natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The lack of legitimate expectations deriving from the Alumix decision is expressly confirmed in paragraph 109 of the Court’s judgment.
Neobstoj upravičenih pričakovanj na podlagi odločbe Alumix je izrecno potrjen v odstavku 109 sodbe Sodišča.
The fact that Alcoa has made investments in its Italian plants is not capable of giving rise to legitimate expectations vis-à-vis the lawfulness of the amended and extended tariff arrangement, given that it was clear when the original Alcoa tariff was granted that it was to last for no more than ten years and that Alcoa programmed its own investments on that basis and not on the assumption of the unlimited duration of the tariff.
Dejstvo, da je družba Alcoa vlagala v italijanska obrata, ne more biti vzrok za upravičena pričakovanja v zvezi z zakonitostjo spremenjenega in podaljšanega dogovora o ceni, glede na to, da je bilo ob odobritvi prvotne cene za družbo Alcoa jasno, da naj bi se ta cena ohranila največ deset let ter da je Alcoa načrtovala svoje naložbe na tej podlagi in ne na podlagi predvidevanja, da veljavnost cene časovno ni omejena.
In the light of the above considerations, the Commission has concluded that there are no extraordinary circumstances which could have led Alcoa to entertain legitimate expectations as to the lawfulness of the measure at issue.
Komisija je glede na navedene pripombe ugotovila, da ni bilo izrednih okoliščin, zaradi katerih bi lahko Alcoa upravičeno pričakovala, da je zadevni ukrep zakonit.
With respect to the Sardinian plant, the Commission has also considered whether the 2007 letter and the subsequent developments deriving from it could constitute a source of legitimate expectations for Alcoa.
Kar zadeva obrat na Sardiniji, je Komisija prav tako preučila, ali sta lahko dopis iz leta 2007 in poznejši razvoj na podlagi tega dopisa vzrok za upravičena pričakovanja družbe Alcoa.
It should be noted in this respect that in the 2007 letter the Commission did not give any precise and unconditional assurances as to the value of the VPP for the purposes of a finding on the compatibility of the aid.
V zvezi s tem je treba navesti, da Komisija v dopisu iz leta 2007 ni navedla natančnih in brezpogojnih zagotovil v zvezi s pomenom virtualne elektrarne pri ugotavljanju združljivosti pomoči.
The letter from the services of the Commission did no more than indicate that ‘the European Commissioner for Competition will be willing to propose to the College a gradual and brief phasing-out period for the electricity tariffs in Sardinia’.
V dopisu služb Komisije je bilo le navedeno, da bo „evropski komisar za konkurenco pripravljen predlagati kolegiju postopno in kratko obdobje opuščanja za cene električne energije na Sardiniji“.
That wording implied that a positive outcome to the case would, in any event, be conditional on approval of the draft decision by the whole Commission.
To besedilo je pomenilo, da bo pozitiven rezultat v vsakem primeru odvisen od tega, ali bo celotna Komisija odobrila osnutek odločbe.
In view of its status (a letter from the Commission departments) and its content (a conditional assurance), the 2007 letter could not, therefore, give rise to legitimate expectations of a nature recognised by the Court.
Zato dopis iz leta 2007 glede na njegov status (dopis služb Komisije) in vsebino (pogojno zagotovilo) ne more biti vzrok za upravičena pričakovanja take narave, kot jih je priznalo Sodišče.
Other general principles of Community law
Druga splošna načela prava Unije
Neither Italy or Alcoa have advanced arguments in this respect.
Italija in Alcoa nista predložili utemeljitev v zvezi s tem.
However, the Commission has examined whether other general principles of Community law prevent recovery, in full or in part.
Vendar je Komisija preverila, ali druga splošna načela prava Unije preprečujejo vračilo v celoti ali delno vračilo.
With respect to the plant located in Veneto, it should be noted that recovery does not violate any general principle of Community law; the Commission expressed serious doubts about the compatibility of the aid for the Veneto site in the opening decision and nothing in the subsequent course of the proceedings could have changed the impression given to Alcoa by the opening of the investigation.
Kar zadeva obrat v Benečiji, je treba navesti, da vračilo ne krši nobenega splošnega načela prava Unije; Komisija je imela pri odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka resne pomisleke o združljivosti pomoči za obrat v Benečiji, pri se čemer v nadaljevanju postopka vtis, ki ga je dobila družba Alcoa s sprožitvijo preiskave, v nobenem primeru ne bi mogel spremeniti.
As for the plant located in Sardinia, the Commission has examined the situation deriving from the 2007 letter and its subsequent developments.
