natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Electricity suppliers are generally free to pass that charge on to electricity consumers, and from an economic point of view it can be assumed that they will normally do so.
Dobavitelji električne energije lahko na splošno prenesejo to dajatev na odjemalce električne energije, pri čemer se lahko z gospodarskega vidika domneva, da bodo običajno to tudi storili.
However, the Act prohibits them from passing the charge on to those energy-intensive businesses which have been exempted in accordance with Section 22c of the Act from the obligation to purchase renewable electricity.
Vendar jim zakon prepoveduje prenos dajatve na tiste energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti, ki so bile v skladu z oddelkom 22c zakona oproščene obveznosti nakupa električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
The Commission concludes that OeMAG has been entrusted by the State with an economic service of general interest, namely collecting and administering the charge.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je država družbo OeMAG pooblastila za gospodarsko službo v splošnem interesu, in sicer pobiranje in upravljanje dajatve.
Control of the funds and use for a purpose designated by law: Section 23 of the Act requires OeMAG to hold the revenues from the clearing price in a dedicated bank account.
Nadzor sredstev in uporaba za namen, kot ga določa zakonodaja: oddelek 23 zakona določa, da mora družba OeMAG prihodek od transferne cene hraniti na namenskem bančnem računu.
The funds collected on this account can be used only for the purpose of purchasing renewable electricity.
Sredstva, zbrana na tem računu, se lahko uporabijo le za nakup električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
OeMAG must grant access at any time to all documents concerning the account to the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour or to the Austrian Court of Auditors.
Družba OeMAG mora zveznemu ministrstvu za gospodarske zadeve in delo ali avstrijskemu računskemu sodišču odobriti, da kadar koli dostopa do vseh dokumentov v zvezi z računom.
Irrespective of the ownership structure of OeMAG, Section 15 of the Act also requires the Court of Auditors to carry out ex post audits of OeMAG.
Ne glede na lastniško strukturo družbe OeMAG oddelek 15 zakona tudi določa, da mora računsko sodišče izvesti naknadne revizije družbe OeMAG.
The Commission concludes that OeMAG has to use the funds for a purpose designated by law, and that the State exercises strict control over their use.
Komisija je ugotovila, da mora družba OeMAG uporabiti sredstva za namen, kot ga določa zakonodaja, in da država strogo nadzira uporabo teh sredstev.
In line with the Essent and Steinike cases, the Commission concludes that the funds collected and administered by OeMAG constitute State resources.
Komisija je na podlagi zadev Essent in Steinike ugotovila, da sredstva, ki jih zbira in upravlja družba OeMAG, pomenijo državna sredstva.
Austria has presented a series of arguments in support of its view that the situation of OeMAG is comparable to that in PreussenElektra rather than that in Essent.
Avstrija je predložila več utemeljitev svojega stališča, da je položaj družbe OeMAG bolj podoben tistemu iz zadeve PreussenElektra kot tistemu iz zadeve Essent.
It will be shown in the following recitals that these arguments do not withstand scrutiny.
V naslednjih uvodnih izjavah bo prikazano, da te utemeljitve ne vzdržijo preskusa.
The Commission observes first of all that Austria compares the Green Electricity Act to the German Renewable Energy Act, as it was earlier and as it is now, citing the judgment of the Court of Justice in PreussenElektra [35].
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da Avstrija primerja zakon o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov z nemškim zakonom o obnovljivi energiji, kakršen je bil prej in kakršen je zdaj, pri čemer navaja sodbo Sodišča v zadevi PreussenElektra [35].
But that comparison is not relevant to the question at issue here.
Vendar ta primerjava ni ustrezna za vprašanje, obravnavano v tem primeru.
In the present Decision the Commission is examining only the proposed measure, and will not try to assess the German or any other similar legislation: each case must be dealt with on its own merits.
Komisija v tem sklepu preučuje le predlagani ukrep in ne bo poskušala oceniti nemške ali katere koli druge podobne zakonodaje, ker je treba vsako zadevo obravnavati ločeno.
With reference to the arguments put forward, however, it must be observed that the Austrian legislation differs substantially from the German Act that was considered in PreussenElektra.
Vendar je treba v zvezi s predloženimi utemeljitvami ugotoviti, da se avstrijska zakonodaja bistveno razlikuje od nemškega zakona, ki se je upošteval v zadevi PreussenElektra.
