natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hungary adds that the extension agreement stems directly from the logic of the Mining Act.
Madžarska dodaja, da izhaja pogodba o podaljšanju neposredno iz logike Zakona o rudarstvu.
According to Hungary, fixing the mining fee for the duration of the extension agreement is a natural element of the agreement referred to in Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act and the extension could not have been concluded on different terms.
Po mnenju Madžarske je določitev rudarske pristojbine za obdobje pogodbe o podaljšanju jasen element pogodbe iz oddelka 26/A(5) Zakona o rudarstvu, podaljšanje pa se ne bi moglo skleniti pod drugimi pogoji.
Moreover, all other mining companies could expect the same, so there was no preferential treatment for MOL.
Poleg tega so lahko vse ostale rudarske družbe pričakovale enako, tako da prednostnega obravnavanja družbe MOL ni bilo.
Specifically, Section 20(11) of the Mining Act stipulates that the mining fee is the fee as laid down in: (i) the concession agreement; (ii) the Mining Act, or (iii) the extension agreement.
Natančneje, oddelek 20(11) Zakona o rudarstvu določa, da je rudarska pristojbina takšna, kot je določena v: (i) koncesijski pogodbi; (ii) Zakonu o rudarstvu ali (iii) pogodbi o podaljšanju.
Thus, the Hungarian authorities argue that the Mining Act explicitly allows for the fee under an extension agreement to stay unchanged, even in the event of changes in the legislation.
Zato madžarski organi trdijo, da Zakon o rudarstvu izrecno dovoljuje pristojbino v skladu s koncesijsko pogodbo, tako da ostane nespremenjena tudi v primeru sprememb zakonodaje.
In the view of the Hungarian authorities this is clearly stated in the Mining Act, i.e. in Section 26/A(5), which stipulates that the increased fee is maximum 1,2 times the original mining fee [30].
Po mnenju madžarskih organov je to jasno navedeno v Zakonu o rudarstvu, in sicer v oddelku 26/A(5), ki določa, da je višja rudarska pristojbina največ 1,2-kratna vrednost prvotne rudarske pristojbine [30].
Therefore, Hungary argues, the Hungarian Act precludes application of any higher fee.
Zato Madžarska trdi, da madžarski Zakon preprečuje uporabo vsake višje pristojbine.
As regards the claimed lack of advantage, Hungary explains that mineral resources are the property of the State and they pass into private ownership through mining by companies holding a mining right acquired against payment.
V zvezi s pomanjkanjem ugodnosti Madžarska pojasnjuje, da so mineralni viri last države in postanejo zasebna lastnina z rudarjenjem družb, ki imajo rudarsko pravico, pridobljeno na podlagi plačila.
Hungary cites the Ryanair judgment as an analogy and insists that this particular activity of the State is comparable to that of a market operator, even if the State acts in the role of a public authority [31].
Madžarska kot podobno sodbo navaja sodbo Ryanair in vztraja, da je prav ta dejavnost države primerljiva z dejavnostjo akterja na trgu, čeprav ima država vlogo javnega organa [31].
Hungary denies that the mining fee is a kind of tax, defining it as the price paid for the extraction of the minerals, or the State’s share.
Madžarska zanika, da je rudarska pristojbina neke vrste davek, saj jo opredeljuje kot ceno za črpanje rudnin ali državni delež.
Hungary stresses that the fact that the fee is set by law is not decisive grounds for concluding that it is a type of tax.
Madžarska poudarja, da dejstvo glede zakonsko določene pristojbine, ni odločilen razlog za sklep, da gre za vrsto davka.
Moreover, Hungary also explains that the three different payment obligations under the extension agreement (i.e. the extension fee, the increased mining fee extended to all fields and the one-off payment) which stem from the relevant provisions of the Mining Act should not be viewed as compensation for the State’s renouncing income to which it is entitled in any event.
