natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Point 70(1) of the Guidelines defines ‘environmental protection’ as ‘any action designed to remedy or prevent damage to physical surroundings or natural resources by a beneficiary’s own activities, to reduce the risk of such damage or to lead to more efficient use of natural resources, including energy-saving measures and the use of renewable sources of energy’.
V skladu z opredelitvijo iz točke 70(1) Smernic „varstvo okolja“ pomeni „vse ukrepe, namenjene odpravi ali preprečevanju škode, ki jo fizičnemu okolju ali naravnim virom povzročajo lastne dejavnosti upravičenca, zmanjšanju tveganja take škode ali spodbujanju učinkovitejše uporabe naravnih virov, vključno z ukrepi za varčevanje z energijo in uporabo energije iz obnovljivih virov […]“.
Point 151 states that for a measure to fall within the scope of the Guidelines it is enough that it should improve the level of environmental protection indirectly.
V točki 151 je navedeno, da ukrep spada na področje uporabe Smernic, če vsaj posredno prispeva k povečanju stopnje varstva okolja.
Austria considers that the exemption mechanism contributes indirectly to environmental protection, for two reasons: it is a necessary precondition for ensuring political support for increasing the clearing price to a higher level, which is necessary to finance the further increase in the production of renewable electricity; and it increases the price of electricity use, thereby giving an incentive to be more energy-efficient.
Avstrija meni, da mehanizem oprostitve posredno prispeva k varstvu okolja iz dveh razlogov: je nujen za zagotovitev politične podpore zvišanju transferne cene, kar je potrebno za financiranje nadaljnjega povečanja proizvodnje električne energije iz obnovljivih virov; in zvišuje ceno za uporabo električne energije, s čimer spodbuja večjo energetsko učinkovitost.
On the first argument, the Commission observes that there is no necessary link between the clearing price and an increase in the level of production of renewable electricity.
Kar zadeva prvi razlog, Komisija ugotavlja, da ni nujne povezave med transferno ceno in povečanjem stopnje proizvodnje električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
By virtue of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (‘the Renewable Energy Directive’) [71], Austria is under an obligation to increase production of electricity from renewable sources.
Na podlagi Direktive 2009/28/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. aprila 2009 o spodbujanju uporabe energije iz obnovljivih virov, spremembi in poznejši razveljavitvi direktiv 2001/77/ES in 2003/30/ES (v nadaljnjem besedilu: direktiva o energiji iz obnovljivih virov) [71] mora Avstrija povečati proizvodnjo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
It is, however, free to choose how it wishes to finance this.
Vendar se lahko sama odloči, kako bo to financirala.
It could, for example, use tax revenues.
Lahko bi na primer uporabila davčne prihodke.
Thus the exemption mechanism is not necessary in order to increase production of renewable energy.
Tako mehanizem oprostitve za povečanje proizvodnje energije iz obnovljivih virov ni nujno potreben.
With regard to the second argument, the Commission observes that the exemption mechanism functions as a cap.
Kar zadeva drugi razlog, Komisija ugotavlja, da je učinek mehanizma oprostitve omejevanje.
The average electricity price paid by energy-intensive businesses consequently decreases for each additional kilowatt-hour they consume above the threshold.
Zato se povprečna cena električne energije, ki jo plačujejo energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti, za vsako dodatno kilovatno uro, ki jo porabijo nad pragom, zniža.
Rather than encouraging energy efficiency, the exemption mechanism actually reduces it.
Mehanizem oprostitve torej ne spodbuja energetske učinkovitosti, ampak jo dejansko zmanjšuje.
The Commission concludes that the exemption mechanism does not fall within the scope of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.
Komisija ugotavlja, da mehanizem oprostitve ne spada na področje uporabe smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja.
But even if the measure did fall within the scope of the Guidelines — which it does not — the Commission observes that it could not be declared compatible on this basis, as the tests of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines are not satisfied, for the following reasons.
