natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be noted that only about 45 % of the capacity costs were allocated to the epidemic reserve in 2000 and 2001, and in 2009 inclusion of the contract from Northern and Central Hessen reduced the epidemic reserve by approximately a fifth.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bilo v letih 2000 in 2001 rezervi za epidemije dodeljenih samo 45 % stroškov zmogljivosti ter da je leta 2009 vključitev pogodbe iz severnega in osrednjega Hessna zmanjšala rezervo za epidemije za približno petino.
No calculation of the cost of the epidemic reserve is available for 1998 and 1999.
Za leti 1998 in 1999 ni na voljo nobenega izračuna stroškov rezerve za epidemije.
Financing the cost of the epidemic reserve through annual contributions
Financiranje stroškov rezerve za epidemije z letnimi prispevki
In the years shown, apart from 2009, the annual contributions paid to the ZT by its members were below the costs of the epidemic reserve shown in Table 2.
V navedenih letih, razen leta 2009, so bili letni prispevki, ki so jih podjetju ZT plačevali njegovi člani, nižji od stroškov rezerve za epidemije, prikazanih v preglednici 2.
In 2009 the final annual contribution was as high as the costs of the reserve.
Končni letni prispevek je leta 2009 znašal toliko kot stroški rezerve.
Germany stated that the cost of providing the epidemic reserve was not included in the calculation of the usage charge because this was not legally possible.
Nemčija navaja, da stroški zagotavljanja rezerve za epidemije niso bili vključeni v izračun dajatve za uporabo, ker to ni bilo pravno mogoče.
Although local authorities can levy usage charges in return for the use of public facilities and plants in order to cover the costs under § 7 of the Kommunalabgabengesetz Rhineland-Palatinate (KAG RP: Rhineland-Palatinate Local Authority Charges Act), there must not be an obvious disparity between the output of the facility or plant and the charge.
Čeprav lahko lokalni organi zaračunavajo dajatve za uporabo javnih infrastruktur in obratov, da krijejo stroške iz člena 7 akta Kommunalabgabengesetz zvezne dežele Porenje-Pfalz (v nadaljnjem besedilu: akt KAG RP; akt o dajatvah lokalnega organa), med donosom infrastrukture ali obrata in dajatvijo ne sme obstajati očitno neskladje.
Under § 8 of the KAG RP the costs on which usage charges are based must be determined following the business principles of cost accounting.
Na podlagi člena 8 akta KAG RP morajo biti stroški, na katerih temeljijo dajatve za uporabo, določeni v skladu s poslovnimi načeli stroškovnega računovodstva.
According to Germany, however, only the disposal of category 1 and 2 material forms the basis for charges, not the provision of capacity for epidemics.
Vendar po mnenju Nemčije podlago za dajatve tvori samo odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2, ne pa zagotavljanje zmogljivosti za epidemije.
The latter is not provided as a service for individual taxpayers, but to counter future dangers to the general public.
Slednje se ne izvaja kot storitev za posamezne davkoplačevalce, ampak za preprečevanje bodočih nevarnosti za prebivalstvo.
Financing in other German states
Financiranje v drugih nemških zveznih deželah
At the Commission’s request Germany carried out a nationwide survey on the practices followed when determining and financing the epidemic reserve.
Nemčija je na zahtevo Komisije izvedla sistematično raziskavo na nacionalni ravni o praksah pri določanju in financiranju rezerve za epidemije.
In all the German states — except the area covered by the ZT — the epidemic reserve is covered by the operational spare capacity available during the week and at weekends.
V vseh nemških zveznih deželah, razen na območju, ki ga krije podjetje ZT, je rezerva za epidemije krita z operativno prosto zmogljivostjo, razpoložljivo med tednom in ob vikendih.
On the basis of the Böckenhoff study on combating epidemics, there is not normally any additional investment in capacity.
Na podlagi Böckenhoffove študije o spopadanju z epidemijami običajno ni nobenih dodatnih naložb v zmogljivost.
The spare capacity available in the shape of the third shift during the week and the weekend shifts are sufficient for the epidemic reserve.
Prosta zmogljivost, ki je na razpolago s tretjo izmeno med tednom in izmenami čez vikend, zadostuje za rezervo za epidemije.
In the meantime alternative calculation methods are being applied following expert studies, such as the ISPA study for Lower Saxony [33] (‘the ISPA-NS study’), or through agreement with the interest groups concerned.
Medtem se uporabljajo alternativne metode izračunavanja, in sicer na podlagi strokovnih študij, kot je študija ISPA za Spodnjo Saško [33] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: študija ISPA NS), ali s sporazumom z zadevnimi zainteresiranimi skupinami.
