natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular it criticised the ZT’s pricing for category 3 material and in the invitation to tender for the disposal contract in Northern and Central Hessen:
Zlasti kritizira oblikovanje cen s strani podjetja ZT v primeru prostih snovi kategorije 3 in v primeru javnega razpisa za sklenitev pogodbe o odstranjevanju v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu:
The ZT offered to dispose of slaughterhouse waste at charges which were not dependent on the quantity processed but at a fixed price per animal.
podjetje ZT je nudilo odstranjevanje klavničnih odpadkov po cenah, ki niso bile odvisne od predelane količine, ampak so bile določene na žival.
This makes it attractive for smaller slaughterhouses to dispense with separation, as separating controlled and uncontrolled goods involves higher costs than for larger and better equipped slaughterhouses, and to hand over category 3 material to the ZT together with category 1 and 2 slaughterhouse waste.
Zaradi tega v primeru manjših klavnic ni smiselno ločevati med nadzorovanim in nenadzorovanim blagom, saj imajo manjše klavnice višje stroške kot večje in bolje opremljene klavnice, in zanje je ugodneje, da podjetju ZT snovi kategorije 3 predajo skupaj s klavničnimi odpadki kategorij 1 in 2.
The ZT thus offers to dispose of slaughterhouse waste at prices that do not cover its costs because it does not include in its charges the additional costs arising from processing category 3 material at the same time.
Tako podjetje ZT nudi odstranjevanje klavničnih odpadkov po cenah, ki ne krijejo njegovih stroškov, ker v svoje dajatve ne vključuje dodatnih stroškov, ki nastanejo zaradi sočasne predelave snovi kategorije 3;
In the tendering procedure for the disposal of controlled goods in Northern and Central Hessen, the ZT was able to win the contract only because its fixed costs for maintaining reserve capacity were already covered by the annual contribution and it was therefore able to offer lower rates of charges.
podjetje ZT je v razpisnem postopku za odstranjevanje nadzorovanega blaga v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu dobilo pogodbo samo zato, ker so bili njegovi stalni stroški za vzdrževanje rezervne zmogljivosti že kriti z letnim prispevkom in je zato lahko nudilo nižjo stopnjo dajatev.
Germany contends, on the other hand, that the annual contribution was necessary to cover ZT’s costs arising from its obligation to provide reserve capacity to cope with epidemics.
Nemčija, po drugi strani, temu nasprotuje in trdi, da je bil letni prispevek potreben za kritje stroškov podjetja ZT, ki so nastali zaradi njegove obveznosti zagotavljanja rezervne zmogljivosti za spopadanje z epidemijami.
In support, Germany submitted an expert study from the Fraunhofer Institute of March 2007 [21] (‘the Fraunhofer study’) to show that the cost of the epidemic reserve amounted to 50 % of the total capacity costs.
Nemčija je v podporo predložila strokovno študijo inštituta Fraunhofer iz marca 2007 [21] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: študija Fraunhofer), da bi dokazala, da so stroški rezerve za epidemije predstavljali 50 % skupnih stroškov zmogljivosti.
It was also argued that the annual contribution was necessary to cover the clean-up costs for contaminated sites.
Poleg tega je trdila, da je bil letni prispevek potreben tudi za kritje stroškov čiščenja onesnaženih lokacij.
In its provisional examination the Commission initially found that the annual contributions provide an economic advantage for the ZT, as they reduce its current expenditure, and that the other criteria for the existence of aid were met.
Komisija je v svoji predhodni presoji prvotno ugotovila, da letni prispevki zagotavljajo gospodarsko prednost za podjetje ZT, saj zmanjšujejo njegove tekoče izdatke, in da so bila druga merila za obstoj pomoči izpolnjeni.
The Commission pointed out that such aid is generally prohibited.
Komisija je poudarila, da je taka pomoč na splošno prepovedana.
It went on to spell out its doubts as to whether the annual contribution could be justified as compensation for maintaining an epidemic reserve.
Izrazila je tudi dvome glede tega, da bi se letni prispevek lahko upravičil kot nadomestilo za vzdrževanje rezerve za epidemije.