Kar zadeva obrat na Sardiniji, je Komisija preučila razmere na podlagi dopisa iz leta 2007 in njihov poznejši razvoj.
As illustrated above in recital 275, the letter from the Commission departments did not give any precise and unconditional assurances as to the value of the VPP for the purposes of a finding on the compatibility of the aid, but confined itself to indicating that, if Italy reacted promptly to the proposal, the Commissioner for Competition would propose a brief phasing-out period for the tariff for approval by the Commission.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj v uvodni izjavi 275, v dopisu oddelkov Komisije ni bilo nobenih natančnih in brezpogojnih zagotovil v zvezi s pomenom virtualne elektrarne pri ugotavljanju združljivosti pomoči, ampak je bil dopis omejen na navedbe, da bi komisar za konkurenčnost predlagal kratko obdobje opuščanja za ceno, ki bi jo odobrila Komisija, če bi se Italija takoj odzvala na predlog.
However, the idea of a VPP was put to one side in the subsequent course of the proceedings, until Italy decided to put it into effect.
Vendar se je zamisel o virtualni elektrarni v nadaljevanju postopka odložila, dokler se ni Italija odločila, da jo bo začela izvajati.
Despite this proposal, as explained in recitals 253 to 259 above, the Commission came to the conclusion that the VPP could not constitute a basis for a decision on the compatibility of the aid, for reasons related to the circumstances of the measure and the general nature of the VPP, reasons which did not derive from its discussions with Italy.
Komisija je kljub temu predlogu, kot je bilo pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 253 do 259 zgoraj, sklenila, da virtualna elektrarna ne bi mogla biti podlaga za odločitev o združljivosti pomoči iz razlogov, ki so povezani z okoliščinami ukrepa, in zaradi splošne narave virtualne elektrarne, tj. razlogov, ki niso povezani z razpravami z Italijo.
There is, however, reason to ponder whether the prolonged talks on the VPP might overcome the presumption that an assessment of incompatibility of an unlawful aid measure ought necessarily to lead to the full refund of that aid.
Kljub temu je to razlog za razmislek, ali bi se lahko z daljšimi pogovori o virtualni elektrarni odpravila domneva, da mora ocena nezdružljivosti ukrepa nezakonite pomoči nujno pomeniti vračilo zadevne pomoči v celoti.
Irrespective of the fact that the duration of the investigation was not, in itself, excessively long (three years), the Commission acknowledges that, in the present case, the duration was prolonged by talks regarding the introduction of a VPP.
Ne glede na dejstvo, da preiskava sama po sebi ni bila pretirano dolga (tri leta), Komisija priznava, da se je v tej zadevi preiskava podaljšala zaradi pogovorov v zvezi z uvedbo virtualne elektrarne.
Although the length of the talks on the VPP was in large part due to Italy’s belated reply to the proposal, the Commission acknowledges that the lengthy discussions on the VPP were not conducive to the principle of sound administration, and affected the behaviour of the beneficiary over the subsequent course of the investigation.
Čeprav so bili pogovori o virtualni elektrarni tako dolgi večinoma zaradi zapoznelega odgovora Italije na predlog, Komisija priznava, da zaradi dolgih razprav o virtualni elektrarni ni bilo mogoče upoštevati načela učinkovitega upravljanja in da so razprave vplivale na ravnanje upravičenca med preiskavo.
The prospect that, thanks to the VPP, a favourable outcome to the case might be secured for the Sardinian plant, a prospect which was created by the Commission and not dissipated in a sufficiently timely manner, may have altered Alcoa’s perception of the risk of recovery of the aid to the Sardinian plant following the opening of the proceedings, and this may in turn have influenced its business strategy in terms of investments and the siting of activities.
Zaradi pričakovanja, da bi se lahko zaradi virtualne elektrarne zagotovil ugoden rezultat za obrat na Sardiniji, tj. pričakovanja, ki ga je ustvarila Komisija in se ni pravočasno odpravilo, bi se lahko spremenil način, kako družba Alcoa dojema tveganje za vračilo pomoči obratu na Sardiniji po sprožitvi postopka, kar bi lahko vplivalo na njegovo poslovno strategijo v smislu naložb in lokacije dejavnosti.
If the 2007 letter had not been sent, Alcoa might have decided not to continue activities in Sardinia, and thus limited the amount to be refunded.
Če dopisa iz leta 2007 ne bi bilo, bi se lahko družba Alcoa odločila, da ne bo nadaljevala dejavnosti na Sardiniji in tako omejila znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti.