However, the fundamental conclusion of the Böckenhoff study still stands, namely that extra investment in spare capacity is unnecessary.
Vendar še vedno velja temeljni sklep Böckenhoffove študije, da dodatna naložba v prosto zmogljivost ni potrebna.
The cost of operational spare capacity is financed through dues or charges (depending on the legal form of the operator).
Stroški operativne proste zmogljivosti se financirajo z dajatvami ali pristojbinami (odvisno od pravne oblike izvajalca).
There are different arrangements, according to the pattern under which the cost of operational spare capacity is divided between disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste.
Glede na vzorec, po katerem so stroški operativne proste zmogljivosti razdeljeni med odstranjevanje poginulih živali in klavničnih odpadkov, obstajajo različne ureditve.
As regards aid to farmers for the disposal of fallen stock under the TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007–2013, the assistance granted by the State in most of the other Länder is between 67 % and 75 % of the charges for the disposal of fallen stock:
Kar zadeva pomoč kmetom za odstranjevanje poginulih živali v okviru smernic o TSE in smernic o kmetijski pomoči 2007–2013, znaša pomoč, ki jo dodeli država v večini drugih dežel, med 67 % in 75 % dajatev za odstranjevanje poginulih živali:
Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia: The animal owners pay 25 % of the processing costs, while 100 % of the collection costs and the remaining 75 % of the processing costs are financed by the public purse (rural districts and Länder).
Baden-Württemberg in Severno Porenje-Vestfalija: lastniki živali plačajo 25 % stroškov predelave, medtem ko se celotni stroški zbiranja in preostalih 75 % stroškov predelave financirajo iz javne blagajne (podeželska okrožja in dežele);
Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia and Brandenburg: The animal owners pay 25 % of the collection costs and 33 % of the processing costs.
Saška-Anhalt, Turingija in Brandenburg: lastniki živali plačajo 25 % stroškov zbiranja in 33 % stroškov predelave.
The remainder of the collection and processing costs (75 % or 67 %) is borne by the public purse.
Preostanek stroškov zbiranja in predelave (75 % oziroma 67 %) krije javna blagajna;
Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland: A third of the collection costs are paid by the state, the Tierseuchenkasse, and the Land, while 66 % of the processing costs are financed by the public purse, 25 % by the animal owners, and 8 % by the Tierseuchenkasse.
Bavarska, Porenje-Pfalz in Posarje: država, sklad Tierseuchenkasse, in zvezna dežela plačajo vsak tretjino stroškov zbiranja, kar zadeva stroške predelave, pa se 66 % financira iz javne blagajne, 25 % s strani lastnikov živali in 8 % iz sklada Tierseuchenkasse;
In Saxony 25 % of the collection and processing costs are financed by the animal owners, 8 % by the Tierseuchenkasse, and 66 % by the public purse.
v Saški 25 % stroškov zbiranja in predelave plačajo lastniki živali, 8 % je financiranih iz sklada Tierseuchenkasse in 66 % iz javne blagajne;
In Lower Saxony 60 % of the collection and processing costs are financed by the Tierseuchenkasse and 40 % by the public purse.
v Spodnji Saški se 60 % stroškov zbiranja in predelave financira iz sklada Tierseuchenkasse, 40 % pa iz javne blagajne.
The Tierseuchenkasse then charges 25 % of the processing costs to the animal owners.
Lastniki živali nato plačajo 25 % stroškov predelave v sklad Tierseuchenkasse;
In Schleswig-Holstein 100 % of the collection and processing costs are borne by the Tierseuchenkasse.
v zvezni deželi Schleswig-Holstein so celotni stroški zbiranja in predelave kriti iz sklada Tierseuchenkasse;
In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 100 % of the collection and processing costs are borne by the animal owners.
v zvezni deželi Mecklenburg-Vorpommern celotne stroške zbiranja in predelave krijejo lastniki živali.
In Germany’s view, this overview shows that it is relatively unimportant whether the cost of the epidemic reserve is included in the calculation of dues and charges or whether they are financed through an annual contribution as in Rhineland-Palatinate.
Po mnenju Nemčije ta pregled kaže, da je dokaj nepomembno, ali so stroški rezerve za epidemije vključeni v izračun dajatev in pristojbin in ali se financirajo z letnimi prispevki tako kot v deželi Porenje-Pfalz.
What matters is who actually bears the costs.
Pomembno je to, kdo dejansko krije te stroške.
Ultimately, a large proportion of the spare capacity is also publicly financed through aid under the Community TSE guidelines or the agricultural aid guidelines 2007–2013.