In PreussenElektra the Court of Justice found that only advantages granted directly by the State or by a private body designated or established by the State could involve the use of State resources.
V zadevi PreussenElektra je Sodišče ugotovilo, da bi lahko uporabo državnih sredstev vključevale le ugodnosti, ki jih je neposredno odobrila država ali zasebni organ, ki ga imenuje ali ustanovi država.
The Court then found that the purchase obligation imposed on private electricity supply undertakings did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources.
Sodišče je potem ugotovilo, da obveznost nakupa, ki velja za zasebna podjetja za dobavo električne energije, ni povzročala nobenega neposrednega ali posrednega prenosa državnih sredstev.
The scheme notified here is thus not identical to the scheme considered in PreussenElektra.
Zato tu priglašena shema ni enaka shemi, obravnavani v zadevi PreussenElektra.
As it said in its opening decision of 22 July 2009, the Commission takes the view that the Austrian scheme involves the use of resources that are imputable to the State.
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o začetku postopka z dne 22. julija 2009, Komisija meni, da avstrijska shema vključuje uporabo sredstev, ki jih je mogoče pripisati državi.
The Austrian scheme differs from the German one in particular in that it provides for an intermediate body such as OeMAG which is designated by the State, and the State monitors and checks the collection and distribution of the resources administered by that body.
Avstrijska shema se od nemške razlikuje zlasti v tem, da predvideva posredniško telo, kot je družba OeMAG, ki ga imenuje država, pri čemer država spremlja in pregleduje zbiranje in porazdelitev sredstev, s katerimi upravlja navedeno telo.
The Commission also finds that the Austrian scheme may allow direct payments from the State to OeMAG.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da lahko avstrijska shema omogoča neposredna plačila države družbi OeMAG.
With regard to the current German Renewable Energy Act, it should be observed that that measure is not the subject of this Decision; the Commission has not yet made an assessment of it, and consequently cannot enter into detailed consideration of a supposed analogy between the Austrian Green Electricity Act and the current German Renewable Energy Act.
V zvezi z veljavnim nemškim zakonom o obnovljivi energiji je treba ugotoviti, da navedeni ukrep ni predmet tega sklepa. Komisija ga še ni ocenila, zato ne more začeti podrobne obravnave domnevne analogije med avstrijskim zakonom o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov in veljavnim nemškim zakonom o obnovljivi energiji.
Austria argues furthermore that 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 and Salvat Père.
Avstrija poleg tega trdi, da je družba OeMAG zasebno podjetje in ne organ, ki ga ureja javno pravo, kot v primeru gospodarskih družb, ki so bile obravnavane v sodbah v zadevah Air France in Salvat Père.
The Austrian authorities can exercise control over OeMAG only by verifying its accounts ex post and by withdrawing its concession.
Avstrijski organi lahko družbo OeMAG nadzirajo le tako, da naknadno preverjajo njene račune in ji odvzamejo koncesijo.
The Commission points out in this regard that it is clear from the judgment in Essent that where the State designates a body to collect and administer the revenues of a charge, there is no need to draw any distinction according to whether that body is public or private.
Komisija v zvezi s tem izpostavlja, da je iz sodbe v zadevi Essent razvidno, da v primeru, ko država imenuje organ za zbiranje in upravljanje prihodka od dajatve, ni potrebno razlikovanje na podlagi tega, ali gre za javni ali zasebni organ.
In its findings the Court did not give any indication as to whether SEP was publicly or privately owned; it follows that this fact was not relevant to its judgment.
Sodišče v svojih ugotovitvah ni navedlo, ali je bilo podjetje SEP v javni ali zasebni lasti, kar pomeni, da to dejstvo za sodbo Sodišča ni bilo pomembno.
This is in line with point 106 of the conclusions of Advocate-General Mengozzi in Essent, and with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Steinike [36].
To je v skladu s točko 106 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Mengozzija v zadevi Essent in sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Steinike [36].
Therefore, the fact that OeMAG is a privately controlled undertaking does not preclude the presence of State resources.
Zato dejstvo, da je družba OeMAG podjetje pod zasebnim nadzorom, ne izključuje prisotnosti državnih sredstev.
The decisive question is whether it has been designated by the State to collect a charge and administer it.
Ključno vprašanje je, ali je družbo država imenovala za pobiranje in upravljanje dajatve.