In the light of the above circumstances, the Commission find that it is appropriate not to impose the recovery of the aid for the Sardinian plant for the period from the date of sending the letter, 19 January 2007, until that of this Decision.
Komisija glede na navedene okoliščine ugotavlja, da je primerno, da se ne zahteva vračilo pomoči za obrat na Sardiniji za obdobje od datuma pošiljanja dopisa, tj. 19. januarja 2007, do datuma tega sklepa.
Quantification of the amounts to be recovered
Količinska opredelitev zneskov, ki jih je treba vrniti
In conclusion, all amounts of incompatible aid received by Alcoa pursuant to Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005 from 1 January 2006 onwards must be recovered, with interest, in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [125].
Vse zneske nezdružljive pomoči, ki jih je prejela družba Alcoa v skladu s členom 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005 od 1. januarja 2006 naprej, je treba vrniti z obrestmi v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [125].
The purpose of recovery is to restore the competitive situation of the beneficiary prevailing before the grant of the incompatible aid.
Namen vračila je ponovna vzpostavitev konkurenčnega položaja upravičenca pred dodelitvijo nezdružljive pomoči.
In order to quantify the amounts to be recovered, it is therefore necessary to establish the price Alcoa would have paid on the market for its electricity supplies if the tariff had not been prolonged.
Zato je treba za količinsko opredelitev zneskov, ki jih je treba vrniti, določiti ceno, ki bi jo morala plačati družba Alcoa na trgu za dobavo električne energije, če se cena ne bi podaljšala.
As shown in recital 157, Alcoa established a bilateral contract with ENEL for a nominal price roughly equivalent to the standard high-voltage tariff charged by the utility.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 157, je družba Alcoa sklenila dvostransko pogodbo z družbo ENEL za nominalno ceno, ki približno ustreza standardni ceni, ki jo je zaračunavalo to javno podjetje za električno energijo visoke napetosti.
In the Commission’s view, this is the price Alcoa would have paid for its electricity supplies in the absence of the tariff.
Po mnenju Komisije je to cena, ki bi jo morala plačati družba Alcoa za dobavo električne energije, če ugodnejše cene ne bi bilo.
The Commission therefore considers that the amount to be recovered equals the difference between the contractual price and the preferential price.
Zato Komisija meni, da je znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, enak razliki med pogodbeno in ugodnejšo ceno.
This amount coincides with the compensatory contribution received by the company over the period concerned [126].
Ta znesek ustreza kompenzacijskemu prispevku, ki ga je družba prejela v zadevnem obdobju [126].
The same calculation method was prescribed by the Commission in the Terni case [127], which is directly comparable to the present case.
Enako metodo izračuna je Komisija določila v zadevi Terni [127], ki je neposredno primerljiva s to zadevo.
For the sake of completeness, the Commission has examined – and rejected – the argument that, in the absence of the State subsidy, Alcoa would have negotiated a better price with the utility, and that therefore recovery should be based on a different, supposedly more realistic benchmark.
Komisija je zaradi celovitosti preučila in zavrnila trditev, da bi lahko družba Alcoa s pogajanji dosegla boljšo ceno pri javnem podjetju, če državne subvencije ne bi bilo, in da mora zato vračilo temeljiti na drugačnem, domnevno realnejšem pragu.
Firstly, the Commission is not in favour, as a matter of principle, of the idea of constructing a theoretical benchmark when a concrete and appropriate benchmark is available.
Predvsem Komisija načeloma ne podpira zamisli o uvedbi teoretičnega praga, kadar je na voljo konkreten in primeren prag.
In Unicredito [128], the Court rejected a similarly hypothetical approach and ruled that ‘re-establishing the status quo ante… does not imply reconstructing past events differently on the basis of hypothetical elements such as the choices, often numerous, which could have been made by the operators concerned’.
Sodišče je v zadevi Unicredito [128] zavrnilo podobno hipotetičen pristop in odločilo, da „vzpostavitev prejšnjega stanja […] ne pomeni drugačne rekonstrukcije preteklosti glede na take hipotetične elemente, kot so pogosto številne odločitve, ki bi jih udeleženi subjekti lahko sprejeli“.
Therefore, after the Commission opened formal investigation proceedings into the tariff in 2004 and 2006 and Alcoa was required to provide a parent company guarantee to cover the risk of recovery, the company had a clear incentive to negotiate the best possible terms of supply with ENEL.
