natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While point 152 of the Guidelines may apply only to taxes harmonised by the Energy Tax Directive, Austria argues, Article 25 of the Regulation requires only that the exemption mechanism respect the minimum tax levels set in the Energy Tax Directive, even if it is not a harmonised energy tax.
Medtem ko se lahko točka 152 Smernic uporablja le za davke, usklajene na podlagi direktive o davku na energijo, Avstrija trdi, da člen 25 Uredbe določa le, da mora mehanizem oprostitve upoštevati najnižje davčne stopnje iz direktive o davku na energijo, tudi če ne gre za usklajeni davek na energijo.
Article 25 of the Regulation can therefore be applied to reductions of non-harmonised environmental taxes, which can be found compatible provided that the overall taxation system respects the minimum energy tax levels.
Zato bi se člen 25 Uredbe lahko uporabljal za znižanja neusklajenih okoljskih davkov, ki se lahko štejejo za združljiva, če splošni davčni sistem upošteva najnižje stopnje davkov na energijo.
Austria acknowledges that the contributions paid under the Green Electricity Act are not a tax [79], but submits that the notified exemption mechanism can be assessed and approved by analogy with the provision on environmental taxes in Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation.
Avstrija priznava, da prispevki, ki se plačujejo na podlagi zakona o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov, niso davki [79], vendar navaja, da bi bilo priglašeni mehanizem oprostitve mogoče oceniti in odobriti po analogiji z določbo o okoljskih davkih iz člena 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.
In the Commission’s view, however, there is no scope for an analogy with Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation.
Vendar po mnenju Komisije analogija s členom 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah ni mogoča.
First, the rules applicable to the case are not similar to the ones which it is sought to have applied by analogy.
Prvič, pravila, ki se uporabljajo za primer, niso podobna pravilom, ki naj bi se uporabljala po analogiji.
The wording of Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation clearly indicates that the Article applies only to environmental taxes harmonised under the Energy Tax Directive.
Iz besedila člena 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah je jasno razvidno, da se člen uporablja le za okoljske davke, ki so usklajeni na podlagi direktive o davku na energijo.
Classification as an energy tax is thus a ‘condition’ for the applicability of Article 25 of the Regulation.
Razvrstitev med davke na energijo je torej „pogoj“ za uporabo člena 25 Uredbe.
This interpretation is supported by the fact that it follows from the rationale of the system of the General Block Exemption Regulation that it cannot have a scope wider than the Environmental Aid Guidelines to which it refers.
To razlago podpira tudi dejstvo, da iz utemeljitve sistema Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah izhaja, da njeno področje uporabe ne more biti širše od področja uporabe smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja, na katere se nanaša.
Article 25 of the Regulation therefore clearly applies only to energy taxes harmonised by the Energy Tax Directive.
Zato je jasno, da člen 25 Uredbe velja le za davke na energijo, ki so usklajeni na podlagi direktive o davku na energijo.
As explained above, the contributions paid under the Green Electricity Act are not environmental taxes, and the rules of the Energy Tax Directive do not apply to them.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, prispevki, ki se plačujejo na podlagi zakona o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov, niso okoljski davki, zato se pravila iz direktive o davku na energijo za njih ne uporabljajo.
It follows that the rules governing energy taxes are not similar to the rules governing the Austrian feed-in tariffs.
Iz tega izhaja, da pravila o davkih na energijo niso podobna pravilom o avstrijskih zagotovljenih odkupnih cenah.
Second, the rules applicable to the case do not contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which can be remedied by analogy.
Drugič, pravila, ki se uporabljajo za primer, ne vsebujejo opustitve, ki je nezdružljiva s splošnim načelom prava EU in bi jo bilo mogoče odpraviti z analogijo.
Tax reductions or similar measures which are not covered by the General Block Exemption Regulation are not automatically incompatible with EU law: they merely have to abide by the general obligation to notify under Article 108 TFEU.
Znižanja davkov ali podobni ukrepi, ki niso zajeti z Uredbo o splošnih skupinskih izjemah, niso samodejno nezdružljivi s pravom EU: za njih velja le splošna obveznost priglasitve v skladu s členom 108 PDEU.
