natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany argues further that the market value of the Sohrschied site is also negative and that the liability limit has been breached in this case too.
Nemčija nadalje trdi, da je negativna tudi tržna vrednost lokacije Sohrschied in da je bila tudi v tem primeru kršena omejitev odgovornosti.
ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF AID UNDER ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU (WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ALTMARK CRITERIA)
OCENA PRISOTNOSTI POMOČI V SKLADU S ČLENOM 107(1) PDEU (BREZ SKLICEVANJA NA MERILA IZ SODBE ALTMARK)
Under Article 107(1) TFEU any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market in so far as it affects or threatens to affect trade between Member States.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene ali bi lahko prizadela trgovino med državami članicami.
Annual contribution financed from State resources
Letni prispevek, financiran iz državnih sredstev
Germany does not dispute that the annual contributions from the members of the Zweckverband are State resources.
Nemčija ne oporeka, da so letni prispevki članov podjetja Zweckverband državna sredstva.
The ZT’s members are rural and urban districts in Rhineland-Palatinate, the Saarland, and Hessen.
Člani podjetja ZT so podeželska in mestna okrožja zveznih dežel Porenje-Pfalz, Posarje in Hessen.
As the ZT has been levying an annual contribution from its members by means of an administrative act, the measure involves a direct transfer of State resources.
Ker je podjetje ZT svojim članom zaračunavalo letni prispevek na podlagi upravnega akta, ukrep vključuje neposreden prenos državnih sredstev.
And as administrative acts are involved, the annual contributions can be attributed to the State.
Ker pa so vključeni upravni akti, se lahko letni prispevki pripišejo državi.
Economic advantage for the ZT
Gospodarska prednost podjetja ZT
Firstly the beneficiary must be an undertaking.
Prvič, upravičenec mora biti podjetje.
The notion of an undertaking comprises any entity carrying on an economic activity irrespective of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.
Pojem podjetja zajema katero koli pravno ali fizično osebo, ki izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost ne glede na svoj pravni status in način financiranja.
This applies not only to private, but also to public undertakings [37].
To ne velja samo za zasebna, ampak tudi za javna podjetja [37].
Any activity which involves offering goods or services on a specific market is an economic activity [38].
Vsaka dejavnost, ki vključuje ponudbo blaga ali storitev na določenem trgu, je gospodarska dejavnost [38].
Since the ZT offers services for the disposal of certain animal by-products in return for a consideration, the ZT is an undertaking.
Ker podjetje ZT nudi storitve za odstranjevanje določenih živalskih stranskih proizvodov v zameno za nadomestilo, je podjetje.
Essentially the annual contributions give the ZT an economic advantage since they reduce its current expenditure and are not matched by any appropriate performance in return.
Letni prispevki dajejo podjetju ZT gospodarsko prednost, saj zmanjšujejo njegove trenutne izdatke in se v zameno zanje ne zahteva nobeno ustrezno izvajanje dejavnosti.
However, Germany contends that the contributions only compensated the ZT for the costs that it had to bear because of the obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve and that therefore it did not gain any economic advantage.
Vendar Nemčija trdi, da so se podjetju ZT s prispevki povrnili samo stroški, ki bi jih moralo kriti zaradi obveznosti vzdrževanja rezerve za epidemije, in zato ni pridobilo nobene gospodarske prednosti.
In its judgment in the Altmark case the European Court of Justice held that a compensation for the performance of a public service obligation is not State aid, i.e. does not provide the beneficiary with an advantage, provided certain criteria are cumulatively fulfilled [39].
(144) Evropsko sodišče je v zadevi Altmark razsodilo, da nadomestilo za obveznost opravljanja javne storitve ni državna pomoč, tj. upravičencu ne zagotavlja prednosti, če so hkrati izpolnjena določena merila [39].
Because of the significance of the Altmark judgment for the present case, Germany’s contention that the Altmark criteria are satisfied will be examined in detail separately in section 9.
Zaradi pomena sodbe Altmark za ta primer bo trditev Nemčije, da so merila iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjena, podrobno preučena ločeno v oddelku 9.