Zato se je družbo, potem ko je Komisija leta 2004 in leta 2006 sprožila formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s ceno, pri čemer je morala družba Alcoa zagotoviti garancijo matične družbe za kritje tveganja vračila pomoči, jasno spodbudilo, da s pogajanji doseže čim boljše pogoje dobave z družbo ENEL.
There are, therefore, no indications that the contractual price freely negotiated between Alcoa and ENEL misrepresents the market price Alcoa would have paid in the absence of the aid.
Zato ni nobenih dokazov, da pogodbena cena, za katero sta se prosto dogovorili družbi Alcoa in ENEL, ne pomeni tržne cene, ki bi jo plačala družba Alcoa, če pomoči ne bi bilo.
The Commission finds that Italy has unlawfully implemented, in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, the provisions of Article 1 of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 6 February 2004 and Article 11(11) of Decree-Law No 35/05, converted into statute by Law No 80/2005, providing for the extension in time of the preferential electricity tariff applicable to Alcoa.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Italija v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES nezakonito izvajala določbe člena 1 odloka predsednika vlade z dne 6. februarja 2004 in člen 11(11) zakonskega odloka 35/05, spremenjenega v zakon z zakonom št. 80/2005, o podaljšanju veljavnosti ugodnejše cene električne energije za družbo Alcoa.
The Commission considers that the measure, which constitutes pure operating aid, is not eligible for any derogation from the general prohibition of State aid under the EC Treaty, and is therefore incompatible with the common market.
Komisija meni, da ukrep, ki pomeni izključno pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ni upravičen do nobenega odstopanja od splošne prepovedi državne pomoči v skladu s Pogodbo ES, in je zato nezdružljiv s skupnim trgom.
Therefore, all payments of outstanding aid must be cancelled, while the aid already paid is to be recovered.
Zato je treba preklicati vsa plačila neplačane pomoči, že izplačano pomoč pa je treba vrniti.
The amount to be recovered corresponds to the sum of all compensatory components made by the Equalisation Fund to Alcoa.
Znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, ustreza seštevku vseh kompenzacijskih sestavnih delov iz izravnalnega sklada za družbo Alcoa.
For the Veneto plant, this recovery corresponds to the period from 1 January 2006 until the date of adoption of this Decision.
Kar zadeva obrat v Benečiji, to vračilo zajema obdobje od 1. januarja 2006 do datuma sprejetja tega sklepa.
For the plant in Sardinia, the recovery corresponds to the period prior to the 2007 letter, that is from 1 January 2006 to 18 June 2007,
Kar zadeva obrat na Sardiniji, vračilo zajema obdobje pred dopisom iz leta 2007, tj. od 1. januarja 2006 do 18. junija 2007 –
The State aid unlawfully granted by Italy to Alcoa Trasformazioni from 1 January 2006 on the basis of Article 1 of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 6 February 2004 and Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo Italija od 1. januarja 2006 nezakonito dodeljuje družbi Alcoa Trasformazioni na podlagi člena 1 odločbe predsednika vlade z dne 6. februarja 2004 in člena 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005 v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The amount of aid shall be calculated according to the method indicated in recital 285 of this Decision.
Znesek pomoči se izračuna v skladu z metodo iz uvodne izjave 285 tega sklepa.
Italy shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 paid to the beneficiary.
Italija mora vrniti pomoč iz člena 1, ki jo je izplačala upravičencu.
For the Veneto plant, the period concerned by this recovery is from 1 January 2006 until the date of adoption of this Decision.
Kar zadeva obrat v Benečiji, vračilo zajema obdobje od 1. januarja 2006 do datuma sprejetja tega sklepa.
For the Sardinian plant, the period concerned by this recovery is from 1 January 2006 to 18 June 2007.
Kar zadeva obrat na Sardiniji, vračilo zajema obdobje od 1. januarja 2006 do 18. junija 2007.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 [129] amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Obresti se izračunajo z obrestnoobrestnim računom v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2007 in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 [129] o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004.
Italy shall cancel all future payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Italija prekliče vsa prihodnja plačila pomoči iz člena 1 z začetkom od datuma sprejetja tega sklepa.
Italy shall ensure that the Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Italija zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvede v štirih mesecih od datuma njene priglasitve.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information to the Commission:
V dveh mesecih od priglasitve tega sklepa predloži Italija Komisiji naslednje informacije:
the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti), ki ga mora vrniti upravičenec;
Italy shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Italija obvešča Komisijo o napredku glede sprejetih nacionalnih ukrepov za izvajanje tega sklepa, dokler se vračanje pomoči iz člena 1 ne konča.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Italija takoj predloži vse informacije o že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepih za uskladitev s tem sklepom, ki jih zahteva Komisija.