They can then be assessed and found compatible under the Environmental Aid Guidelines, or, if the Guidelines do not apply, directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Nato jih je mogoče oceniti in razglasiti za združljive na podlagi smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja ali, če se Smernice ne uporabljajo, neposredno na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
It follows that the rules applicable to the assessment of the Austrian aid scheme do not contain an omission incompatible with EU law.
Iz tega izhaja, da pravila, ki se uporabljajo za oceno avstrijske sheme pomoči, ne vsebujejo opustitve, ki je nezdružljiva s pravom EU.
The Commission concludes that it cannot draw an analogy between the contributions paid under the Green Electricity Act and the harmonised energy taxes referred to in Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation, that it consequently cannot approve the exemption mechanism on the basis of such an analogy.
Komisija ugotavlja, da analogija med prispevki, ki se plačujejo na podlagi zakona o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov, in usklajenimi davki na energijo iz člena 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah ni mogoča, zato na podlagi takšne analogije mehanizma oprostitve ne more odobriti.
Compatibility under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
Združljivost na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU
The Commission notes that Austria has not claimed that the exemption mechanism can be declared compatible directly on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da Avstrija ni trdila, da je mehanizem oprostitve mogoče razglasiti za združljivega neposredno na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
It is for the Member State to put forward any grounds of compatibility [80] and to demonstrate that the conditions thereof are met, and for this reason alone Austria is prevented from relying on this ground of compatibility.
Razloge za združljivost mora predložiti država članica [80], ki mora tudi dokazati, da so pogoji za takšno združljivost izpolnjeni, pri čemer se Avstrija samo zaradi tega ne more sklicevati na združljivost na podlagi teh razlogov.
The Commission has nevertheless considered whether it could declare the exemption mechanism compatible on this legal basis.
Komisija je kljub temu preučila, ali bi na tej pravni podlagi mehanizem oprostitve lahko razglasila za združljivega.
Article 107(3)(c) TFEU states that ‘aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’ may be considered to be compatible with the internal market.
V členu 107(3)(c) PDEU je določeno, da se „pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi“, lahko šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom.
According to the case-law, the Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market if the aid contributes to the attainment of an objective of common interest [81], is necessary for the attainment of this objective [82], and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Na podlagi sodne prakse Komisija lahko razglasi državno pomoč za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če pomoč prispeva k doseganju cilja skupnega interesa [81], če je potrebna za doseganje tega cilja [82] in če ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
Accordingly, it is established Commission practice that measures may be declared compatible directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU if they are necessary and proportionate and if the positive effects for the common objective outweigh the negative effects on competition and trade [83].
Zato se v skladu z ustaljeno prakso Komisije ukrepi lahko razglasijo za združljive neposredno na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU, če so nujni in sorazmerni ter če pozitivni učinki za skupni cilj odtehtajo negativne učinke na konkurenco in trgovino [83].
The Commission considers it appropriate here to ask the following questions:
Komisiji se zdi ustrezno, da v zvezi s tem postavi naslednja vprašanja:
Is the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest?
Ali je ukrep pomoči usmerjen v natančno opredeljen cilj skupnega interesa?
Is the aid well designed to deliver the objective of common interest?
Ali pomoč zagotavlja doseganje cilja skupnega interesa?
is the aid measure an appropriate and necessary instrument, or are there other, more suitable instruments?
ali je ukrep pomoči ustrezen in nujen instrument oziroma ali obstajajo drugi ustreznejši instrumenti?
is there an incentive effect, or in other words does the aid change the behaviour of undertakings?
ali obstaja spodbujevalni učinek, tj. ali pomoč spreminja ravnanje podjetij?
is the aid measure proportional, or in other words could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?
ali je ukrep pomoči sorazmeren, tj. ali bi bila lahko enaka sprememba v ravnanju dosežena z manj pomoči?
Austria submits that the main objective of the measure is environmental protection.
Avstrija navaja, da je glavni cilj ukrepa varstvo okolja.
However, as demonstrated above in recitals 126–129, the exemption mechanism does not contribute to environmental protection.
Vendar mehanizem oprostitve ne prispeva k varstvu okolja, kot je prikazano v uvodnih izjavah 126–129.