Velik del proste zmogljivosti se financira tudi iz javnih sredstev v okviru smernic Skupnosti o TSE ali smernic o kmetijski pomoči 2007–2013.
Fourth Altmark criterion
Četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark
Germany holds the view that there is no requirement under European law to open up a market for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material by means of procurement procedures.
Nemčija meni, da v okviru evropskega prava ni nobene zahteve po odprtju trga za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 s postopki naročanja.
This has also been confirmed by the European Court of Justice [34].
To je potrdilo tudi Evropsko sodišče [34].
No distortion to competition in external markets
Brez izkrivljanja konkurence na zunanjih trgih
Germany holds that there is no distortion of competition in the external markets in this case.
Nemčija trdi, da v obravnavanem primeru ni izkrivljanja konkurence na zunanjih trgih.
Disposal of uncontrolled goods by the ZT without cross-subsidisation
Odstranjevanje nenadzorovanega blaga s strani podjetja ZT brez navzkrižnega subvencioniranja
Germany contends that there have been no distortions of competition in the case of category 3 material as a result of the annual contribution levied by the ZT, as there is no cross-subsidisation.
Nemčija trdi, da v primeru odstranjevanja snovi kategorije 3 ni bilo izkrivljanj konkurence zaradi letnih prispevkov, ki jih je zaračunavalo podjetje ZT, saj ni bilo navzkrižnega subvencioniranja.
The annual accounts clearly demonstrate that the ZT has been achieving considerable contribution margins for years in processing separated category 3 material, which rules out cross-subsidisation.
Letna finančna poročila jasno kažejo, da je podjetje ZT več let dosegalo visoke stopnje kritja pri predelavi snovi kategorije 3, kar izključuje navzkrižno subvencioniranje.
If category 3 material is delivered jointly with the controlled material, the mixtures (by weight) have already been included in the calculation of the charges for the disposal of category 1 and 2 raw material.
Če se snovi kategorije 3 dostavljajo skupaj z nadzorovanimi snovmi, so bile mešanice (glede na težo) že vključene v izračun dajatev za odstranjevanje surovin kategorij 1 in 2.
This means that the level of charges in the charge schedule already includes the quantities of mixed material in that category which are calculated in advance.
To pomeni, da višina dajatev v seznamu dajatev že vključuje količine mešanih snovi navedene kategorije, ki so vnaprej izračunane.
There is no foundation to the complainant’s claim that because of the ZT’s pricing policy, only 45 % of the category 3 material is separated.
Pritožnikova trditev, da je zaradi cenovne politike podjetja ZT samo 45 % snovi kategorije 3 ločenih, ni utemeljena.
Such high quantities of category 3 material have never been processed by the ZT, as a glance at the relevant statistics would confirm.
Podjetje ZT ni nikoli predelalo tako velikih količin snovi kategorije 3, kar bi potrdil hiter pregled ustreznih statističnih podatkov.
The separation rate of 72 % for 2009 cited by the Commission in the decision to initiate the procedure can be confirmed.
Potrdi se lahko 72-odstotna stopnja ločevanja za leto 2009, ki jo je Komisija navedla v odločitvi o začetku postopka.
It should also be pointed out that in the area covered by the association 85 % of slaughters are carried out in 6 plants where separation in its broadest sense is carried out.
Treba je tudi poudariti, da se na območju, ki ga pokriva združenje, 85 % zakolov izvede v 6 obratih, kjer se izvaja ločevanje v najširšem smislu.
The complainant is active in these plants and obtains separated category 3 material from them.
Pritožnik je dejaven v teh obratih in iz njih pridobiva ločene snovi kategorije 3.
The complainant therefore has access to the category 3 markets and also has a very considerable share of these markets.
Zato ima pritožnik dostop do trgov s snovmi kategorije 3, prav tako pa je v njegovi lasti velik delež teh trgov.
Invitation to tender in Northern and Central Hessen
Javni razpis v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu
The fact that the ZT applies different charges in Northern and Central Hessen from those in the area covered by the association does not prove the existence of any distortion of competition.
Dejstvo, da podjetje ZT v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu zaračunava drugačne dajatve kot na območju, ki ga pokriva združenje, ne dokazuje obstoja kakršnega koli izkrivljanja konkurence.
The financing differences are due to differing legal requirements as regards their calculation.
Razlike v financiranju so posledica različnih pravnih zahtev v zvezi z izračunom.
Under Section 3(1) of the TierNebG, the disposal of category 1 and 2 animal by-products in Germany is the responsibility of the regional and local authorities competent under state law.