Distortion of competition and impairment of trade between the Member States
Izkrivljanje konkurence in oslabitev trgovine med državami članicami
Germany takes the view that the market for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material from the area covered by the association is not open to competition and that therefore both distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States can be ruled out.
Nemčija meni, da trg za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 z območja, ki ga pokriva združenje, ni odprt za konkurenco ter da se zato lahko izključi tako izkrivljanje konkurence kot učinek na trgovino med državami članicami.
To begin with, the Commission notes that there are regional monopolies for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
Komisija na začetku ugotavlja, da obstajajo regionalni monopoli za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
However, most of the competent regional and local authorities grant these monopolies via procurement procedures.
Vendar večina regionalnih in lokalnih pristojnih organov te monopole odobri s postopki naročanja.
There is thus competition on the market.
Tako na trgu obstaja konkurenca.
In the present case this is confirmed by the procurement procedure for Northern and Central Hessen.
V tem primeru to potrjuje postopek naročanja v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu.
In line with its decision of 23 February 2011 on Germany’s State aid C58/06 (ex NN 98/05) for Bahnen der Stadt Monheim (BSM) and Rheinische Bahngesellschaft (RBM) im Verkehrsverband Rhein-Ruhr [40], the Commission therefore considers that the market for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is open to competition.
Komisija zato v skladu s svojim sklepom z dne 23. februarja 2011 o državni pomoči C 58/06 (ex NN 98/05) za podjetji Bahnen der Stadt Monheim (BSM) in Rheinische Bahngesellschaft (RBG) v združenju Verkehrsverband Rhein-Ruhr [40] meni, da je trg za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 odprt za konkurenco.
Both Union and national law leave the regional and local authorities entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 material free to choose either to find a supplier on the market and entrust it with the task via a procurement procedure or to carry out disposal themselves through an in-house solution [41].
Regionalni in lokalni organi, pooblaščeni za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2, lahko tako na podlagi prava Unije kot na podlagi nacionalnega prava sami izberejo, ali bodo na trgu poiskali ponudnika in ga s postopkom naročanja pooblastili za izvajanje naloge, ali pa bodo odstranjevanje izvajali sami, tj. z interno rešitvijo [41].
Despite Germany’s claim that the ZT complies with the criteria for an in-house award [42], the annual contributions strengthen the ZT’s financial position vis-à-vis other potential suppliers.
Kljub trditvi Nemčije, da podjetje ZT izpolnjuje merilo za interno dodelitev [42], letni prispevki krepijo finančni položaj podjetja ZT v primerjavi z drugimi morebitnimi ponudniki.
Since suppliers from all the Member States can take part in procurement procedures, the contribution is also liable to affect trade between the Member States.
Ker v postopkih naročanja lahko sodelujejo ponudniki iz vseh držav članic, bi lahko prispevek vplival tudi na trgovino med državami članicami.
The economic advantages from the annual contributions are also liable to strengthen ZT’s position on markets where it is in direct competition with other suppliers (disposal of category 3 material, procurement procedure for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in Northern and Central Hessen).
Gospodarske prednosti iz letnih prispevkov bi lahko prav tako okrepile položaj podjetja ZT na trgih, na katerih neposredno konkurira z drugimi ponudniki (odstranjevanje snovi kategorije 3, postopek naročanja za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu).
Provisional conclusion on the existence of aid
Začasni sklep o obstoju pomoči
The annual contributions satisfy the conditions for the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Letni prispevki izpolnjujejo pogoje za obstoj pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The following section will examine in detail Germany’s claim that the four conditions of the Altmark judgment are met.
V naslednjem oddelku bo podrobno preučena trditev Nemčije, da so izpolnjeni vsi štirje pogoji iz sodbe Altmark.
ASSESSMENT OF THE ALTMARK CRITERIA IN THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
OCENA MERIL IZ SODBE ALTMARK V OKVIRU ČLENA 107(1) PDEU
The first Altmark criterion states that the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined.
Prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark določa, da mora podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, dejansko opravljati obveznosti javne storitve, te obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene.
First it should be noted that a distinction has to be made between the period from 1979 to 2008 and the period from 2009 to 2011.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je treba razlikovati med obdobjem 1979–2008 in obdobjem 2009–2011.