Tudi če bi ukrep spadal na področje uporabe Smernic, vendar ne spada, Komisija ugotavlja, da ga na podlagi tega ne bi bilo mogoče razglasiti za združljivega, ker zahteve iz poglavja 4 Smernic iz naslednjih razlogov niso izpolnjene.
For purposes of the assessment of compatibility, Chapter 4 of the Guidelines distinguishes between harmonised and non-harmonised environmental taxes.
Za namene ocene združljivosti poglavje 4 Smernic razlikuje med usklajenimi in neusklajenimi okoljskimi davki.
The parafiscal levy represented by the clearing price is not an environmental tax that has been harmonised at Union level.
Parafiskalna dajatev, ki jo predstavlja transferna cena, ni okoljski davek, ki je bil usklajen na ravni Unije.
The Renewable Energy Directive sets obligatory targets for renewable energy, but leaves it to the Member States to decide how they achieve these targets.
V direktivi o energiji iz obnovljivih virov so določeni obvezni cilji za energijo iz obnovljivih virov, vendar države članice same odločajo, kako bodo te cilje dosegle.
The exemption mechanism would therefore have to be assessed under the rules for non-harmonised environmental taxes in Chapter 4 of the Guidelines [72].
Zato bi bilo treba mehanizem oprostitve oceniti v skladu s pravili za neusklajene okoljske davke iz poglavja 4 Smernic [72].
According to those provisions, the Member State has to provide information on the respective sectors or categories of beneficiaries covered by the exemptions or reductions, on the situation of the main beneficiaries in each sector concerned and on how the taxation may contribute to environmental protection.
V skladu z navedenimi določbami mora država članica predložiti informacije o zadevnih sektorjih ali kategorijah upravičencev, za katere veljajo oprostitve ali znižanja, stanju glavnih upravičencev v vsakem zadevnem sektorju in o tem, kako lahko obdavčenje prispeva k varstvu okolja.
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) [73].
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) [73].
On the basis of this information the Commission has to assess whether the reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes are necessary and proportional.
Komisija mora na podlagi teh informacij oceniti, ali so znižanja ali oprostitve okoljskih davkov nujne in sorazmerne.
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 [74].
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 [74].
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, and that the reductions or exemptions are conditional on the conclusion of agreements aimed at achieving environmental objectives [75].
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, ter da so znižanja ali oprostitve odvisne od sklenitve sporazumov, namenjenih doseganju okoljskih ciljev [75].
Although the Commission repeatedly asked it to do so, however, Austria did not provide this information [76].
Vendar Avstrija kljub večkratnim pozivom Komisije teh informacij ni predložila [76].
The Commission has consequently been unable to assess whether the aid is necessary and proportional or how it might contribute to the protection of the environment.
Zato Komisija ni mogla oceniti, ali je pomoč nujna in sorazmerna oziroma kako bi lahko prispevala k varstvu okolja.
Analogy with Chapter 4 of the Guidelines
Analogija s poglavjem 4 Smernic
Given that the notified exemption mechanism does not contribute to environmental protection even indirectly, the Commission has considered whether it might be approved by analogy with Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.
Ker priglašeni mehanizem oprostitve niti posredno ne prispeva k varstvu okolja, je Komisija preučila, ali bi ga bilo mogoče odobriti po analogiji s poglavjem 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja.
According to Austria, the exemption mechanism can be assessed by analogy with the rules on tax reductions for harmonised energy taxes set out in points 152– 153 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.
Avstrija meni, da je mehanizem oprostitve mogoče oceniti po analogiji s pravili o znižanjih za usklajene davke na energijo iz točk 152 in 153 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja.
Chapter 4 of the Guidelines provides for two types of assessment of reductions of environmental taxes, which may lead to different conclusions.
V poglavju 4 Smernic sta določeni dve vrsti ocene znižanj okoljskih davkov, zaradi česar bi lahko bile ugotovitve različne.
First, it lays down rules for the reduction of energy taxes harmonised under the Energy Tax Directive, which can be declared compatible without further analysis provided the minimum tax levels set out in the Energy Tax Directive are respected.
