niso glavni odjemalci.
This would lead to distortion of competition at the expenses of SMEs.
To bi povzročilo izkrivljanje konkurence na račun MSP.
The Chamber of Employees referred to the Commission decision of 4 July 2006, in which the Commission concluded that the feed-in tariffs constituted State aid [26].
Delavska zbornica se je sklicevala na odločitev Komisije z dne 4. julija 2006, v kateri je Komisija ugotovila, da zagotovljene odkupne cene pomenijo državno pomoč [26].
Since the legal framework governing the feed-in tariffs had not changed since that time, the Chamber argued that the support system provided for in the Green Electricity Act of 2008 continued to involve State aid.
Ker se pravni okvir, ki ureja zagotovljene odkupne cene, od takrat ni spremenil, je zbornica trdila, da sistem podpore iz zakona o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov iz leta 2008 še naprej vključuje državno pomoč.
The Chamber wondered how Austria could now defend a position different from the one it had expressed when it notified the earlier version of the Act.
Zbornica se je spraševala, kako lahko Avstrija zdaj podpira drugačno stališče kot takrat, ko je priglasila prejšnjo različico zakona.
The Chamber did not agree with Austria that the exemption of large consumers from the purchase obligation, as provided in the Act, should be regarded in the same light as the cap on energy taxes.
Zbornica se ni strinjala z Avstrijo, da je treba oprostitev velikih odjemalcev od obveznosti nakupa, kot to določa zakon, obravnavati enako kot omejitev davkov na energijo.
Austria, citing an earlier Commission decision approving a cap on energy taxes, was now also seeking approval for the exemption mechanism for large consumers of electricity; this was not admissible.
Avstrija si zdaj z navajanjem prejšnje odločitve Komisije, s katero je bila odobrena omejitev davkov na energijo, prizadeva tudi za odobritev mehanizma oprostitve za velike odjemalce električne energije; to ni sprejemljivo.
The Chamber considered that the analogy was not a legitimate one.
Zbornica je menila, da analogija ni zakonita.
The cap on energy taxes was State aid, granted through the tax system, which was aimed at least indirectly at an improvement in environmental protection, whereas the exemption from the purchase obligation for energy-intensive businesses did not pursue any environmental objective and could not be subsumed under the Environmental Aid Guidelines.
Omejitev davkov na energijo je državna pomoč, ki je odobrena prek davčnega sistema in katere namen je vsaj posredno izboljšanje varstva okolja, medtem ko oprostitev od obveznosti nakupa za energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti nima nobenega okoljskega cilja in ne more biti vključena v skladu s smernicami o pomoči za varstvo okolja.
Since the Act provided specifically for the exemption of large consumers from such a purchase obligation, the provision could not be regarded as a reduction of or exemption from environmental taxes within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines.
Ker je zakon posebej določil oprostitev velikih odjemalcev od takšne obveznosti nakupa, določbe ni mogoče obravnavati kot znižanje ali oprostitev okoljskih davkov v smislu poglavja 4 Smernic.