Before the Verbandsordnung was amended on 2 February 2010 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2009 the ZT was only generally entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
Podjetje ZT je bilo pred spremembo statuta dne 2. februarja 2010 s povratno veljavo od 1. januarja 2009 le na splošno pooblaščeno za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
The old Verbandsordnung did not specify any obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve.
Stari zakon Verbandsordnung ni posebej določal nobene zahteve za vzdrževanje rezerve za epidemije.
There was thus no clearly defined obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve within the meaning of the first Altmark criterion.
Zato v smislu prvega merila iz sodbe Altmark ni bilo nobene jasno določene zahteve za vzdrževanje rezerve za epidemije.
With the amended Verbandsordnung there is now besides the obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material also an explicit obligation for the ZT to maintain an epidemic reserve.
S spremenjenim statutom tako zdaj poleg zahteve za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 obstaja tudi izrecna zahteva, da podjetje ZT vzdržuje rezervo za epidemije.
The Commission show in what follows that neither the ZT’s obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material nor its obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve can justify the annual contributions as State compensation payments within the meaning of the first Altmark criterion.
Komisija iz tega sklepa, da niti zaveza podjetja ZT k odstranjevanju snovi kategorij 1 in 2 niti njegova zaveza k vzdrževanju rezerve za epidemije ne more upravičiti letnih prispevkov kot državnih nadomestil v smislu prvega merila sodbe Altmark.
Obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material
Obveznost odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2
Not a service of general economic interest
Ne gre za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena
The BVerwG held that under Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and § 3(1) TierNebG the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is a public service obligation and hence a service of general economic interest.
Sodišče BVerwG je razsodilo, da je v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1069/2009 in členom 3(1) zakonodaje TierNebG odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 obveznost javne službe in s tem storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
The BVerwG attached particular importance to the fact that under German law the disposal of the material is an obligatory public task, and proceeded from the assumption that to that extent the ZT is exercising public powers.
Sodišče BVerwG je velik pomen pripisalo zlasti dejstvu, da je odstranjevanje snovi na podlagi nemškega prava obvezna naloga javne službe in je na podlagi te predpostavke menilo, da podjetje ZT izvaja javna pooblastila.
The BVerwG held that the public service obligation also included the provision of an epidemic reserve [43].
Sodišče BVerwG je razsodilo, da je obveznost javne službe vključevala tudi zagotavljanje rezerve za epidemije [43].
Germany shares this view and also argues that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material and providing the epidemic reserve serve to protect human health.
Nemčija se s tem strinja in ob tem trdi, da odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 ter zagotavljanje rezerve za epidemije služita varovanju zdravja ljudi.
As the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is a public service obligation, the BVerwG and Germany considered the annual contributions justified as they represented State compensation for the costs that the ZT incurred as a result of the obligation.
Ker je odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 obveznost javne službe, sta sodišče BVerwG in Nemčija letne prispevke obravnavala kot upravičene, saj so pomenili državno nadomestilo za stroške, ki so podjetju ZT nastali zaradi obveznosti.
As explained in paragraph 13 of the Union guidelines on State aid that is granted as compensation for performing public services [44] (‘Union SGEI guidelines’), the Court of Justice has consistently held that Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that can be classified as services of general economic interest, except in sectors where there are specific Union rules governing this.
Kot je razloženo v odstavku 13 smernic Unije o državni pomoči, ki je dodeljena kot nadomestilo za izvajanje javnih storitev [44] (smernice Unije na področju storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena), je Sodišče dosledno razsojalo, da imajo države članice široke diskrecijske pravice glede narave storitev, ki se lahko uvrstijo v storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, razen v sektorjih, v katerih to urejajo posebna pravila Unije.
The Court of Justice has emphasised that an activity is of general economic interest only if it exhibits special characteristics as compared with the general economic interest of other economic activities [45].
Sodišče je poudarilo, da ima dejavnost splošen gospodarski pomen samo, če kaže posebne značilnosti v primerjavi s splošnim gospodarskim pomenom drugih gospodarskih dejavnosti [45].