Austria further argues that the State budget does not cover any losses that may be made by OeMAG, and that the role of the public authorities is limited to setting the prices for the purchase and sale of renewable electricity; there is therefore no burden on the State budget of the kind that was shown in Sloman Neptun and Pearle.
Avstrija nadalje trdi, da državni proračun ne pokriva nobenih izgub, ki bi jih morda imela družba OeMAG, in da je vloga javnih organov omejena na določanje cen za nakup in prodajo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov. V tem primeru torej ni obremenitve državnega proračuna, kot je prikazana v zadevah Sloman Neptun in Pearle.
The Commission observes that it was shown in Essent that money at the disposal of a private entity that had been designated by the State to collect and administer a charge constituted a State resource.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo v zadevi Essent dokazano, da denar, ki je na voljo zasebnemu subjektu, ki ga je država imenovala za pobiranje in upravljanje dajatve, pomeni državna sredstva.
Accordingly, a reduction in the level of the charge paid by certain undertakings subject to the charge is sufficient to constitute a burden on the State.
V skladu s tem je zmanjšanje ravni dajatve, ki jo plačujejo nekatera podjetja, za katera velja dajatev, zadostno, da pomeni obremenitev države.
With regard to the Austria’s argument that E-Control enjoys no discretion in exempting energy-intensive businesses from the purchase obligation, the Commission points out that, as Advocate-General Mengozzi explained in point 109 of his opinion in Essent, the fact that the body designated to collect and administer the charge enjoys no discretion is without bearing on the question whether these funds constitute State resources.
V zvezi z utemeljitvijo Avstrije, da družba E-Control nima diskrecijske pravice pri oprostitvi obveznosti nakupa za energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti, Komisija izpostavlja, kot je generalni pravobranilec Mengozzi pojasnil v točki 109 svojih sklepnih predlogov v zadevi Essent, da dejstvo, da organ, imenovan za pobiranje in upravljanje dajatve, nima diskrecijske pravice, ne vpliva na vprašanje, ali ta sredstva pomenijo državna sredstva.
Austria’s last argument is that the overall amount of money the electricity suppliers pay to OeMAG is not affected by the exemption mechanism, which changes only the distribution of the overall amount between the different categories of final electricity consumers; the Commission observes that the fact that a loss of State revenues may be offset by an increase in State revenues from other sources has no bearing on the question whether State resources are being used.
Zadnja utemeljitev Avstrije je, da na celoten znesek denarja, ki ga dobavitelji električne energije plačajo družbi OeMAG, mehanizem oprostitve ne vpliva, ampak ta spremeni le porazdelitev celotnega zneska med različne kategorije končnih odjemalcev električne energije. Komisija ugotavlja, da dejstvo, da je izgubo državnih prihodkov mogoče izravnati s povečanjem državnih prihodkov iz drugih virov, ne vpliva na vprašanje, ali se uporabljajo državna sredstva.
What is decisive is that an undertaking enjoys an advantage, and that this advantage reduces the revenues to the State from that undertaking.
Ključno je, da ima podjetje prednost in da se zaradi te prednosti zmanjšajo prihodki države od navedenega podjetja.
It is obvious that the State will ultimately have to find other sources of revenue to make good the shortfall.
Jasno je, da bo morala država na koncu poiskati druge vire prihodka, da bo nadomestila izpad sredstev.
The Commission concludes that the facts in the present case correspond to the facts considered in Essent and Steinike: all the tests for the presence of State resources established in Essent and Steinike are satisfied.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se dejstva v tem primeru skladajo z dejstvi, obravnavanimi v zadevah Essent in Steinike: vsi pogoji za prisotnost državnih sredstev, določeni v zadevah Essent in Steinike, so izpolnjeni.
The measure being assessed is therefore financed from State resources.
Ukrep, ki se ocenjuje, se torej financira iz državnih sredstev.
The use of the funds under the control of OeMAG is regulated by law, namely by the Green Electricity Act.
Uporabo sredstev pod nadzorom družbe OeMAG ureja zakonodaja, in sicer zakon o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov.
The use of the funds is therefore imputable to the State.
Zato je uporabo sredstev mogoče pripisati državi.
It follows that the exemption mechanism leads to a loss of State resources, and is imputable to the State.
Iz tega izhaja, da mehanizem oprostitve povzroča izgubo državnih sredstev, zato ga je mogoče pripisati državi.
Selectivity of the measure
Selektivnost ukrepa
The Commission points out that even if the measure might in theory appear to be neutral in terms of both undertakings and economic sectors, it may still be selective in practice.