Poleg tega Madžarska pojasnjuje, da se v skladu s pogodbo o podaljšanju tri različne obveznosti plačila (tj. pristojbina za podaljšanje, višja rudarska pristojbina, katere uporaba se razširi na vsa polja, in enkratno plačilo), ki izhajajo iz ustreznih določb Zakona o rudarstvu, ne smejo obravnavati kot nadomestilo za odklonjeni dohodek države, do katerega je upravičena v vsakem primeru.
According to Hungary, from the point of view of the State these payments may be regarded as additional income, in exchange for which the State renounces its right to put the fields up for tender under the concessionary regime, bearing in mind the associated risks and potential revenue.
Po mnenju Madžarske se lahko s stališča države ta plačila obravnavajo kot dodatni dohodek, zaradi katerega se država odpove svoji pravici do ponudbe polj na javnem razpisu v skladu s koncesijskim režimom, pri čemer se upoštevajo s tem povezana tveganja in potencialni prihodek.
Hungary emphasises that following the disputed amendment of the Mining Act no other market participant has actually had to pay a higher mining fee than MOL, since there were no competitors falling into the categories with higher mining fees in the relevant period.
Madžarska poudarja, da po sporni spremembi Zakona o rudarstvu razen družbi MOL nobenemu drugemu udeležencu na trgu ni bilo treba plačati višje pristojbine, ker v zadevnem obdobju dejansko nobena konkurenčna družba ni bila uvrščena v kategorije z višjimi rudarskimi pristojbinami.
MOL’s yearly mining fee payments (actual and hypothetical)
Letna plačila rudarskih pristojbin družbe MOL
The figures are based on data provided by the Hungarian authorities.
Zneski temeljijo na podatkih, ki so jih predložili madžarski organi.
(in HUF millions)
(dejanska in hipotetična)
Payment item
Plačilna postavka
Actual: under the extension agreement
Dejansko: v skladu s pogodbo o podaljšanju
Hypothetical: under the Mining Act in force
Hipotetično: v skladu z veljavnim Zakonom o rudarstvu
Net present value of the difference in 2009
Neto sedanja vrednost razlike leta 2009
One-off payment [32]
Enkratno plačilo [32]
Extension fee [33]
Pristojbina za podaljšanje [33]
Mining fee [34]
Rudarska pristojbina [34]
Extension fee
Pristojbina za podaljšanje
Mining fee
Rudarska pristojbina
Furthermore, Hungary argues that as a result of the extension agreement, over the years and taking into account all the components in the agreement, including the extension fee and the one-off payment, MOL actually paid more in absolute terms to the State than it would have paid without the extension agreement, i.e. under the Mining Act.
Poleg tega Madžarska trdi, da je družba MOL zaradi pogodbe o podaljšanju v zadnjih letih in ob upoštevanju vseh elementov v pogodbi, vključno s pristojbino za podaljšanje in enkratnim plačilom, državi v absolutnem smislu dejansko plačala več, kot bi plačala brez sklenjene pogodbe o podaljšanju, tj. v skladu z Zakonom o rudarstvu.
The actual payments made by MOL compared to the hypothetical ones are shown in Table 3 above.
Dejanska plačila, ki jih je opravila družba MOL v primerjavi s hipotetičnimi plačili, so prikazana v preglednici 3 zgoraj.
The figures were provided by the Hungarian authorities.
Zneske so predložili madžarski organi.
In Hungary’s view, mining companies have a legitimate expectation as regards the predictability of the mining fee, which therefore should be stable over time.
Po mnenju Madžarske lahko rudarske družbe legitimno pričakujejo predvidljivost rudarske pristojbine, ki mora biti sčasoma stabilna.
This was the thinking behind the amendment to the Mining Act, since, although the mining fee changed, there was not actually any mining company whose mining fee changed as a result of the amendment.
Takšno je bilo razmišljanje pri spremembi Zakona o rudarstvu, ker kljub spremembi rudarske pristojbine dejansko ni bilo nobene rudarske družbe, za katero bi se rudarska pristojbina zaradi spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu spremenila.