In GEMO the Court of Justice then had to deal with the question of whether farmers and slaughterhouses should bear the full disposal costs of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste or whether the State could bear the costs on the grounds that this was a service of general economic interest.
V zadevi GEMO je moralo Sodišče nato obravnavati vprašanje, ali bi morali kmetje in klavnice kriti celotne stroške odstranjevanja poginulih živali in klavničnih odpadkov ter ali bi lahko država krila stroške na podlagi tega, da je to storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In its ruling the Court held that farmers and slaughterhouses should bear the entire costs [46].
Sodišče je v sodbi razsodilo, da bi morali kmetje in klavnice kriti celotne stroške [46].
The Court of Justice found that the financial burden entailed by the disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste is a cost item that is inevitably bound up with the economic activity of farmers and slaughterhouses.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je finančno breme, ki ga je povzročilo odstranjevanje poginulih živali in klavničnih odpadkov, element stroškov, ki je neizogibno povezan z gospodarsko dejavnostjo kmetov in klavnic.
Their activities generate products and residues that are unusable and above all harmful for the environment, and disposal is incumbent on the polluters.
Njihove dejavnosti ustvarjajo proizvode in ostanke, ki so neuporabni in predvsem škodljivi za okolje, za odstranjevanje pa so zadolženi onesnaževalci.
Intervention by State bodies with the aim of releasing farmers and slaughterhouses from this burden creates an economic advantage that is liable to distort competition.
Posredovanje s strani državnih organov, katerega cilj je razbremeniti kmete in klavnice tega bremena, ustvarja gospodarsko prednost, ki bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
Even if the State were pursuing a health policy objective by taking over responsibility for the disposal costs, that would not change the fact that it constituted an economic advantage for farmers and slaughterhouses, as it is established case-law that Article 107(1) TFEU does not make distinctions according to the reasons for and goals of State intervention measures but defines them by their effects [47].
Tudi če bi država s prevzemom odgovornosti za stroške odstranjevanja zasledovala cilj zdravstvene politike, to ne bi spremenilo dejstva, da to pomeni gospodarsko prednost za kmete in klavnice, saj je ustaljena sodna praksa, da člen 107(1) PDEU ne ustvarja razlik glede na razloge za ukrepe državnega posredovanja in njihove cilje, ampak glede na njihove učinke [47].
The Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE-Tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste (2002/C324/02) (until 2006), paragraphs 27 and 37, and the Community guidelines on State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007–2013 (2006/C319/01), section V.B.4, also confirm that it is the owners or producers of animal by-products who are responsible for the proper disposal and therefore have to bear the costs under the polluter-pays principle.
Odstavka 27 in 37 Smernic Skupnosti za državno pomoč v zvezi s testi na TSE, poginulimi živalmi in klavničnimi odpadki (2002/C324/02) (do leta 2006) ter oddelek V.B.4 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 (2006/C319/01) prav tako potrjujejo, da so za ustrezno odstranjevanje odgovorni lastniki ali proizvajalci živalskih stranskih proizvodov in zato morajo po načelu „onesnaževalec plača“ kriti stroške.
Under these guidelines State aid is an exception to the rule that is permissible only in special situations (especially for fallen stock).
V skladu s temi smernicami je državna pomoč izjema od pravila, ki je dovoljena samo v posebnih okoliščinah (zlasti za poginule živali).
The fact that the polluter-pays principle applies generally is also confirmed by Rhineland-Palatinate law, where § 4(1) of the TierNebGAG states that the costs of disposal and related processes can be imposed on the owners.
Dejstvo, da je načelo „onesnaževalec plača“ splošno veljavno, je potrjeno tudi s pravom zvezne dežele Porenje-Pfalz, saj člen 4(1) deželnega zakona TierNebGAG določa, da se lahko stroški odstranjevanja in podobnih postopkov naložijo lastnikom.
For the case at issue the following conclusions flow from the case-law of the Court, Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, the TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-20013:
V zadevnem primeru iz sodne prakse Sodišča, Uredbe (ES) št. 1069/2009 ter smernic TSE in smernic o kmetijski pomoči 2007–2013 izhajajo naslednji sklepi:
Firstly for there to be a service of general economic interest it is not decisive whether the Member State defines the service in question as a communal obligation.
