natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See for example the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-482/99 France v Commission (Stardust Marine) [2002] ECR I-4397, paragraph 24.
Glej na primer sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-482/99 Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust Marine) [2002] Recueil I-4397, točka 24.
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] ECR 595 and Case 47/69 French textiles [1970] ECR 487.
Glej sodbi Sodišča v zadevi C-78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] Recueil 595 in v zadevi C-47/69 French textiles [1970] Recueil 487.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-345/02 Pearle and Others [2004] ECR I-7139.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-345/02 Pearle in drugi [2004] ZOdl I–7139.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-136/05 Earl Salvat v Commission [2007] ECR II-4063, paragraphs 137–165.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T136/05 Earl Salvat proti Komisiji [2007] ZOdl II–4063, točke 137–165.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 57/86 Greece v Commission [1988] ECR 2855, paragraph 12; PreussenElektra, cited above; judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-126/01 Gemo [2003] ECR I-13769, paragraph 23.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C–57/86, Grčija proti Komisiji [1988] Recueil 2855, točka 12; PreussenElektra, navedena zgoraj; sodba Sodišča v zadevi C–126/01 Gemo [2003] Recueil I-13769, točka 23.
Judgments in Stardust Marine, cited above; Pearle, cited above; and Earl Salvat, cited above.
Sodbe v zadevi Stardust Marine, navedeni zgoraj; Pearle, navedeni zgoraj; in Earl Salvat, navedeni zgoraj.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord v Aluminium Delfzijl [2008] ECR I-5497, paragraphs 69 and 70.
Sodba sodišča v zadevi C–206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord proti Aluminium Delfzijl [2008] ZOdl I-5497, točki 69 in 70.
Commission Decision C(2004) 4333 of 1 December 2004, Case No N 490/2000 Italy — stranded costs of the electricity sector.
Odločba Komisije C(2004) 4333 z dne 1. decembra 2004, zadeva št. 490/2000 Italija – nasedle naložbe sektorja električne energije.
Judgment in Case T-25/07 Iride [2009] ECR II-245, paragraph 39.
Sodba v zadevi T-25/07 Iride [2009] ZOdl II-245, točka 39.
Iride, cited above, paragraph 28.
Zadeva Iride, navedena zgoraj, točka 28.
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 303/88 Italy v Commission [1988] ECR 1433 and Case 47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 4393; see also the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-351/02 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [2006] ECR II-1047.
Glej sodbi Sodišča v zadevi 303/88 Italija proti Komisiji [1988] Recueil 1433 in zadevi 47/69 Francija proti Komisiji [1970] Recueil 4393; glej tudi sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-351/02 Deutsche Bahn proti Komisiji [2006] ZOdl II–1047.
Judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR 4067, paragraph 19, and Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 26.
Sodbi Sodišča v zadevi 102/87 Francija proti Komisiji [1988] Recueil 4067, točka 19, in zadevi C-305/89 Italija proti Komisiji [1991] Recueil I-1603, točka 26.
Portovesme is owned by the multinational Glencore.
Družba Portovesme je v lasti večnacionalne družbe Glencore.
Eurallumina is owned by the Russian company Rusal.
Družba Eurallumina je v lasti ruske družbe Rusal.
See, for example, the Commission decisions to open proceedings in respect of regulated electricity tariffs in France (Case C 17/07, Commission decision C/2007/2392 of 13 June 2007, OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 9) and in Spain (Case C 3/07, Commission decision C/2007/123/3 of 24 January 2007, OJ C 43, 27.2.2007, p. 9).
Glej na primer odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi postopkov v zvezi z reguliranimi tarifami električne energije v Franciji (zadeva C 17/07, sklep Komisije C/2007/2392 z dne 13. junija 2007, UL C 164, 18.7.2007, str. 9) in Španiji (zadeva C 3/07, sklep Komisije C/2007/123/3 z dne 24. januarja 2007, UL C 43, 27.2. 2007, str. 9).