According to Hungary, the amendments to the Mining Act might suggest that the State could change the mining fee in respect of fields already in operation.
Po mnenju Madžarske se s spremembami Zakona o rudarstvu predlaga, da bi država lahko spremenila rudarsko pristojbino, kar zadeva polja, ki že obratujejo.
The 2008 amendment, however, was the result of a compromise in the course of the negotiations preceding the adoption of the Mining Act.
Sprememba iz leta 2008 je bila posledica dogovora v času pogajanj pred sprejetjem Zakona o rudarstvu.
Thus, it was implicitly accepted that there were legitimate expectations.
Tako se je izrecno sprejelo, da obstajajo legitimna pričakovanja.
Consequently, a mining company can legitimately expect that the State will not increase any of these fees unilaterally.
Zato lahko rudarska družba legitimno pričakuje, da država ne bo sama zvišala nobene pristojbine.
Hungary concludes that the system of the Mining Act and its specific provisions entail that mining fees remain unchanged during the whole duration of the contract.
Madžarska ugotavlja, da sistem Zakona o rudarstvu in njegove posebne določbe uvajajo, da se rudarske pristojbine med celotnim obdobjem trajanja pogodbe ne spremenijo.
Finally, the Hungarian authorities explain that the ‘termination clause’ is based on reasons of national security.
Nazadnje, madžarski organi pojasnjujejo, da temelji „klavzula o prenehanju pogodbe“ na razlogih nacionalne varnosti.
The Commission received comments from the following interested parties: MOL (the beneficiary of the alleged aid measure) and the Hungarian Mining Association, of which MOL is a member.
Komisija je prejela pripombe naslednjih zainteresiranih strani: družbe MOL (upravičenke domnevnega ukrepa pomoči), in madžarskega rudarskega združenja, katerega članica je družba MOL.
Both interested parties commented along the same lines as Hungary and their observations overlapped to a large extent with those of Hungary.
Obe zainteresirani strani sta imeli podobne pripombe kot Madžarska, njune ugotovitve pa so se v večini prekrivale z ugotovitvami Madžarske.
MOL, the alleged beneficiary of the measure in question, states that, contrary to what the Commission maintains in the opening decision, it did not enjoy any preferential treatment on the Hungarian hydrocarbon extraction market.
Družba MOL kot domnevna upravičenka zadevnega ukrepa navaja, da na madžarskem trgu za črpanje ogljikovodika ni uživala nobene prednostne obravnave, kar je v nasprotju s trditvijo Komisije iz odločitve o začetku postopka.
A major share of MOL’s mining fees paid to the Hungarian State comes from the mining fields subject to J % (i.e. put into operation before 1 January 1998), which in practice means that MOL pays 64-75 %, whereas its competitors (who started production at a later stage and operate small fields) are subject merely to the 12 % fee.
Velik delež rudarskih pristojbin družbe MOL, plačanih Madžarski, izhaja iz rudnih polj, za katere velja J % (tj., ki so začela obratovati pred 1. januarjem 1998), kar v praksi pomeni, da plača družba MOL 64–75 %, medtem ko velja za njene konkurenčne družbe (ki so začele z izkoriščanjem pozneje in upravljajo majhna polja) le 12-odstotna pristojbina.
Furthermore, the conclusion of the extension agreement meant that MOL paid more to the State (taking into account all components in the extension agreement) than it would have paid without the agreement, merely on the basis of the original Mining Act.
Poleg tega je sklenitev pogodbe o podaljšanju pomenila, da je družba MOL državi plačala več (ob upoštevanju vseh elementov v pogodbi o podaljšanju), kot bi v primeru nesklenjene pogodbe, torej le na podlagi prvotnega Zakona o rudarstvu.
As regards the Commission’s argument that the extension agreement cannot be considered analogous to a concession, because it was subject to the authorisation regime, MOL notes that the extension of the mining right is not a right subject to authorisation on the basis of a unilateral decision by the State, but only following an agreement with the mining company.