Komisija izpostavlja, da čeprav se ukrep v teoriji morda zdi nevtralen z vidika podjetij in gospodarskih sektorjev, je v praksi lahko selektiven.
Austria argues that the exemption mechanism does not constitute State aid since it is not selective but is a general measure open to all undertakings and sectors.
Avstrija trdi, da mehanizem oprostitve ne pomeni državne pomoči, ker ni selektiven, ampak splošen ukrep, dostopen vsem podjetjem in sektorjem.
First, Austria submits that the 0,5 % threshold in the notified scheme does not impose any restriction in terms of specific industries, size of undertaking or other selective criteria [37].
Avstrija navaja, da prag 0,5 % iz priglašene sheme ne uvaja nobene omejitve v smislu posameznih industrij, velikosti podjetja ali drugih selektivnih meril [37].
Second, Austria has found that the measure in fact affects 2300 undertakings in 19 different sectors; it says this shows that the measure is indeed open to all undertakings and sectors of the economy.
Poleg tega je Avstrija ugotovila, da ukrep dejansko vpliva na 2300 podjetij v 19 različnih sektorjih. Po njenem mnenju to dokazuje, da je ukrep dejansko dostopen vsem podjetjem in sektorjem gospodarstva.
The 0,5 % threshold
Prag 0,5 %
A measure is selective if it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Ukrep je selektiven, če daje prednost le nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga.
It is not selective if it applies to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity.
Ukrep ni selektiven, če se uporablja za vsa podjetja na nacionalnem ozemlju, ne glede na njihovo dejavnost.
The Commission finds that the fact that there is only a 0,5 % threshold does not suffice to qualify the notified scheme as a general measure.
Komisija ugotavlja, da dejstvo, da velja le prag 0,5 %, ni dovolj za opredelitev priglašene sheme kot splošnega ukrepa.
On the contrary, the Commission finds that as a result of this threshold not all undertakings in the national territory can take advantage of the notified measure.
Nasprotno, Komisija ugotavlja, da zaradi tega praga priglašenega ukrepa ne morejo uporabiti vsa podjetja na nacionalnem ozemlju.
Austria has submitted that the notified measure is reserved for undertakings whose costs increase by more than 0,5 % of their net production value as a result of their contribution to the support of green electricity.
Avstrija je navedla, da je priglašeni ukrep namenjen le podjetjem, katerih stroški se zaradi njihovega prispevka električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov povečajo za več kot 0,5 % njihove neto vrednosti proizvodnje.
The Commission notes that these conditions are very similar to the requirements of the definition of an ‘energy-intensive business’ in Article 17(1)(a) of the Energy Tax Directive [38].
Komisija ugotavlja, da so ti pogoji zelo podobni zahtevam opredelitve pojma „energetsko intenzivna dejavnost“ iz člena 17(1)(a) direktive o davku na energijo [38].
Austria argues that the 0,5 % threshold does not suffice to qualify the notified measure as selective.
Avstrija trdi, da prag 0,5 % ni dovolj za opredelitev priglašenega ukrepa kot selektivnega.
In Austria’s view this conclusion is supported by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Adria-Wien Pipeline.
Avstrija meni, da sodba Sodišča v zadevi Adria-Wien Pipeline podpira to ugotovitev.
In that judgment the Court had to consider a partial reimbursement of an energy tax which was granted to firms if the tax exceeded 0,35 % of their net production value.
V navedeni sodbi je moralo Sodišče preučiti delno vračilo davka na energijo, ki je bilo podjetjem odobreno, 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’ [39].
Sodišče je odločilo, 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“ [39].
However, the Commission considers that that judgment does not preclude a finding of selectivity with regard to the 0,5 % threshold in the case at hand.
Vendar Komisija meni, da navedena sodba ne izključuje ugotovitve o selektivnosti v zvezi s pragom 0,5 % v zadevnem primeru.
The judgment was a preliminary ruling, given in response to an application by an Austrian court which was concerned with the existing scheme of energy tax rebates.
Sodba je bila predhodna odločba, sprejeta na predlog avstrijskega sodišča, v kateri se je obravnavala obstoječa shema vračil davka na energijo.
The Austrian court submitted two questions.
Avstrijsko sodišče je predložilo dve vprašanji.
First, it asked whether the fact that under the existing scheme the tax rebate was granted only to undertakings engaged in the production of goods meant that the rebate was selective.