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, paragraphs 32 and 33; judgments of the Court of First Instance in Case T-214/95 Vlaams Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, paragraph 67; and Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to 607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 Alzetta and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-2319, paragraph 79.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-301/87 Francija proti Komisiji[1990] Recueil I-307, točki 32 in 33; sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-214/95 Vlaams Gewest proti Komisiji [1998] Recueil II-717, točka 67; ter v združenih zadevah T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 do 607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 do T-6/98 in T-23/98 Alzetta in drugi proti Komisiji [2000] Recueil II-2319, točka 79.
See, for example, the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11, and in Joined Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05 Air Liquide Industries v Ville de Seraing and Province de Liège [2006] ECR I-5293.
Glej na primer sodbi Sodišča v zadevi 730/79 Philip Morris proti Komisiji [1980] Recueil 2671, točka 11, ter v združenih zadevah C-393/04 in C-41/05 Air Liquide Industries proti Ville de Seraing and Province de Liège [2006] ZOdl I-5293.
ECR I-3891; see also Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, paragraph 50.
Recueil I-3891; glej tudi sodbo v zadevi C-301/87 Francija proti Komisiji [1990] Recueil I-307, točka 50.
OJ C 37, 3.2.2001, p. 3 and OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1.
UL C 37, 3.2.2001, str. 3. in UL C 82, 1.4.2008, str. 1.
Sardinia was connected to mainland Italy via an obsolete 270 MWh interconnector known as SACOI.
Sardinija je bila s celinsko Italijo povezana z zastarelim daljnovodom zmogljivosti 270 MWh, znanim kot SACOI.
In 2009 the first section of a new interconnection cable, SAPEI, became operational.
Leta 2009 je začel delovati prvi del novega povezovalnega kabla, SAPEI.
Communication from the Commission — Inquiry pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 into the European gas and electricity sectors (Final Report), SEC(2006) 1724, COM(2006) 851 final.
Sporočilo Komisije – Preiskava na podlagi člena 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 v panogi plina in elektroenergetski panogi (končno poročilo) SEC(2006) 1724, COM(2006) 851 konč.
In the South zone, however, the HHI is higher.
Vendar je na južnem delu indeks HHI višji.
For example, in 2007 the average wholesale price in Italy (for baseload power on the day-ahead market) on IPEX (Italy’s electricity exchange) was EUR 70,99 per MWh, compared with EUR 37,97 on Germany’s EEX exchange and EUR 40,78 on France’s Powernext exchange.
Leta 2007 je bila na primer povprečna veleprodajna cena v Italiji (za osnovno obremenitev na dnevnem trgu) na borzi IPEX (italijanska borza električne energije) 70,99 EUR/MWh v primerjavi s 37,97 EUR na nemški borzi EEX in 40,78 EUR na francoski borzi Powernext.
2008 Report of the AEEG, based on data from the exchange manager, GME.
Poročilo AEEG iz leta 2008, ki temelji na podatkih upravljalca borze GME.
Commission Decision C(2002) 3715 of 16 October 2002, Region of Sardinia: measures to reduce the energy costs of small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ C 132, 4.6.2002, p. 6).
Sklep Komisije C(2002) 3715 z dne 16. oktobra 2002, dežela Sardinija: ukrepi za znižanje stroškov energije za mala in srednje velika podjetja (UL C 132, 4.6.2002, str. 6).
At the time of writing (December 2010), the SAPEI cable is partly operational, whereas the GALSI pipeline is not expected to come on stream before 2014.
V času sestavljanja sklepa (december 2010) kabel SAPEI deluje delno, plinovod GALSI pa naj bi bil priključen leta 2014.
It should be noted that variations in market prices are not correlated only with variations in fuel prices.
Opozoriti je treba, da nihanja tržnih cen niso povezana samo z nihanjem cen goriva.
Other factors are liable to push up market prices: in the specific context of Sardinia, these may include the market power of incumbent operators, imbalances between supply and demand, or interconnection problems.