Kar zadeva trditev Komisije, da se pogodba o podaljšanju ne more šteti za podobno koncesijski pogodbi, ker je zanjo veljal režim podelitev, družba MOL ugotavlja, da podaljšanje rudarske pravice ni pravica, za katero velja podelitev na podlagi enostranske odločitve države, pač pa le na podlagi pogodbe, sklenjene z rudarsko družbo.
If the purpose of the legislation had been to make this a matter for the State’s discretion, the relevant provision would have been drafted differently.
Če bi bil namen zakonodaje, da je to zadeva, o kateri presoja država, bi bilo treba ustrezno določbo pripraviti drugače.
The wording of the Mining Act suggests that the legislative intention was to treat the extension agreement in a way analogous to concessions.
Besedilo Zakona o rudarstvu predlaga, da je zakonodajni namen enako obravnavanje pogodbe o podaljšanju in koncesij.
In the opening decision the Commission argues that there is a contradiction between the Hungarian authorities’ claim that the amendment of the Mining Act was necessary to raise more revenue and the fact that MOL was in practice exempted from the increased fees.
Komisija v odločitvi o začetku postopka trdi, da obstaja nasprotje med trditvijo madžarskih organov glede nujnosti spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu zaradi povečanja prihodkov, in dejstvom, da je bila družba MOL v praksi izvzeta iz plačevanja višjih pristojbin.
In the view of MOL, this statement is not contradictory.
Družba MOL meni, da ta izjava ni nasprotujoča.
For one thing, the company paid more to the State under the extension agreement, than it would have paid under the Mining Act.
Družba je državi v skladu s pogodbo o podaljšanju plačala več, kot bi plačala v skladu z Zakonom o rudarstvu.
MOL also pays very high mining fees on the fields subject to J. In addition, the amendment to the Mining Act could have an effect on fields put into operation in the future.
Družba MOL prav tako plačuje visoke rudarske pristojbine, za katere velja faktor „J“. Poleg tega bi lahko sprememba Zakona o rudarstvu vplivala na polja, ki bodo začela obratovati v prihodnosti.
MOL maintains that the extension payment components are not in any way a fine, as the Commission suggests.
Družba MOL meni, da elementi podaljšanja plačila nikakor ne pomenijo globe, kot navaja Komisija.
The Mining Act also lays down penalties/fines for where mining activity is carried out in breach of the Mining Act.
Zakon o rudarstvu določa tudi kazni/globe, če se rudarska dejavnost izvaja v nasprotju z Zakonom o rudarstvu.
The fees under the extension agreement are a result of the negotiation process between the mining company and the State.
Pristojbine v skladu s pogodbo o podaljšanju so rezultat postopka pogajanj med rudarskim podjetjem in državo.
It was not compulsory to conclude the contract: the mining company could also have chosen not to conclude one, lose its mining right and then bid under the open tender procedure, whereby it might have ultimately obtained the mining right more cheaply.
Sklenitev pogodbe ni bila obvezna: rudarska družba bi se lahko odločila, da pogodbe ne sklene, s čimer bi izgubila rudarsko pravico in nato oddala ponudbo v postopku javnega razpisa, v katerem bi lahko končno pridobila rudarsko pravico po nižji ceni.
It is misleading to compare MOL, who concluded such an extension agreement, with competitors operating under the authorisation regime.
Primerjava družbe MOL, ki je sklenila pogodbo o podaljšanju, in konkurenčnih družb, ki delujejo v skladu z režimom podelitev, je zavajajoča.
Moreover, MOL emphasises that it fulfilled all its obligations and the provisions of the legislation.
Družba MOL poleg tega poudarja, da je izpolnila vse svoje obveznosti in določbe zakonodaje.
MOL also takes issue with the Commission’s view that the multiplier ‘c’ is too low (as it is less than the legal ceiling of 1,2 times).