Prvič, želelo je vedeti, ali dejstvo, da je bilo v skladu z obstoječo shemo vračilo davka odobreno le podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo blaga, pomeni, da je bilo vračilo selektivno.
Second, it raised the hypothetical question how the Court would assess a tax rebate that was not confined to undertakings engaged primarily in the production of goods but applied to all undertakings, regardless of their activity.
Drugič, zastavilo je hipotetično vprašanje, kako bi Sodišče ocenilo vračilo davka, ki ni omejeno na podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo predvsem s proizvodnjo blaga, ampak se uporablja za vsa podjetja, ne glede na njihovo dejavnost.
On the first question, the Court found that the restriction of the tax rebate to manufacturers did make the measure selective.
V zvezi s prvim vprašanjem je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je ukrep zaradi omejitve vračila davka na proizvajalce selektiven.
In view of the hypothetical nature of the second question, that is to say how it would assess a tax rebate open to all sectors of the economy, the Court answered in rather general terms.
V zvezi s hipotetičnim značajem drugega vprašanja, kako bi ocenilo vračilo davka, dostopno vsem sektorjem gospodarstva, je Sodišče odgovorilo na splošnejši način.
It said that a measure was selective if it favoured certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, and was not selective if it benefited all undertakings in national territory without distinction [40].
Navedlo je, da je ukrep selektiven, če daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga, in ni selektiven, če brez razlikovanja zagotavlja ugodnosti vsem podjetjem na nacionalnem ozemlju [40].
The Court concluded that national measures did not constitute State aid ‘if they apply to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity’ [41].
Sodišče je odločilo, da nacionalni ukrepi ne pomenijo državne pomoči „če se uporabljajo za vsa podjetja na nacionalnem ozemlju, ne glede na njihovo dejavnost“ [41].
The Court did not give any indication whether a measure subject to a 0,35 % threshold should be considered to be applicable to all undertakings.
Sodišče ni navedlo, ali je treba ukrep, za katerega velja prag 0,35 %, obravnavati kot ukrep, ki se uporablja za vsa podjetja.
This was noted by Advocate-General Jacobs in his opinion in a subsequent case before the Court: ‘the effect of the 0,35 % threshold was not examined by the Court of Justice in Adria-Wien’ [42].
Generalni pravobranilec Jacobs je to navedel v svojih sklepnih predlogih v poznejši zadevi pred Sodiščem: „Sodišče v sodbi Adria-Wien […] ni[…] presojal[o] učinka praga 0,35 %“ [42].
The Court did not need to decide whether the exemption mechanism as such (i.e. without the restriction to undertakings engaged primarily in the production of goods) was selective de facto.
Sodišču ni bilo treba odločati, ali je mehanizem oprostitve kot tak (tj. brez omejevanja na podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo predvsem s proizvodnjo blaga) dejansko selektiven.
Thus the Court did not rule out the possibility that the 0,35 % threshold might be selective if it had the effect that in practice the measure was not open to all undertakings in national territory.
Zato Sodišče ni izključilo možnosti, da je prag 0,35 % lahko selektiven, če v praksi ukrep zaradi njega ni dostopen vsem podjetjem na nacionalnem ozemlju.
Indeed the Commission takes the view that the Court gave some indication that such a threshold could be selective even if the measure was open to a number of different sectors.
Komisija dejansko meni, da je Sodišče na nek način izrazilo, da je tak prag lahko selektiven, tudi če je ukrep dostopen več različnim sektorjem.
In its reply to the second question, the Court said in particular that ‘neither the large number of eligible undertakings nor the diversity and the size of the sectors to which those undertakings belong provide any grounds for concluding that a State initiative constitutes a general measure of economic policy’ [43].
V svojem odgovoru na drugo vprašanje je Sodišče zlasti navedlo, da „niti veliko število upravičenih podjetij niti raznolikost in velikost sektorjev, ki jim ta podjetja pripadajo, niso zadosten razlog za ugotovitev, da državna pobuda pomeni splošen ukrep gospodarske politike“ [43].
According to the case-law, many measures that are not sector-specific can be regarded as selective if de facto they are not open to all undertakings in national territory [44].
V skladu s sodno prakso je mogoče veliko ukrepov, ki niso sektorski, obravnavati kot selektivne, če dejansko niso dostopni vsem podjetjem na nacionalnem ozemlju [44].