OJ C 30, 5.2.2005, p. 7 and OJ C 214, 6.9.2006, p. 5.
UL C 30, 5.2.2005, str. 7, in UL C 214, 6.9.2006, str. 5.
A zinc producer.
Proizvajalec cinka.
A manufacturer of aluminium products.
Proizvajalec izdelkov iz aluminija.
A producer of alumina (the intermediate material resulting from the processing of bauxite and from which primary aluminium is obtained).
Proizvajalec aluminijevega oksida (vmesni material, ki nastane pri obdelavi boksita in iz katerega se pridobi primarni aluminij).
OJ C 30, 5.2.2005, p. 7.
UL C 30, 5.2.2005, str. 7.
State aid measure N 587/05, Preferential electricity tariffs in Sardinia (later to become C 13/06).
Ukrep državne pomoči N 587/05, Ugodnejše cene električne energije na Sardiniji (pozneje spremenjen v C 13/06).
ThyssenKrupp (steel), Cementir (cement) and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (chemicals).
ThyssenKrupp (jeklo), Cementir (cement) in Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (kemikalije).
OJ C 214, 6.9.2006, p. 5.
UL C 214, 6.9.2006, str. 5.
Decision 2008/408/EC (OJ L 144, 4.6.2008, p. 37).
Odločba 2008/408/ES (UL L 144, 4.6.2008, str. 37).
See item 2.2.2.2 below.
Glej točko 2.2.2.2 spodaj.
Article 1 of the 2004 Decree reads as follows: ‘1.
Člen 1 odloka določa: „1.
Supplementing the criteria laid down in Article 1(1)(c) of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 31 October 2002, the Authority for Electrical Power and Gas shall extend the treatment referred to in point 2 of the Decree of the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Craft Industries of 19 December 1995 to supplies of energy for the production and processing of aluminium, lead, silver and zinc, limited to plants already in existence at the time of the entry into force of the present Decree and located in insular areas having insufficient or no connections to the national electricity and gas networks.
Organ za električno energijo in plin razširja obravnavo iz točke 2 odloka ministrstva za industrijo, trgovino in obrt z dne 19. decembra 1995 na dobavo energije za proizvodnjo in predelavo aluminija, svinca, srebra in cinka, vendar le za obrate, ki so bili ob začetku veljavnosti tega odloka že ustanovljeni in se nahajajo na otoških območjih ter nimajo dovolj povezav z nacionalnimi elektroenergetskimi in plinovodnimi omrežji ali teh povezav sploh nimajo, s čimer se dopolnjujejo merila iz člena 1(1)(c) odloka predsednika vlade z dne 31. oktobra 2002.
The tariff treatment referred to in point 1 is temporary; it shall be terminated upon the establishment or the improvement of connections to the national electricity and gas grids, and shall in any event come to an end on 30 June 2007’.
Cenovna obravnava iz točke 1 je začasna; končala se bo z vzpostavitvijo ali izboljšanjem povezav z nacionalnim elektroenergetskimi in plinovodnimi omrežji ter se bo v vsakem primeru končala 30. junija 2007.“
Law No 481/1995.
Zakon št. 481/1995.
Article 2(12)(e) of Law No 481/1995.
Člen 2(12)(e) zakona št. 481/1995.
Article 2(21) of Law No 481/1995.
Člen 2(21) zakona št. 481/1995.
EFIM (Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industrie Manifatturiere or Manufacturing Industry Investment and Financing Office) was a State-owned holding company with controlling stakes in a large number of industrial sectors.
EFIM (Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industrie Manifatturiere ali Urad za naložbe v predelovalno industrijo in financiranje predelovalne industrije) je bila krovna družba v državni lasti z nadzornimi deleži v več industrijskih sektorjev.
EFIM was privatised between 1992 and 1996.
EFIM se je privatiziral med letoma 1992 in 1996.
OJ C 288, 1.10.1996, p. 4.
UL C 288, 1.10.1996, str. 4.
See Decision in case No IV.JV.2 – ENEL/FT/DT (OJ C 178, 23.6.1999, p. 15).
Glej Odločbo v zadevi št. IV.JV.2 – ENEL/FT/DT (UL C 178, 23.6.1999, str. 15).
The Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Piedmont regions already covered their total electricity demand in part from their own output and in part by long-term import contracts established until 2003.
Dežele Lombardija, Emilia Romagna in Piemont so delno že pokrile celotno povpraševanje po električni energiji z lastno proizvodnjo in delno z dolgoročnimi pogodbami o uvozu do leta 2003.