Na podlagi oddelka 3(1) zakonodaje TierNebG je v Nemčiji odstranjevanje živalskih stranskih proizvodov kategorij 1 in 2 odgovornost regionalnih in lokalnih organov, ki so pristojni v okviru državnega prava.
Consequently the financing may be regulated differently under the relevant provisions at Land and local level.
Posledično se lahko na podlagi ustreznih določb na deželni ali lokalni ravni financiranje ureja drugače.
If the disposal of animal by-products is not carried out by those responsible for disposal themselves and the task is entrusted to third parties — as in Northern and Central Hessen — the calculation rules are governed not by the Local Authority Charges Act in question, but by the Leitsätze für die Preisermittlung aufgrund von Selbstkosten [LSP — Guidelines for determining cost prices] [35].
Če odstranjevanja živalskih stranskih proizvodov ne izvajajo odgovorni za odstranjevanje in je za opravljanje naloge pooblaščena tretja stran, kot v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu, pravil za izračun ne določa zadevni akt o dajatvah lokalnega organa, ampak Leitsätze für die Preisermittlung aufgrund von Selbstkosten (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za določanje lastnih cen) [35].
There are big differences between the KAG RP and the LSP, especially as regards the amount of interest costs that can be included in the charges/fees, and these differences are significant for the ZT, since it financed its investments to a considerable extent through loans and paid a substantial amount of interest on them each year.
Med aktom KAG RP in smernicami za določanje lastnih cen obstajajo velike razlike, zlasti v zvezi z zneskom stroškov obresti, ki jih je mogoče vključiti v dajatve/pristojbine, te razlike pa so pomembne za podjetje ZT, saj je svoje naložbe v veliki meri financiralo s posojili in zanje vsako leto plačalo visok znesek obresti.
While the ZT could include these interest costs in the calculation of charges under § 8 KAG RP, the LSP only allowed the charges in Northern and Central Hessen to be based on calculated interest relative to the average necessary operating capital.
Medtem ko bi lahko podjetje ZT na podlagi člena 8 akta KAG RP stroške obresti vključilo v izračun dajatev, so lahko na podlagi smernic za določanje lastnih cen samo dajatve v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu temeljile na izračunanih obrestih, ki se nanašajo na povprečje, potrebno za obratna sredstva.
It was thus impossible to pass on the full cost of the actual interest payments.
Zato ni bilo mogoče prenesti celotnih stroškov dejanskih plačil obresti.
The claim made by the complainant that TBA Schäfer was failed to win in the selection procedure in Northern and Central Hessen because of the cross-subsidisation through the annual contribution is also without any basis.
Prav tako je brez podlage trditev pritožnika, da podjetje TBA Schäfer ni bilo izbrano v razpisnem postopku v severnem in osrednjem Hessnu zaradi navzkrižnega subvencioniranja z letnim prispevkom.
The higher offer made by TBA Schäfer was due to the fact that TBA Schäfer’s estimate of production income was too low and that it also had to pay higher administration costs and group contributions.
Razlog za višjo ponudbo podjetja TBA Schäfer je bilo dejstvo, da je bila ocena dohodka iz proizvodnje s strani podjetja TBA Schäfer prenizka ter da je moralo plačevati višje upravne stroške in prispevke skupine.
On the other hand the ZT had estimated production revenue correctly and, since it was not part of a group, did not have to make any group contributions.
Po drugi strani je podjetje ZT pravilno ocenilo prihodek iz proizvodnje in ker ni bilo del skupine, mu ni bilo treba plačevati nobenih prispevkov skupine.
Clean-up of contaminated sites
Čiščenje onesnaženih lokacij
Germany contends that part of the annual contribution levied by the ZT serves to finance the clean-up costs for two contaminated sites, Sohrschied and Sprendlingen-Gensingen.
Nemčija trdi, da je del letnega prispevka, ki ga zaračunava podjetje ZT, namenjen financiranju stroškov čiščenja za dve onesnaženi lokaciji, tj. Sohrschied in Sprendlingen-Gensingen.
Soil and ground water contamination had built up at both contaminated sites through the use of hydrocarbons by former owners or operators.
Onesnažena talna in podzemna voda se je nabirala na obeh onesnaženih lokacijah z uporabo ogljikovodika s strani prejšnjih lastnikov ali izvajalcev.
Both properties came into the ZT’s ownership when it was founded in 1979.
Obe posestvi sta prišli v last podjetja ZT ob njegovi ustanovitvi leta 1979.