The Commission based its argument on the four criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment [22]:
Sklep Komisije je temeljil na presoji štirih meril, določenih v sodbi Altmark [22]:
The recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and those obligations must be clearly defined.
podjetju, ki prejme nadomestilo, mora biti dejansko zaupano izpolnjevanje obveznosti javnih storitev, obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno določene;
The parameters on the basis of which compensation is calculated should be drawn up objectively and transparently in advance.
parametre, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, je treba določiti vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način;
The compensation should not exceed what is necessary to cover, wholly or partially, the costs of fulfilling public service obligations taking account of the income obtained and an appropriate profit from the fulfilment of these obligations.
znesek nadomestila ne sme presegati zneska, potrebnega za pokrivanje vseh ali nekaterih stroškov izpolnjevanja obveznosti javnih storitev, pri čemer se upoštevajo realizirani dohodki in ustrezen dobiček iz izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti;
Where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure that would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical, well run undertaking would have incurred in discharging those obligations.
če podjetje, ki naj bi izpolnjevalo obveznosti javnih storitev, v danem primeru ni izbrano v skladu s postopkom oddaje javnih naročil, ki naj bi omogočil izbiro ponudnika, sposobnega, da te storitve skupnosti zagotovi po najnižjih stroških, je treba stopnjo potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi nastali v povprečnem, dobro vodenem podjetju pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti.
On the question of the existence of a service of general economic interest, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether there is a public interest in the provision of an epidemic reserve since, under the polluter pays principle, farmers are under an obligation to dispose of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste and are supported by the abovementioned aid approved by the Commission under the TSE Community guidelines.
Komisija je zvezi z vprašanjem obstoja storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena izrazila dvome glede tega, ali v zagotavljanju rezerve za epidemije obstaja javni interes, saj so kmetje v okviru načela „onesnaževalec plača“ zavezani k odstranjevanju poginulih živali in klavničnih odpadkov ter prejemajo zgoraj navedeno pomoč, ki jo je Komisija odobrila v okviru smernic Skupnosti o TSE.
It is also questionable whether the annual contribution is necessary since the practice of other German states shows that the plants of private operators have sufficient spare capacity to cope with animal epidemics without receiving additional compensation for providing it.
Prav tako je vprašljivo, ali je letni prispevek potreben, saj praksa drugih nemških zveznih dežel kaže, da prosta zmogljivost obratov zasebnih izvajalcev zadostuje za spopadanje z epidemijami živalskih bolezni, ne da bi prejemali dodatno nadomestilo za njeno zagotavljanje.
The Commission also doubted whether the Verbandsordnung governing the ZT fulfils the requirements of a transparent entrustment act since, before 2010, the provision of an epidemic reserve was not defined as a public interest obligation to be provided by the ZT and because it did not set out the necessary parameters for calculating the cost.
Komisija je prav tako dvomila, ali statut podjetja ZT izpolnjuje zahteve preglednega akta o pooblastitvi, saj zagotavljanje rezerve za epidemije pred letom 2010 ni bilo opredeljeno kot obveznost javnega interesa, ki bi jo moralo izvajati podjetje ZT, in ker ni določal potrebnih parametrov za izračun stroškov.
Regarding the need for a compensation payment, the Commission raised the question as to whether the annual contributions do not, in fact, finance the losses arising from unprofitable spare capacity.
Komisija je v zvezi s potrebo po plačilu nadomestila izpostavila vprašanje, ali letni prispevki dejansko ne financirajo izgub, nastalih zaradi nedonosne proste zmogljivosti.
It is questionable whether an additional annual contribution is necessary if in other German states all the costs are covered by the charges paid by polluters.
Vprašljivo je, ali je dodatni letni prispevek potreben, če so v drugih nemških zveznih deželah stroški kriti z dajatvami, ki jih plačajo onesnaževalci.
Since the ZT was not selected through a public invitation to tender, it is doubtful whether the ZT is a typical well run undertaking.
Ker podjetje ZT ni bilo izbrano z javnim razpisom, je vprašljivo, ali je podjetje ZT povprečno učinkovito podjetje.
Consequently the Commission came to the provisional conclusion that a detailed examination was needed to ascertain whether the annual contribution to the ZT is actually necessary to ensure that there is an epidemic reserve or whether the market itself would not provide sufficient free plant capacity in the event of an epidemic.
Komisija je zato začasno sklenila, da je potrebna podrobna presoja, da se ugotovi, ali je letni prispevek za podjetje ZT dejansko potreben za zagotavljanje rezerve za epidemije in ali trg sam ne bi zagotovil zadostne proste zmogljivosti obrata v primeru epidemije.
Finally doubts were cast on Germany’s argument that the annual contributions could be justified as compensation for the clean-up costs of contaminated sites.
Obstajali so tudi dvomi glede trditve Nemčije, da bi lahko bili letni prispevki upravičeni kot nadomestilo za stroške čiščenja onesnaženih lokacij.