In addition, any environmental effect of the measure is to be achieved through an overall increase in feed-in tariffs, which in Austria’s opinion would not be possible without ensuring the continued competitiveness of energy-intensive businesses by means of the notified exemption mechanism.
Poleg tega naj bi se okoljski učinek ukrepa dosegel s splošnim zvišanjem zagotovljenih odkupnih cen, kar po mnenju Avstrije ne bi bilo mogoče brez zagotavljanja nadaljnje konkurenčnosti energetsko intenzivnih dejavnosti prek priglašenega mehanizma oprostitve.
As the Austrian authorities in fact acknowledge in their submissions, the objective of the exemption mechanism is to improve the competitiveness of energy-intensive businesses in Austria vis-à-vis their competitors in other Member States.
Cilj mehanizma oprostitve je izboljšati konkurenčnost energetsko intenzivnih dejavnosti v Avstriji glede na njihove konkurente v drugih državah članicah, kar avstrijski organi dejansko potrjujejo v svojih navedbah.
In its decisions the Commission has never accepted that such aid contributes to an objective of common interest.
Komisija ni v svojih sklepih nikoli potrdila, da takšna pomoč prispeva k cilju skupnega interesa.
The only exception to this practice is Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.
Edina izjema pri tej praksi je poglavje 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja.
But even where the Commission accepts a reduction of an environmental tax, it still requires that a minimum level of tax be paid.
Vendar Komisija tudi v primerih, v katerih odobri znižanje okoljskega davka, še vedno zahteva plačilo najnižje davčne stopnje.
This means that the total contribution to overall tax revenues of the undertaking benefiting from the tax reduction still increases with each unit of pollution.
To pomeni, da se kljub temu skupni prispevek k celotnim davčnim prihodkom s strani podjetja, za katerega velja znižanje davkov, z vsako enoto onesnaženja poveča.
In the present case the situation is different.
V tem primeru so razmere drugačne.
The contribution is capped at 0,5 % of the net production value.
Prispevek je omejen na 0,5 % neto vrednosti proizvodnje.
Any additional units of pollution are no longer subject to the parafiscal levy.
Za dodatne enote onesnaženja parafiskalna dajatev več ne velja.
Thus the contribution per unit of pollution decreases for each additional unit.
Tako se prispevek na enoto onesnaženja zmanjša za vsako dodatno enoto.
Rather than encouraging resource efficiency, therefore, the system provides an incentive for using additional resources.
Zato sistem ne spodbuja učinkovite rabe virov, ampak uporabo dodatnih virov.
The Commission consequently considers that the aid does not contribute to an objective of common interest.
Komisija zato meni, da pomoč ne prispeva k cilju skupnega interesa.
Appropriate policy instrument
Ustrezen instrument politike
According to the case-law, ‘operating aid, that is to say, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would itself normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities, does not in principle fall within the scope of Article 92(3) [now Article 107(3) TFEU]’ [84].
V skladu s sodno prakso „pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, tj. pomoč, ki je namenjena zmanjšanju stroškov, ki bi jih podjetje običajno imelo v okviru tekočega poslovanja oziroma običajnih dejavnosti, načeloma ne spada na področje uporabe člena 92(3) [zdaj člen 107(3) PDEU]“ [84].
As the courts have said, ‘According to the relevant case-law, the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sectors in which it is granted, whilst nevertheless being incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives of the aforesaid exceptions’ [85].
Sodišča navajajo naslednje: „Glede na ustrezno sodno prakso takšna pomoč načeloma izkrivlja konkurenco v sektorjih, v katerih je dodeljena, pri čemer zaradi svoje narave ne more izpolniti nobenega cilja, določenega z zgoraj navedenimi določbami o odstopanjih“ [85].
In the case at hand the Commission finds that the exemption mechanism constitutes operating aid, because it relieves the beneficiaries from part of their electricity procurement costs, which they would normally have had to bear in their day-to-day operations.
V tem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da mehanizem oprostitve pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ker zmanjšuje del stroškov oskrbe z električno energijo, ki bi jih upravičenci običajno imeli v okviru tekočega poslovanja.
Even if the improvement of competitiveness was an objective of common interest, therefore, the Commission considers that operating aid would in any event not be an appropriate policy instrument for achieving that objective.