Prvič, za obstoj storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena ni odločilno, ali država članica zadevno storitev opredeljuje kot javno obveznost.
The definition of a service as a communal obligation is equivalent to granting an exclusive right.
Opredelitev storitve kot javne obveznosti je enaka dodelitvi izključne pravice.
Were the BVerwG to be correct in its view, a Member State could declare any service to be a communal obligation, so making it a service of general economic interest.
Če bi bile navedbe sodišča BVerwG resnične, bi lahko države članice kot javno obveznost označile vsako storitev, s čimer bi jo opredelile kot storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
However, this interpretation would deprive Article 106 TFEU of all effectiveness: its purpose is precisely to ensure that compensation payments may only be granted where a service of general economic interest warrants it.
Vendar bi ta interpretacija v celoti izničila učinek člena 106 PDEU, katerega dejanski namen je zagotoviti, da se lahko nadomestila dodelijo samo takrat, kadar to dopušča storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
The Commission takes the view that a distinction must be made between granting an exclusive right and classing a service as a service of general economic interest.
Komisija meni, da je treba razlikovati med dodelitvijo izključne pravice in uvrstitvijo storitve med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Granting an exclusive right for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material may constitute a restriction of the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU.
Dodelitev izključne pravice za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 lahko pomeni omejitev svobode pri zagotavljanju storitev v skladu s členom 56 PDEU.
Under Article 52 in conjunction with Article 62 TFEU may be justified on the grounds of protecting public health.
Po členu 52 v povezavi s členom 62 PDEU se lahko to upraviči na podlagi varovanja javnega zdravja.
When Germany and Rhineland-Palatinate lay down that only one undertaking is responsible for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in a certain region, they are seeking to ensure that the undertaking is subject to very intensive supervision, so guaranteeing the protection of public health.
Kadar Nemčija in zvezna dežela Porenje-Pfalz določita, da je v določeni regiji za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 odgovorno samo eno podjetje, želita zagotoviti, da je podjetje pod zelo strogim nadzorom, s čimer zagotovita varovanje javnega zdravja.
However, a measure aimed at protecting public health does not automatically constitute a service of general public interest — contrary to the view taken by Germany and the BVerwG.
Vendar ukrep, katerega cilj je varovanje javnega zdravja, samodejno ne pomeni storitve splošnega javnega pomena, kar je v nasprotju s stališčem Nemčije in sodišča BVerwG.
The Commission therefore does not question that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material involves the disposal of waste which, by its nature, poses a particular threat to health.
Zato Komisija ne izpodbija trditve, da odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 vključuje odstranjevanje odpadkov, ki po svoji naravi predstavljajo posebno nevarnost za zdravje.
That is why Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 provides for a strict system of controls for establishments disposing of such waste.
Zato Uredba (ES) št. 1069/2009 uvaja strog sistem nadzora za obrate, ki odstranjujejo take odpadke.
These provisions certainly entail extra costs for the disposal undertakings, but those costs have to be included in the fees and charges.
Navedene določbe podjetjem za odstranjevanje zagotovo nalagajo dodatne stroške, vendar morajo biti ti stroški vključeni v pristojbine in dajatve.
In this respect the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is no different from the disposal of other waste that, by its nature, poses a particular threat to health.
V tem smislu se odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 ne razlikuje od odstranjevanja drugih odpadkov, ki po svoji naravi predstavljajo posebno nevarnost za zdravje.
The cost of disposing of such waste normally has to be borne by whoever caused it and not by the public.
Stroške odstranjevanja takih odpadkov običajno krije tisti, ki jih je proizvedel, ne pa javnost.
In the present case the service comprises the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
V obravnavanem primeru storitev zajema odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
The Commission must therefore examine whether this service is especially different in essence from other economic activities so that it is in the general interest, and not only in the interest of the economic operators that profit from it.
Zato mora Komisija preučiti, ali se ta storitev v svojem bistvu še posebej razlikuje od drugih gospodarskih dejavnosti, tako da je v splošnem interesu in ne le v interesu gospodarskih subjektov, ki imajo od nje korist.