Under paragraph 132 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 1 April 2008 [23] (‘the environmental aid guidelines’), such aid can only be deemed compatible with the internal market if the beneficiary cannot be made liable under national law, which apparently is not the case in this instance.
V skladu z odstavkom 132 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja z dne 1. aprila 2008 [23] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice o okoljski pomoči) se taka pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom samo, če upravičencu na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje ni mogoče pripisati odgovornosti, kar pa v tem primeru očitno ne drži.
NATIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
NACIONALNI SODNI POSTOPEK
In its judgment of 16 December 2010 the highest German administrative court, the BVerwG held that the 2010 contributions were not state aid under the terms of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the Altmark criteria were met.
Najvišje nemško zvezno upravno sodišče, tj. BVerwG, je v svoji sodbi z dne 16. decembra 2010 razsodilo, da prispevki iz leta 2010 niso pomenili državne pomoči pod pogoji člena 107(1) PDEU, saj so bila izpolnjena merila iz sodbe Altmark.
The BVerwG did not make any pronouncement on earlier contributions because it took the view that the appeal was not admissible with respect to the contributions paid prior to 2010.
Sodišče BVerwG se ni izreklo o prejšnjih prispevkih, ker je razsodilo, da pritožba ni bila dopustna v zvezi s prispevki, plačanimi pred letom 2010.
First Altmark criterion
Prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark
The BVerwG held that the disposal of animal by-products under the animal by-products Regulation and § 3(1) of the TierNebG constitutes a service of general economic interest and includes the provision of reserve capacity in the event of epidemics.
Sodišče BVerwG je razsodilo, da odstranjevanje živalskih stranskih proizvodov v skladu z uredbo o živalskih stranskih proizvodih in členom 3(1) zakonodaje TierNebG pomeni storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena ter vključuje zagotavljanje rezervne zmogljivosti v primeru epidemij.
The BVerwG distinguished between capacity that is used for normal operations, including spare operational capacity, and idle capacity that is normally unused.
Sodišče BVerwG je razlikovalo med zmogljivostjo, ki se uporablja za običajne dejavnosti, vključno s prosto operativno zmogljivostjo, in neizkoriščeno zmogljivostjo, ki se običajno ne uporabi.
If the annual contributions covered the costs of normal capacity, including an essential epidemic reserve, the BVerwG would agree that the annual contributions were state aid because of the polluter pays principle.
Če so letni prispevki krili stroške normalne zmogljivosti, vključno z bistveno rezervo za epidemije, bi se sodišče BVerwG strinjalo, da so letni prispevki pomenili državno pomoč zaradi načela „onesnaževalec plača“.
However, if the annual contributions only covered the costs of the spare capacity that is held solely for the outbreak of an epidemic, they would not constitute state aid.
Vendar pa letni prispevki v primeru, če bi krili samo stroške proste zmogljivosti, ki se vzdržuje izključno za izbruh epidemije, ne bi pomenili državne pomoči.
It is of no significance that the spare capacity may be higher than dictated by operational requirements because, by its very nature, it is not normally being used.
To, da je lahko prosta zmogljivost višja od zmogljivosti, ki jo narekujejo operativne zahteve, ni pomembno, saj se po svoji naravi običajno ne uporabi.
Only if there were indications that the spare capacity had also been used for normal operations (e.g. for the disposal of category 3 material) would a different conclusion follow.
Samo v primeru, če bi kazalo, da se je prosta zmogljivost uporabila tudi za običajne dejavnosti (npr. za odstranjevanje snovi kategorije 3), bi sledil drugačen sklep.
However, as this did not seem to be the case, the annual contributions were only compensating the costs arising from the public service obligation to provide an epidemic reserve.
Vendar ker to v tem primeru ne drži, so letni prispevki nadomeščali samo stroške, nastale zaradi obveznosti opravljanja javne storitve, tj. zagotavljanja rezerve za epidemije.
Second Altmark criterion
Drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark
Third Altmark criterion
Tretje merilo iz sodbe Altmark
The modified § 9 of the Verbandsordnung ensured that the annual contributions only compensated for the cost of providing of providing the epidemic reserve.
Spremenjeni člen 9 statuta podjetja ZT je zagotovil, da so letni prispevki nadomeščali samo stroške zagotavljanja rezerve za epidemije.
Moreover, the BVerwG noted that the decision on the size of the reserve was not a business decision that had to be taken on the basis of its economic cost-effectiveness.