Družba MOL se ne strinja s stališčem Komisije, da je množitelj „c“ prenizek (ker je nižji od zakonite mejne vrednosti 1,2).
What also has to be taken into account is that the application of the increased mining fee concerned almost 150 fields, so the increased fee yielded a substantial increase in mining revenue for the State.
Prav tako je treba upoštevati, da je uporaba višje rudarske pristojbine zadevala skoraj 150 polj, zaradi česar je ta državi prinesla bistveno večji rudarski prihodek.
Finally, as regards the Commission’s argument that MOL is being treated preferentially by not being subject to the Brent Clause, the company notes that J is also price-sensitive.
Nazadnje, v zvezi s trditvijo Komisije glede prednostne obravnave družbe MOL na način, da zanjo klavzula Brent ne velja, družba ugotavlja, da je faktor „J“ občutljiv na ceno.
The Hungarian Mining Association
Madžarsko rudarsko združenje
The Hungarian Mining Association (hereinafter ‘Mining Association’) represents companies engaged in mining activities or activities related to mining.
Madžarsko rudarsko združenje (v nadaljnjem besedilu: rudarsko združenje) zastopa družbe, ki se ukvarjajo z rudarskimi dejavnostmi ali dejavnostmi, ki so povezane z rudarjenjem.
Its main objective is to improve the overall operational framework for carrying out mining activities in Hungary, monitor legislative procedures and act in its members’ interests.
Njegov glavni cilj je izboljšanje splošnega operativnega okvira za izvajanje rudarskih dejavnosti na Madžarskem, spremljanje zakonodajnih postopkov in delovanje v interesu njegovih članov.
Currently, it has 66 members, including MOL.
Združenje ima trenutno 66 članov, vključno z družbo MOL.
The Chairman of the Mining Association’s board is a senior manager of MOL [36].
Predsednik odbora rudarskega združenja je višji vodja družbe MOL [36].
According to the Mining Association, mining companies have a legitimate expectation that the mining fee will remain unchanged for mining fields already in operation.
Po mnenju rudarskega združenja lahko rudarske družbe legitimno pričakujejo, da se rudarska pristojbina za rudna polja, ki že obratujejo, ne bo spremenila.
Thus the State cannot unilaterally raise fees ‘retroactively’ (i.e. for fields which are already operating).
Tako država ne more enostransko povišati pristojbin za nazaj (tj. za polja, ki že obratujejo).
The Mining Association expressed this opinion in connection with the bill preceding the amendment to the Mining Act and, according to the Mining Association, this principle was taken into account when the Mining Act was amended.
Rudarsko združenje je izrazilo svoje mnenje glede predloga pred spremembo Zakona o rudarstvu, pri čemer meni, da se je to načelo upoštevalo pri spremembi tega zakona.
The final wording was not opposed, because, in terms of effect, it does not raise the mining fee for operations already commenced.
Končnemu besedilu ni nihče nasprotoval, saj v smislu učinka ne zvišuje rudarske pristojbine za dejavnosti, ki se že izvajajo.
As regards the general characteristics and economic conditions of the mining market, the Mining Association explains that the time span of mining projects is relatively long.
Kar zadeva splošne značilnosti in ekonomske pogoje rudarskega trga, rudarsko združenje pojasnjuje, da je časovno obdobje za rudarske projekte sorazmerno dolgo.
The time between the start of exploration and actual extraction can be as long as 10-15 years.
Od začetka raziskovanja in dejanskega črpanja lahko traja tudi 10–15 let.
During this phase the mining company has only costs; income is not made until extraction starts.
V tej fazi ima rudarska družba le stroške; prihodka ni, dokler se ne začne črpanje.
In addition, there is an inherent geological risk, since it is not certain that the exploration will be successful.
Poleg tega obstaja geološko tveganje, ker ni gotovo, ali bo raziskovanje uspešno.
Therefore, projects must be planned with the utmost care.
Zato je treba projekte načrtovati zelo pazljivo.
The profitability of a project depends on multiple factors.