Na dvig tržne cene lahko vplivajo drugi dejavniki: v posebnih okoliščinah Sardinije lahko ti dejavniki vključujejo tržno moč prvotnih nosilcev dejavnosti, neravnovesja med ponudbo in povpraševanjem ali težave z medsebojnim povezovanjem.
The Italian method does not ensure that over time the actual amount of aid will decrease, or even remain stable.
Italijanska metoda ne zagotavlja, da se bo sčasoma dejanski znesek pomoči znižal ali ostal enak.
In particular, even in the event of an increase in average EU prices smaller than 4 %, the tariff advantage would still increase in absolute terms.
Zlasti, tudi v primeru zvišanja povprečnih cen EU za manj kot 4 %, bi se cenovna ugodnost v absolutnem smislu vseeno povečala.
For example, if the preferential price was EUR 30 per MWh and the average electricity price in Europe was EUR 60 per MWh (compensatory payment: EUR 30), a 3 % increase in the average EU price (bringing it to EUR 61,8) would lead to an updated tariff of EUR 30,90. The new compensatory payment per MWh would be EUR 61,80 – EUR 30,90 = EUR 30,90, which is a higher amount of aid.
Na primer, če bi bila ugodnejša cena 30 EUR/MWh in povprečna cena elektrike v Evropi 60 EUR/MWh (kompenzacijsko plačilo: 30 EUR), bi 3-odstotno zvišanje povprečne cene v EU (na 61,8 EUR) vodilo do zvišane cene 30,90 EUR. Novo kompenzacijsko plačilo na MWh bi bilo 61,80 EUR–30,90 EUR = 30,90 EUR, kar je višji znesek pomoči.
The Alumina case, Decision 2006/323/CE of 7 December 2005.
Zadeva Alumina, sklep 2006/323/ES z dne 7. decembra 2005.
Commission Decision of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche, paragraphs 144 and 145.
Odločba Komisije z dne 20. novembra 2007 o državni pomoči C 36/A/06 Italije za ThyssenKrupp, Cementir in Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche, odstavka 144 in 145.
That decision was upheld by the General Court in Cases T-53/08, 62/08, 63/08 and 64/08; an appeal is pending.
To odločbo je potrdilo Splošno sodišče s sodbo v zadevah T-53/08, 62/08, 63/08 in 64/08; pritožba je v obravnavi.
Decision referenced in footnote 3, at paragraph 244.
Odločba, na katero je navedeno sklicevanje v opombi 3, odstavku 244.
For example, in its Third Report, in February 2007, the High Level Group states ‘Against this background, the use of incentives, including general purpose subsidies and state aids can be justified as a policy instrument. They may promote responsible social and environmental behaviour, regional cohesion, sustainable development and cultural diversity. However, they should only be used where there is a clear market failure, where subsidies prove to be the appropriate instrument for meeting a well defined common interest objective, and when they do not distort competition or harm the environment … Action is justified when such subsidies undermine other policy objectives such as fighting climate change, the Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth, proper functioning of energy markets, or access to raw materials, without meeting their initial objective’ (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/policy-integration/high-level-group/reference-material/index_en.htm).
Skupina na visoki ravni na primer v svojem tretjem poročilu iz februarja 2007 navaja: „Na tej podlagi se lahko uporaba spodbud, vključno s splošnimi subvencijami in državnimi pomočmi, utemelji kot instrument politike. S spodbudami se lahko spodbujajo odgovorno socialno in okoljsko vedenje, regijska kohezija, trajnostni razvoj in kulturna raznolikost. Vendar se lahko uporabijo le v primeru jasnega nedelovanja trga, kadar se izkaže, da so subvencije primerno sredstvo za izpolnjevanje dobro opredeljenega cilja v skupnem interesu in kadar ne izkrivljajo konkurence ali škodijo okolju. Ukrepanje je upravičeno, kadar take subvencije ogrožajo druge politične cilje, kot je boj proti podnebnim spremembam, lizbonska strategija za rast in delovna mesta, ustrezno delovanje energetskih trgov ali dostop do surovin, pri čemer ne izpolnjujejo svojega prvotnega cilja“ (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/policy-integration/high-level-group/reference-material/index_en.htm).
Judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-24/95 Alcan Deutschland [1997] ECR I-1591, paragraphs 25, 30 and 31, and in Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 Demesa and Territorio Histórico de Álava v Commission [2004] ECR I-10609, paragraph 45.
Sodbe Sodišča v zadevi C-24/95 Alcan Deutschland [1997] Recueil I-1591, točke 25, 30 in 31, ter v združenih zadevah C-183/02 P in C-187/02 Demesa in Territorio histórico de Álava proti Komisiji, [2004] Recueil I-10609, točka 45.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-5/89 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 16.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-5/89 Nemčija proti Komisiji [1990] Recueil I-3437, odstavek 16.
Whereas the original Alumix tariff was granted directly by State-owned power supplier ENEL, which was held to be acting as a rational market operator in selling electricity at the Alumix price, the 2004 tariff was subsidised by the State from the proceeds of a parafiscal levy.
Medtem ko je prvotno ceno Alumix neposredno odobril dobavitelj električne energije ENEL, ki je bil v državni lasti in za katerega je bilo ugotovljeno, da je pri prodaji električne energije po ceni Alumix ravnal kot razumen udeleženec na trgu, je cene iz leta 2004 subvencionirala država s prejemki od drugih dajatev.
The Italian authorities replied by letters dated 9 February 2004 and 9 June 2004.
Italijanski organi so odgovorili z dopisoma z dne 9. februarja 2004 in 9. junija 2004.
By letter of 20 September 2004, Italy submitted further information.
Z dopisom z dne 20. septembra 2004 je Italija predložila dodatna pojasnila.
Article 1 of the 2004 Decree extended ‘the [tariff] treatment laid down in Article 2 of the Decree of the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Crafts of 19 December 1995 (“the Alcoa Decree”] to energy supplies for the production and processing of aluminium, lead, silver and zinc, but only in respect of plants already in existence at the date of entry into force of the present Decree and located on islands with insufficient or no interconnection to the national electricity and gas grids’.
Člen 1 odloka iz leta 2004 je razširil „[cenovno] obravnavo iz člena 2 odloka ministrstva za industrijo, trgovino in obrt z dne 19. decembra 1995 [v nadaljnjem besedilu: odlok za družbo Alcoa] na dobavo energije za proizvodnjo in predelavo aluminija, svinca, srebra in cinka, vendar le za obrate, ki so bili ob datumu veljavnosti tega odloka že ustanovljeni in se nahajajo na otoških območjih ter nimajo dovolj povezav z nacionalnimi elektroenergetskimi in plinovodnimi omrežji ali teh povezav sploh nimajo“.
The data provided by Italy shows that Portovesme and Eurallumina received subsidies for electricity consumed between April and October 2004, and ILA received subsidies for electricity consumed between April and September 2004.
Podatki, ki jih je predložila Italija, kažejo, da sta družbi Portovesme in Eurallumina prejemali subvencije za električno energijo, porabljeno med aprilom in oktobrom 2004, družba ILA pa subvencije za električno energijo, porabljeno med aprilom in septembrom 2004.
The total payments made by the Equalisation Fund to these three undertakings under the scheme are set out below (in euro).
Skupna izplačila izravnalnega sklada tem trem družbam v okviru sheme so navedena spodaj (v EUR).
The Commission observed that the new tariff seemed different from the Alumix tariff, as the Alumix tariff was granted directly by ENEL, the Italian monopolist electricity operator, while the new tariff involved the selective intervention of the State to compensate the difference between the market price agreed by the beneficiaries with their power suppliers and the preferential price fixed in 1996.
Komisija je trdila, da se zdi, da se je nova cena razlikovala od cene Alumix, ker je ceno Alumix odobrila družba ENEL, tj. monopolni dobavitelj električne energije v Italiji, medtem ko je nova cena vključevala posamično posredovanje države, da bi se nadomestila razlika med tržno ceno, dogovorjeno s proizvajalcem električne energije, in ugodnejšo ceno, določeno leta 1996.