Tudi če bi bilo izboljšanje konkurenčnosti cilj skupnega interesa, Komisija meni, da pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v nobenem primeru ne bi bil ustrezen instrument politike za doseganje navedenega cilja.
With regard to environmental taxes the Commission has accepted a limited exception to this principle, but with a specific objective in mind.
Kar zadeva okoljske davke, je Komisija odobrila omejeno izjemo od tega načela, vendar ob upoštevanju posebnega cilja.
Reductions of and exemptions from environmental taxes concerning certain sectors or categories of undertakings are admissible under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines if they make it feasible to adopt higher taxes for other undertakings, thus resulting in an overall improvement of cost internalisation, and to create further incentives to improve on environmental protection.
Znižanja in oprostitve okoljskih davkov v zvezi z nekaterimi sektorji ali kategorijami podjetij so na podlagi poglavja 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja dovoljeni, če je zaradi njih mogoče sprejeti višje davke za druga podjetja, s čimer se na splošno poveča internalizacija stroškov, in ustvariti dodatne spodbude za izboljšanje varstva okolja.
Here the Commission has taken the view that this type of aid might be necessary to address negative externalities indirectly by facilitating the introduction or maintenance of relatively high national environmental taxation.
V tem primeru je Komisija zavzela stališče, da bi bila ta vrsta pomoči lahko potrebna za posredno obravnavanje negativnih zunanjih učinkov z omogočanjem uvedbe ali ohranitve razmeroma visoke stopnje nacionalnih okoljskih davkov.
However, the Commission finds that the contributions to the support of green electricity from which the beneficiaries are to be exempted under the notified scheme do not constitute an environmental tax within the meaning of points 70(14) and 151 of the Guidelines.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da prispevki k podpori električne energije iz obnovljivih virov, za katere naj bi za upravičence na podlagi priglašene sheme veljala oprostitev, ne pomenijo okoljskega davka v smislu točke 70(14) in točke 151 Smernic.
Taxes are charges which are paid into the general budget of the State.
Davki so dajatve, ki se plačujejo v splošni državni proračun.
The contributions from which the beneficiaries are to be exempted under the notified scheme are not paid into the general budget of the State.
Prispevki, za katere naj bi za upravičence na podlagi priglašene sheme veljala oprostitev, se ne plačujejo v splošni državni proračun.
They are used exclusively to finance the contributions to OeMAG, which supports green electricity producers through feed-in tariffs.
Uporabljajo se izključno za financiranje prispevkov družbi OeMAG, ki prek zagotovljenih odkupnih cen podpira proizvajalce električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
Consequently, these contributions do not constitute an environmental tax.
Zato ti prispevki ne pomenijo okoljskega davka.
The Commission considers that any exception from the general rule of incompatibility of operating aid which is stated in the Environmental Aid Guidelines should be interpreted strictly.
Komisija meni, da je treba morebitne izjeme od splošnega pravila nezdružljivosti pomoči za tekoče poslovanje iz smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja razlagati ozko.
Being an exception, therefore, Chapter 4 of the Guidelines must be restricted to environmental taxes.
Ker gre torej za izjemo, mora biti poglavje 4 Smernic omejeno na okoljske davke.
Furthermore, as explained above, the application of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines to parafiscal levies would contradict the objectives of those rules and of the Energy Tax Directive with regard to harmonised energy taxes.
Poleg tega bi bila, kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, uporaba poglavja 4 Smernic za parafiskalne dajatve v nasprotju s cilji navedenih pravil in direktive o davku na energijo v zvezi z usklajenimi davki na energijo.
Such an approach might also result in the general application of these provisions to parafiscal levies in the area of environmental protection (e.g. parafiscal levies on waste or the like).
Posledica takšnega pristopa bi lahko bila tudi splošna uporaba teh določb za parafiskalne dajatve na področju varstva okolja (npr. parafiskalne dajatve za odpadke ali podobno).
Such a wide application goes beyond the scope and the objectives of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines.
Takšna široka uporaba presega področje uporabe in cilje poglavja 4 Smernic.
Consequently, the Commission considers that operating aid in the form of reductions of parafiscal levies is not an appropriate instrument for improving environmental protection.