Poleg tega je sodišče BVerwG ugotovilo, da odločitev glede velikosti rezerve ni bila poslovna odločitev, ki bi jo bilo treba sprejeti na podlagi njene stroškovne učinkovitosti.
By its very nature, keeping reserve capacity for the outbreak of an epidemic is uneconomic because the cost of this reserve is disproportionate to the likelihood of large-scale outbreaks of animal disease.
Vzdrževanje rezervne zmogljivosti za izbruh epidemije je po svoji naravi ekonomsko neperspektivno, saj so stroški te rezerve nesorazmerni z verjetnostjo velikih izbruhov živalskih bolezni.
Fourth Altmark-criterion
Četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark
The BVerwG held that it was not possible to apply the fourth Altmark-criterion in this case because the disposal of category 1 and category 2 material is performed separately from the disposal of category 3 material.
Sodišče BVerwG je razsodilo, da v tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti četrtega merila iz sodbe Altmark, ker se odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 izvaja ločeno od odstranjevanja snovi kategorije 3.
There is no overlap between the public and the commercial services provided by the ZT while, in the Altmark-case, a private bus company was subject to a large number of public service requirements (e.g. concerning number of stops and timetable) that substantially changed the way in which the underlying transport service was performed.
Med javnimi in komercialnimi storitvami, ki jih zagotavlja podjetje ZT, ni prekrivanja, medtem ko je za zasebno avtobusno podjetje iz zadeve Altmark veljalo veliko število zahtev javne službe (npr. v zvezi s številom postaj in voznim redom), ki so bistveno spremenile način, na katerega se je izvajala osnovna storitev linijskega cestnega prometa.
The annual contributions to the ZT therefore served to compensate it for the cost of providing a public service outside the market.
Zato so letni prispevki podjetju ZT služili kot nadomestilo stroškov za zagotavljanje javne storitve zunaj katerega koli trga.
The BVerwG also held that a public body is entitled to carry out its public-interest tasks by itself without being obliged to have recourse to private service providers.
Sodišče BVerwG je prav tako razsodilo, da lahko javni organ sam izvaja svoje naloge v javnem interesu in se ni dolžan obrniti na zasebne izvajalce storitev.
As regards the case-law of the Court of Justice on public procurement, the BVerwG stated that a public body was free to decide whether to carry out a service in-house or to procure it from the market [24].
Sodišče BVerwG je v zvezi s sodno prakso Sodišča na področju javnih naročil navedlo, da se je lahko javni organ sam odločil, ali bo storitev izvajal interno ali jo bo pridobil na trgu [24].
COMMENTS FROM THE COMPLAINANT
PRIPOMBE PRITOŽNIKA
The complainant argues that the provision of an epidemic reserve is not a service of general economic interest (SGEI) within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU because of the polluter pays principle.
Pritožnik trdi, da zagotavljanje rezerve za epidemije ni storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena (SGEI) v smislu člena 106(2) PDEU zaradi načela „onesnaževalec plača“.
And swift and effective handling of epidemics enables the slaughterhouses to continue their business at the normal level.
Hitro in učinkovito obvladovanje epidemij klavnicam omogoča nadaljnje normalno izvajanje njihove dejavnosti.
The polluter pays principle is also recognised in the relevant German legislation, where farmers and slaughterhouses are regularly referred to as polluters who must bear the disposal costs [25].
Načelo „onesnaževalec plača“ je sprejeto tudi z ustrezno nemško zakonodajo, kjer so kmetje in klavnice dosledno imenovani kot onesnaževalci, ki krijejo stroške odstranjevanja [25].
The complainant maintains that the ZT only began to claim that it had always been entrusted with the task of providing reserve capacity after the national and Commission investigations got under way.
Pritožnik navaja, da je podjetje ZT začelo trditi, da je bilo vedno pooblaščeno za opravljanje naloge zagotavljanja rezervne zmogljivosti, šele po začetku nacionalnih preiskav in preiskav s strani Komisije.
Until the Verbandsordnung was modified in 2010 there had been no explicit entrustment act concerning the provision of reserve capacity by the ZT nor had the parameters for the calculation of the compensation been set in advance.
Pred spremembo statuta podjetja ZT leta 2010 ni bilo nobenega izrecnega akta o pooblastitvi v zvezi z zagotavljanjem rezervne zmogljivosti s strani podjetja ZT, prav tako pa niso bili vnaprej določeni nobeni parametri za izračun nadomestila.
Third Altmark Criterion
Tretje merilo iz sodbe Altmark
The complainant maintains that the requirement to maintain an epidemic reserve does not entail any net costs for animal disposal plants.