Prvič, določena so pravila za znižanje davkov na energijo, usklajenih na podlagi direktive o davku na energijo, kar je mogoče razglasiti za združljivo brez nadaljnje analize, če so upoštevane najnižje davčne stopnje iz direktive o davku na energijo.
Second, it lays down specific rules for the assessment of reductions of environmental taxes that have not been harmonised and reductions of harmonised energy taxes that are below the minimum tax levels set in the Energy Tax Directive.
Drugič, določena so posebna pravila za oceno znižanj okoljskih davkov, ki niso bili usklajeni, in znižanj usklajenih davkov na energijo, ki so pod najnižjimi davčnimi stopnjami iz direktive o davku na energijo.
In either case the Member State has among other things to provide detailed information on the necessity and proportionality of the measure.
Država članica mora v obeh primerih med drugim predložiti podrobne informacije o nujnosti in sorazmernosti ukrepa.
Austria argues that the Commission could approve the exemption mechanism for parafiscal levies on the basis that the beneficiaries pay at least the minimum levels of Austrian energy taxes.
Avstrija trdi, da bi Komisija lahko odobrila mehanizem oprostitve za parafiskalne dajatve na podlagi tega, da upravičenci plačujejo vsaj najnižje stopnje avstrijskih davkov na energijo.
The Commission observes that there are no precedents in its own decisions or in the judgments of the European courts in which the rules for the assessment of harmonised energy taxes under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines were applied to parafiscal levies by analogy.
Komisija ugotavlja, da med njenimi lastnimi sklepi ali sodbami evropskih sodišč ni precedensov, pri katerih bi se pravila za oceno usklajenih davkov na energijo v skladu s poglavjem 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja po analogiji uporabljala za parafiskalne dajatve.
According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, a rule of Union law can be applied by analogy if the following two conditions are met.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije se lahko pravilo prava Unije uporablja po analogiji le, če sta izpolnjena naslednja pogoja.
First, the rules applicable to the case must be very similar to the ones which it is sought to have applied by analogy.
Prvič, pravila, ki se uporabljajo za primer, morajo biti zelo podobna pravilom, ki naj bi se uporabljala po analogiji.
Second, the rules applicable to the case must contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which can be remedied by analogy [77].
Drugič, pravila, ki se uporabljajo za primer, morajo vsebovati opustitev, ki je nezdružljiva s splošnim načelom prava EU in jo je mogoče odpraviti z analogijo [77].
In view of these conditions, the Commission observes that analogy can be invoked in EU law only in exceptional circumstances.
Ob upoštevanju teh pogojev Komisija ugotavlja, da je analogijo v pravu EU mogoče uporabiti le v izjemnih okoliščinah.
Similarity of the rules
Podobnost pravil
Since Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines deals with reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes, the rules governing the notified levies under the Green Electricity Act should be similar to those applying to environmental taxes.
Ker so v poglavju 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja obravnavana znižanja ali oprostitve okoljskih davkov, morajo biti pravila o priglašenih dajatvah na podlagi zakona o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov podobna pravilom, ki se uporabljajo za okoljske davke.
However, the Commission finds that the legal position with regard to environmental taxes under EU law is not comparable to the legal position with regard to parafiscal levies under EU law.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da pravni položaj v zvezi z okoljskimi davki na podlagi prava EU ni primerljiv s pravnim položajem v zvezi s parafiskalnimi dajatvami na podlagi prava EU.
While there are no specific rules in EU law with regard to parafiscal levies, there are specific rules on energy taxes.
Medtem ko pravo EU ne vsebuje posebnih pravil v zvezi s parafiskalnimi dajatvami, posebna pravila o davkih na energijo obstajajo.
These include in particular the minimum tax levels set by the Energy Tax Directive, and exceptions to these minimum levels under the conditions set out in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines and Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation.
Ta vključujejo zlasti najnižje davčne stopnje, določene z direktivo o davku na energijo, in izjeme od teh minimalnih stopenj pod pogoji iz poglavja 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja in člena 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.