The Commission concluded that the 2004 Decree did not merely extend to new beneficiaries the scope of an existing measure that did not constitute State aid, but rather introduced a new scheme for the benefit of the three undertakings concerned, with a financial mechanism that was very different from the Alumix tariff.
Komisija je sklenila, da odlok iz leta 2004 ne širi področja uporabe obstoječega ukrepa, ki ne pomeni državne pomoči, na nove upravičence, ampak s finančnim mehanizmom, ki se precej razlikuje od cene Alumix, uvaja novo shemo v korist zadevnih treh družb.
No impact on trade within the Union
Brez učinka na trgovino v Uniji
In 2004, for example, on the basis of the bilateral supply contracts in force at the time and in the absence of the compensatory payments, Portovesme would have paid EUR 63 per MWh [33] and Eurallumina EUR 65,95.
V letu 2004, na primer, bi na podlagi veljavnih dvostranskih dobavnih pogodb in ob odsotnosti kompenzacijskih plačil družba Portovesme plačevala 63 EUR [33] in družba Eurallumina 65,95 EUR/MWh.
These figures were provided by Italy and the beneficiaries themselves, and are therefore not in dispute.
Te številke so predložili Italija in sami upravičenci, zato niso sporne.
The Region of Sardinia was eligible for such aid until the end of 2006.
Dežela Sardinija je bila do takšne pomoči upravičena do konca leta 2006.
The Commission has therefore examined whether, during that period, the 2004 and the 2005 tariffs could be authorised under the 1998 Regional Aid Guidelines.
Komisija je zato preučila, ali se lahko cene iz leta 2004 in 2005 odobrijo v skladu s smernicami o regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998.
According to point 2 of the Guidelines, ‘An individual ad hoc payment made to a single firm, or aid confined to one area of activity, may have a major impact on competition in the relevant market, and its effects on regional development are likely to be too limited … Consequently, the derogations in question [from the general prohibition of aid] will normally be granted only for multisectoral aid schemes open, in a given region, to all firms in the sectors concerned’.
V skladu s točko 2 smernic lahko „posamično ad hoc plačilo enemu samemu podjetju, ali pomoč, omejena na eno področje dejavnosti, zelo vpliva na konkurenco na zadevnem trgu, pri čemer bodo njeni vplivi na regionalni razvoj verjetno preveč omejeni … Zato se bodo zadevna odstopanja [od splošne prepovedi pomoči] običajno odobrila le za večsektorske sheme pomoči, ki so v neki regiji odprte za vsa podjetja v zadevnih sektorjih“.
An electricity tariff which is granted selectively to a few individual undertakings in certain sectors is clearly not in line with the spirit of regional aid, which expected to be multisectoral.
Cena električne energije, ki se selektivno odobri nekaj posameznim podjetjem v določenih sektorjih, nedvomno ni v skladu z duhom regionalne pomoči, ki bi morala biti večsektorska.
In 2007, the national average price (PUN) was EUR 70,99 per MWh, whereas the average Sardinian zonal price was EUR 75,00 per MWh, down from EUR 80,00 per MWh in 2006 [66].
Leta 2007 je bila nacionalna povprečna cena 70,99 EUR/MWh, medtem ko se je povprečna območna cena na Sardiniji znižala z 80,00 EUR/MWh iz leta 2006 na 75,00 EUR/MWh [66].
In 2008 and 2009, average regional prices in Sardinia continued on an upward trend.
Povprečne regionalne cene na Sardiniji so se leta 2008 in 2009 še naprej zviševale.
In the first half of 2009, prices in Sardinia remained constantly above the national average (with an average price of EUR 106,60 per MWh compared with a PUN of EUR 60,50 per MWh).
Cene na Sardiniji so bile v prvi polovici leta 2009 stalno nad nacionalnim povprečjem (pri čemer je bila povprečna cena 106,60 EUR/MWh v primerjavi z nacionalno povprečno ceno 60,50 EUR/MWh).