Pritožnik navaja, da zahteva po vzdrževanju rezerve za epidemije obratom za odstranjevanje živali ne povzroča nobenih neto stroškov.
Epidemic reserve covered out of operational spare capacity
Rezerva za epidemije, pokrita iz operativne proste zmogljivosti
German animal disposal plants are generally run in two shifts on five or six weekdays, with fluctuations of +/– 5 % in terms of operating hours.
Nemški obrati za odstranjevanje živali običajno obratujejo v dveh izmenah pet ali šest delovnih dni s +/– 5-odstotnimi nihanji v smislu operativnega časa.
Seasonal fluctuations in demand are dealt with by operating three shifts in times of strong demand or scaling back to five-day two-shift operations when demand is weak.
Sezonskim nihanjem v povpraševanju se prilagajajo z obratovanjem v treh izmenah, kadar je povpraševanje veliko, ali s prehodom nazaj na petdnevno dvoizmensko obratovanje, kadar je povpraševanje majhno.
The Böckenhoff study [26] confirmed that the third shift during the week and further shifts at weekends provide a sufficient epidemic reserve to cope with the increased amount of material in the event of epidemics.
Böckenhoffova študija [26] je potrdila, da tretja izmena med tednom in dodatne izmene med vikendi zagotavljajo zadostno rezervo za epidemije za spopadanje s povečano količino snovi v primeru epidemij.
Thus the necessary epidemic reserve can be covered by the operational spare capacity available in the course of normal operation of disposal plants.
Tako se lahko potrebna rezerva za epidemije pokrije z operativno prosto zmogljivostjo, razpoložljivo med normalnim obratovanjem obratov za odstranjevanje.
The complainant stresses that it has never had to make additional investments in order to provide a sufficient level of epidemic reserve.
Pritožnik poudarja, da mu nikoli ni bilo treba izvajati dodatnih naložb, da bi zagotovil zadostno raven rezerve za epidemije.
The complainant also maintains that the capacities of the neighbouring Länder should be taken into account when planning the capacity of a disposal plant.
Pritožnik prav tako trdi, da bi se morale pri načrtovanju zmogljivosti obrata za odstranjevanje upoštevati tudi zmogljivosti sosednjih dežel.
In the event of a massive outbreak of disease, the capacities of other Länder can be used to cope with a short-term increase in demand for capacity.
V primeru masovnega izbruha bolezni se lahko zmogljivosti drugih dežel uporabijo pri spopadanju s kratkoročnim povečanjem povpraševanja po zmogljivosti.
There are no legal provisions prohibiting the transport of category 1 and 2 materials.
Ne obstajajo nobene pravne določbe o prepovedi prevoza snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
On the contrary, the relevant German legislation [27] regards recourse to neighbouring regions’ capacities as an obvious way to deal with bottlenecks in processing capacity in the event of an epidemic.
Ravno nasprotno, upoštevna nemška zakonodaja [27] obravnava uporabo zmogljivosti sosednjih regij kot običajen način reševanja ozkih grl v predelovalni zmogljivosti v primeru epidemije.
Total costs financed out of normal fee revenue
Skupni stroški, financirani iz prihodka iz pristojbin
According to the complainant, all capacity costs would normally be financed out of the revenue that the undertaking entrusted with the task of disposing of category 1 and 2 material earned by charging for its normal operations.
Po mnenju pritožnika bi se vsi stroški zmogljivosti običajno financirali iz prihodka, ki ga je z zaračunavanjem za svoje normalno obratovanje zaslužilo podjetje, ki je bilo pooblaščeno za opravljanje naloge odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
As the costs of operational spare capacity are an integral part of the plant’s fixed costs, they can be included in the calculation of the fee charged to users.
Ker so stroški operativne proste zmogljivosti sestavni del stalnih stroškov obrata, jih je mogoče vključiti v izračun pristojbine, zaračunane uporabnikom.
Among other things, the complainant cited a BVerwG judgment [28] that made it clear that the cost of objectively justified capacity reserves could be included when calculating charges.
Pritožnik je med drugim navedel sodbo sodišča BVerwG [28], v kateri je bilo pojasnjeno, da bi se lahko stroški objektivno upravičenih rezervnih zmogljivosti vključili pri izračunavanju dajatev.
In 10 out of the 16 Länder, only private undertakings are entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 materials (Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia).
V 10 od 16 dežel so za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 pooblaščena samo zasebna podjetja (Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Spodnja Saška, Severno Porenje-Vestfalija, Saška-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein in Turingija).