For parafiscal levies there are no rules on exemptions or reductions and no rules on minimum levels either.
V zvezi s parafiskalnimi dajatvami ni pravil o oprostitvah ali znižanjih ali pravil o najnižjih stopnjah.
The Commission concludes that the parafiscal levies established under the Austrian scheme are not governed by rules similar to those which apply to environmental taxes under EU law.
Komisija ugotavlja, da parafiskalnih dajatev, določenih v okviru avstrijske sheme, ne urejajo pravila, podobna pravilom, ki se uporabljajo za okoljske davke na podlagi prava EU.
Omission (lacuna) incompatible with EU law
Opustitev (pravna praznina), ki ni združljiva s pravom EU
Second, the rules applicable to the case must 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, morajo vsebovati opustitev, ki je nezdružljiva s splošnim načelom prava EU in jo je mogoče odpraviti z analogijo.
However, measures which do not fall within the scope of the Environmental Aid Guidelines can nevertheless be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Vendar je ukrepe, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja, kljub temu mogoče oceniti na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
The Commission has consequently found no omission in the Guidelines that might be grounds for assessing the notified measures by analogy.
Zato po mnenju Komisije v Smernicah ni opustitve, na podlagi katere bi lahko bila utemeljena ocena priglašenih ukrepov po analogiji.
This conclusion is the same whether the analogy is to be drawn with harmonised or non-harmonised taxes.
Ta ugotovitev je enaka ne glede na to, ali naj bi se uporabila analogija z usklajenimi ali neusklajenimi davki.
Furthermore, the absence of rules on exemptions from parafiscal levies could not in any event be remedied by analogy to the rules that govern reductions of energy taxes under EU law.
Poleg tega neobstoja pravil o oprostitvah parafiskalnih dajatev v nobenem primeru ne bi bilo mogoče odpraviti z analogijo s pravili o znižanjih davkov na energijo na podlagi prava EU.
If the rules governing reductions of harmonised energy taxes were to be applied by analogy to non-harmonised parafiscal levies, undertakings would be able to meet the minimum tax levels set in the Energy Tax Directive by paying such parafiscal levies.
Če bi se pravila o znižanjih usklajenih davkov na energijo uporabljala po analogiji za neusklajene parafiskalne dajatve, bi lahko podjetja s plačevanjem takšnih parafiskalnih dajatev izpolnjevala najnižje davčne stopnje iz direktive o davku na energijo.
Such an approach is therefore not in the spirit of the Energy Tax Directive.
Zato takšen pristop ni v skladu z načeli direktive o davku na energijo.
The Commission considers that the minimum rates in the Energy Tax Directive were set solely with a view to their application within the harmonised energy tax system.
Komisija meni, da so bile najnižje stopnje v direktivi o davku na energijo določene izključno za uporabo v okviru sistema usklajenih davkov na energijo.
Using them as a benchmark outside the harmonised area would give them an application that they were not meant to have.
Niso bile določene, da bi se uporabljale kot merilo zunaj usklajenih davkov.
The minimum rates were clearly not set with the aim of defining the overall burden that energy-intensive businesses ought to bear as a result of environmental regulatory measures, such as in particular those arising out of financing mechanisms for feed-in tariffs.
Jasno je, da cilj najnižjih stopenj ni določiti splošno obremenitev energetsko intenzivnih dejavnosti zaradi okoljskih ureditvenih ukrepov, kot so zlasti ukrepi, ki izhajajo iz mehanizmov financiranja za zagotovljene odkupne cene.
Such an approach would also overlook the fact that State aid policy accepts a lenient attitude to tax exemptions above a harmonised minimum level because a level playing field is ensured at least to some extent by compliance with the minimum rates that are applicable in all Member States.