Donosnost projekta je odvisna od več dejavnikov.
Given the manifold risks, the industry expects that at least those which can be influenced by the State will remain stable during the lifespan of the project, i.e. the legislative framework or the mining fee.
Ob upoštevanju različnih tveganj sektor pričakuje, da bodo v življenjski dobi projekta ostali stabilni vsaj tisti dejavniki, na katere lahko vpliva država, npr. zakonodajni okvir ali rudarska pristojbina.
Given the specific characteristics of the industry, the financing structures play an important role in the projects.
Finančne strukture imajo lahko ob upoštevanju posebnih značilnosti sektorja pri projektih pomembno vlogo.
Creditors scrutinise the projects constantly and can even withdraw financing if the conditions change substantially.
Posojilodajalci redno nadzirajo projekte in lahko celo odstopijo od financiranja, če se pogoji bistveno spremenijo.
Therefore, in countries involving a high political risk, the mining company and the State conclude a contract based on private law.
Zato v državah, v katerih je politično tveganje visoko, rudarska družba in država skleneta pogodbo na podlagi zasebnega prava.
In stable regions, such as Western Europe, such agreements are unnecessary, because it can be assumed that the legal framework will not be changed every now and then by the State.
V stabilnih regijah, kot je Zahodna Evropa, take pogodbe niso potrebne, ker se lahko predpostavlja, da država ne bo vsake toliko časa spremenila zakonodajnega okvira.
Stability as regards the State’s share is expected by both the mining company and the creditors.
Rudarska družba in posojilodajalci pričakujejo stabilnost, kar zadeva delež države.
Without this stability the risk of the project would be increased; a country with a stable economic policy cannot allow itself frequent policy changes, since this would scare off the mining undertakings.
Brez te stabilnosti se tveganje projekta poveča; država s stabilno ekonomsko politiko si ne more dovoliti pogostih sprememb politike, ker bi to prestrašilo rudarske družbe.
The Mining Association also points out that the principles of legal certainty and protection of acquired rights are enshrined in the case-law of the European courts and the Hungarian Constitution.
Rudarsko združenje prav tako poudarja, da sta načeli pravne gotovosti in zaščita pridobljenih pravic vključeni v sodno prakso evropskih sodišč in madžarsko ustavo.
Thus, the Hungarian legislature is not entitled to raise mining fees for fields already in operation, as legislation must be predictable.
Tako na podlagi madžarske zakonodaje zvišanje rudarske pristojbine za polja, ki že obratujejo, ni upravičeno, ker mora biti zakonodaja predvidljiva.
Moreover, the Mining Association also considers that the ‘stability’ of the mining fee is an acquired right.
Rudarsko združenje poleg tega meni, da je „stabilnost“ rudarske pristojbine pridobljena pravica.
A further argument adduced by the Mining Association is the prohibition of discrimination.
Dodatni argument, ki ga je navedlo rudarsko združenje, je prepoved diskriminacije.
In particular, there must not be discrimination between market players operating on a concession basis and market players under the authorisation system.
Zlasti ne sme obstajati diskriminacija med akterji na trgu, ki delujejo na podlagi koncesije, in akterji na trgu, ki delujejo v skladu s sistemom podelitev.
Accordingly, the Hungarian legislature is not entitled to raise mining fees ‘retroactively’ for fields already in operation.
Zato na podlagi madžarske zakonodaje zvišanje rudarske pristojbine za nazaj za polja, ki že obratujejo, ni upravičeno.
The ECJ has clarified in numerous judgments that legal certainty is a fundamental element of EU law.
Sodišče Evropske unije je v več sodbah pojasnilo, da je pravna gotovost temeljni element prava EU.
Legislation is meant to be unambiguous, precise and predictable, especially if it has a negative impact on individuals or companies (see the case-law cited).
Zakonodaja bi morala biti nedvoumna, natančna in predvidljiva, zlasti če negativno vpliva na posameznike ali družbe (glej navedeno sodno prakso).