Zato Komisija meni, da pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v obliki znižanj parafiskalnih dajatev ni ustrezen instrument za povečanje varstva okolja.
The Commission has never yet applied the conditions of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines to other types of charges and parafiscal levies.
Komisija ni še nikoli uporabila pogojev iz poglavja 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja za druge vrste dajatev in parafiskalne dajatve.
The Commission observes that the volume of an environmental tax, even if only the reduced rate applies, is directly proportionate to the level of pollution created by the undertaking in question.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je obseg okoljskega davka, tudi če se uporablja le znižana stopnja, neposredno sorazmeren s stopnjo onesnaženja, ki ga povzroča zadevno podjetje.
In the present case, however, the contribution is capped at a certain level.
Vendar je v tem primeru prispevek omejen na določeno stopnjo.
Any consumption that goes beyond that level is no longer taxed.
Poraba, ki presega to stopnjo, ni več obdavčena.
This exemption mechanism deprives the parafiscal levy of any incentive for resource-efficient behaviour.
S tem mehanizmom oprostitve parafiskalna dajatev ne spodbuja ravnanja, ki temelji na energetski učinkovitosti.
Necessity, incentive effect and proportionality
Nujnost, spodbujevalni učinek in sorazmernost
In the event that it were to be accepted that operating aid in the form of reductions of parafiscal levies was an appropriate policy instrument, the operating aid involved would have to be tested for necessity and proportionality in the same way as reductions of non-harmonised environmental taxes under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines [86], because the assessment of non-harmonised environmental taxes under Chapter 4 reflects the general principles of the detailed economic analysis under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
Če bi se štelo, da je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v obliki znižanj parafiskalnih dajatev ustrezen instrument politike, bi bilo treba zadevno pomoč za tekoče poslovanje preskusiti glede nujnosti in sorazmernosti na enak način kot znižanja neusklajenih okoljskih davkov na podlagi poglavja 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja [86], ker ocena neusklajenih okoljskih davkov iz poglavja 4 odraža splošna načela podrobne gospodarske analize v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU.
The exempted sectors should be properly described and a list of the largest beneficiaries for each sector should be provided (considering notably turnover, market shares and size of the tax base) [87].
Oproščeni sektorji morajo biti primerno opisani, predložiti pa je treba tudi seznam največjih upravičencev za vsak sektor (zlasti ob upoštevanju prometa, tržnih deležev in velikosti davčne osnove) [87].
With regard to necessity, the choice of beneficiaries must be based on objective and transparent criteria, and the environmental tax without reduction must lead to a substantial increase of production costs that cannot be passed on to consumers without leading to important sales reductions [88].
Kar zadeva nujnost, mora izbira upravičencev temeljiti na objektivnih in preglednih merilih, pri čemer mora okoljski davek brez znižanja povzročiti znatno zvišanje proizvodnih stroškov, ki jih ni mogoče prenesti na odjemalce, ne da bi se zaradi tega znatno zmanjšala prodaja [88].
With regard to proportionality, the Member State has to demonstrate that each individual beneficiary pays a proportion of the national tax level which is broadly equivalent to its environmental performance, or at least 20 % of the national tax, unless a lower rate can be justified, or that the reductions or exemptions are conditional on the conclusion of agreements aimed at achieving environmental objectives [89].
Kar zadeva sorazmernost, mora država članica dokazati, da vsak posamezen upravičenec plača delež stopnje nacionalnega davka, ki na splošno ustreza njegovi okoljski učinkovitosti, ali vsaj 20 % nacionalnega davka, razen če je mogoče nižjo stopnjo upravičiti, ali da so znižanja ali oprostitve odvisne od sklenitve sporazumov, namenjenih doseganju okoljskih ciljev [89].
Although the Commission repeatedly asked it to do so, however, Austria did not provide this information [90].
Vendar Avstrija kljub večkratnim pozivom Komisije teh informacij ni predložila [90].
Finally, Austria also failed to show that the exemption mechanism would have any incentive effect.
Nazadnje, Avstrija ni dokazala, da bi imel mehanizem oprostitve spodbujevalni učinek.
According to the case-law, operating aid threatens to distort competition and to affect trade [91].
Glede na sodno prakso lahko pomoč za tekoče poslovanje izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino [91].