Poleg tega takšen pristop ne bi upošteval dejstva, da je politika državne pomoči prizanesljiva do oprostitev davkov nad usklajeno najnižjo stopnjo, ker so enaki konkurenčni pogoji vsaj v določenem obsegu zagotovljeni s skladnostjo z najnižjimi stopnjami, ki veljajo v vseh državah članicah.
This argument does not apply to the burdens stemming from feed-in tariff systems, which are not harmonised, and where any deviation from the standard contributions can cause distortion of competition.
Ta trditev ne velja za obremenitve, ki izhajajo iz neusklajenih sistemov zagotovljenih odkupnih cen, pri katerih lahko kakršno koli odstopanje od običajnih prispevkov izkrivlja konkurenco.
It follows that the absence of rules on the reduction of parafiscal levies does not constitute an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which could be remedied by analogy with the existing rules on reductions of harmonised energy taxes.
Iz tega izhaja, da neobstoj pravil o znižanju parafiskalnih dajatev ne pomeni opustitve, ki je nezdružljiva s splošnim načelom prava EU in bi jo bilo mogoče odpraviti z analogijo z obstoječimi pravili o znižanjih usklajenih davkov na energijo.
In any event, even if those rules could be applied by analogy, the exemption mechanism could not be considered compatible, for the reasons set out in recitals 129–133.
Tudi če bi se navedena pravila lahko uporabljala po analogiji, se mehanizem oprostitve iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 129–133, v nobenem primeru ne bi mogel šteti za združljivega.
The Commission concludes that it cannot draw an analogy between the notified exemption mechanism and the rules for the assessment of reductions of harmonised energy taxes under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines, and that it consequently cannot approve the exemption mechanism on the basis of such an analogy.
Komisija ugotavlja, da analogija med priglašenim mehanizmom oprostitve in pravili za oceno znižanj usklajenih davkov na energijo na podlagi poglavja 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja ni mogoča, zato na podlagi takšne analogije mehanizma oprostitve ne more odobriti.
Analogy with Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation
Analogija s členom 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah
The Commission has also considered whether it could approve the exemption mechanism on the basis of an analogy with Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation.
Komisija je preučila tudi, ali bi mehanizem oprostitve lahko odobrila na podlagi analogije s členom 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.
Austria takes the view that the differences between the wordings of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines and Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation leave some room for an approval of the measure by analogy with Article 25 of the Regulation.
Avstrija meni, da bi bilo kljub razlikam med besedilom poglavja 4 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja in besedilom člena 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah ukrep mogoče odobriti po analogiji s členom 25 Uredbe.
Austria points out that point 152 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines reads as follows:
Avstrija poudarja, da je v točki 152 smernic o pomoči za varstvo okolja določeno naslednje:
‘In order to be approved under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, reductions of or exemptions from harmonised taxes, in particular those harmonised through Directive 2003/96/EC, must be compatible with the relevant applicable Community legislation and comply with the limits and conditions set out therein’,
„Da bi bili znižanja in oprostitve usklajenih dajatev, zlasti tistih, ki so usklajene prek Direktive 2003/96/ES, odobreni v skladu s členom 87 Pogodbe ES, morajo biti združljivi z ustrezno veljavno zakonodajo Skupnosti ter izpolnjevati omejitve in pogoje, določene v Pogodbi“,
whereas Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation reads as follows:
medtem ko je v členu 25 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah določeno naslednje:
‘Environmental aid schemes in the form of reductions in environmental taxes fulfilling the conditions of Directive 2003/96/EC shall be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, provided the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article are fulfilled’ [78].(146) Austria concludes that Article 25 of the Regulation may be broader in scope than point 152 of the Guidelines.
„Sheme okoljske pomoči v obliki znižanj ali izvzetij iz okoljskih davkov, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje iz Direktive 2003/96/ES, so združljive s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 87(3) Pogodbe ter so izvzete iz obveznosti priglasitve po členu 88(3) Pogodbe, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz odstavkov 2 in 3 tega člena“ [78].(146) Avstrija ugotavlja, da je področje uporabe člena 25 Uredbe lahko širše od področja uporabe točke 152 Smernic.