In fact, the limited information at the Commission’s disposal suggests the opposite, i.e. that bilateral contract prices increased sharply in Sardinia (see, for example, Eurallumina’s statement that in 2005/2006 it paid a price of EUR 80 per MWh on the free market, up from EUR 65 per MWh in 2004).
Omejene informacije, ki jih ima Komisija na voljo, dejansko kažejo nasprotno, tj. da so cene v dvostranskih pogodbah na Sardiniji strmo narasle (glej, na primer izjavo družbe Eurallumina, da je v letih 2005/2006 na prostem trgu plačala ceno 80 EUR/MWh, leta 2004 pa je cena znašala 65 EUR/MWh).
In these circumstances, had the tariffs been implemented, the compensatory payments would have increased over time.
V teh okoliščinah bi se v primeru uvedbe cen kompenzacijska plačila sčasoma povečala.
The Commission concludes that the tariffs at issue cannot be considered compatible as regional aid under the 1998 Regional Aid Guidelines.
Komisija je sklenila, da se zadevne cene ne morejo šteti za združljive kot regionalna pomoč v skladu s smernicami o nacionalni regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998.
Since Sardinia ceased to be assisted pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) after December 2006, it is not necessary to examine the compatibility of the aid in the light of the Regional Aid Guidelines for 2007–2013.
Ker Sardinija po decembru 2006 ni več prejemala pomoči v skladu s členom 107(3)(a), ni treba preveriti združljivosti pomoči ob upoštevanju smernic o regionalni pomoči za obdobje 2007–2013.
In particular, no expectation that the tariffs would not constitute State aid could have arisen as a result of the 1996 Alumix decision.
Zlasti ni bilo mogoče pričakovati, da cene ne bi pomenile državne pomoči, na podlagi odločbe Alumix iz leta 1996.
As indicated in the 2004 opening decision (see recital 37) the tariff that served as a blueprint for the disputed 2004 tariffs was not the original Alumix arrangement, which the Commission found did not constitute aid in 1996, but an entirely new measure, which had been substantially modified (in particular as regards its financing mechanism) [78] and extended in time by the Italian authorities.
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka iz leta 2004 (glej uvodno izjavo 37), cena, ki je služila kot osnova za sporne cene iz leta 2004, ni bila del prvotnega dogovora Alumix, za katerega je Komisija leta 1996 ugotovila, da ne pomeni pomoči, ampak popolnoma nov ukrep, ki je bil znatno spremenjen (zlasti njegov mehanizem financiranja) [78] in so ga italijanski organi časovno podaljšali.
Letter from the AEEG to the Ministry for Production Activities dated 17 December 2004.
Dopis AEEG ministrstvu za proizvodne dejavnosti z dne 17. decembra 2004.
According to the information available, however, the 2004 Decree has not been formally repealed by the Italian authorities.
Vendar v skladu z informacijami, ki so na voljo, italijanski organi odloka iz leta 2004 niso uradno preklicali.
Italy had estimated that these infrastructures would be completed in 2007.
Italija je ocenila, da bo ta infrastruktura končana leta 2007.
In the context of Cases C 13/2006 and C 36b/2006 Italy put back the expected date to 2010.
V okviru zadev C 13/2006 in C 36b/2006 je Italija pričakovani datum premaknila na leto 2010.
At the time of the adoption of this decision, the GALSI pipeline has not been built (it is expected to be commissioned in 2014), and the SAPEI cable is only partly operational.
V času sprejetja tega sklepa plinovod GALSI še ni bil zgrajen (uporabljati naj bi se začel leta 2014), kabel SAPEI pa deluje samo delno.
Thus the Commission was still in a position to authorise the measure under the 2007 Regional Aid.
Tako bi lahko Komisija še vedno odobrila ukrep iz smernic o regionalni pomoči iz leta 2007.
Guidelines. In any event, Italy contended that the disputed measure should not be viewed as ordinary operating aid.
V vsakem primeru je Italija trdila, da se spornega ukrepa ne sme obravnavati kot običajno pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.