Under the Koblenz district government’s clean-up decisions of 21 April 1997 and 31 March 1998, the ZT was obliged to remove the contamination.
Podjetje ZT je bilo na podlagi sklepov regionalne vlade v Koblenzu o čiščenju z dne 21. aprila 1997 in 31. marca 1998 zavezano k odpravi onesnaženosti.
Further conditions were imposed as regards cleaning up the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site in a supplementary decision of 13 July 2001.
V dopolnilnem sklepu z dne 13. julija 2001 so bili določeni nadaljnji pogoji v zvezi s čiščenjem lokacije Sprendlingen-Gensingen.
The clean-up costs for the relevant period from 1998 to 2010 amounted to a total of EUR 2413049,36 for the two sites.
Stroški čiščenja za obe lokaciji za zadevno obdobje 1998–2010 so skupaj znašali 2413049 EUR.
Sprendling-Gensingen site
Lokacija Sprendlingen-Gensingen
Germany acknowledges that the ZT is liable for the clean-up costs at the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site under the clean-up decision of 31 March 1998.
Nemčija priznava, da je podjetje ZT odgovorno za stroške čiščenja na lokacije Sprendlingen-Gensingen na podlagi sklepa o čiščenju z dne 31. marca 1998.
However, it considers that from the point of view of aid law it is unjust for the ZT to be fully responsible for the clean-up costs, since unlimited liability would lead to unequal treatment compared with private undertakings under more recent German case-law.
Vendar meni, da z vidika zakonodaje o pomoči ni pravično, da je podjetje ZT v celoti odgovorno za stroške čiščenja, saj bi neomejena odgovornost privedla do neenake obravnave v primerjavi z zasebnimi podjetji v skladu z nedavno nemško sodno prakso.
Following the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court] of 16 December 2000 [36], a private undertaking would be liable under national law only up to the limit of what is reasonable.
V skladu s sodbo Bundesverfassungsgericht (zveznega ustavnega sodišča) z dne 16. februarja 2000 [36] bi bilo zasebno podjetje na podlagi nacionalnega prava odgovorno samo do razumne mere.
According to the Bundesverfassungsgericht this threshold could be reached if the liability exceeded the value of the property.
Po mnenju sodišča Bundesverfassungsgericht bi bil ta prag lahko dosežen, če bi odgovornost presegla vrednost posestva.
Beyond that limit, liability could no longer be regarded as a proportionate substantive and limiting provision for the purposes of the protection of property guaranteed in the second sentence of Article 14(2) of the German Grundgesetz [Basic Law].
Nad tem pragom se odgovornost ne bi mogla več obravnavati kot sorazmerna vsebinska in omejevalna določba za namene varovanja premoženja, ki ga zagotavlja drugi stavek člena 14(2) nemške ustave.
However, because the ZT, as a legal person under public law, cannot invoke the rights accorded to private persons under the German Basic Law, this limitation of liability does not apply to the ZT.
Vendar ker podjetje ZT kot pravna oseba javnega prava ne more uveljavljati pravic, odobrenih fizičnim osebam v skladu z nemško ustavo, ta omejitev odgovornosti ne velja za podjetje ZT.
According to Germany, the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site has a negative market value because the estimated book value on the balance sheet at 31 December 2009 was EUR 128500,00, whereas the clean-up costs have since risen to a total of EUR 1542315,85. This is beyond limit on liability described above.
Po mnenju Nemčije je tržna vrednost lokacije Sprendlingen-Gensingen negativna, ker je predvidena knjigovodska vrednost v bilanci stanja z dne 31. decembra 2009 znašala 128500,00 EUR, medtem ko so se stroški čiščenja od takrat povečali na skupno 1542316 EUR. To presega zgoraj opisano omejitev odgovornosti.
Financing the clean-up costs beyond the liability limit through the annual contribution should be regarded as compatible aid under paragraph 132 of the environmental aid guidelines, since private individuals would only have to bear clean-up costs up to the market value of the property.
Financiranje stroškov čiščenja z letnim prispevkom izven okvira omejitve odgovornosti bi bilo treba obravnavati kot združljivo pomoč v skladu z odstavkom 132 smernic o okoljski pomoči, saj bi posamezniki morali kriti samo stroške do tržne vrednosti posestva.
Sohrschied site
Lokacija Sohrschied
Although the ZT was held liable as the polluter under the clean-up decision of 21 April 1997, Germany doubts whether the ZT was actually obliged under German law to bear the clean-up costs for the damage caused by the earlier owner or operator.
Kljub temu, da je bilo podjetje ZT na podlagi sklepa o čiščenju z dne 21. aprila 1997 odgovorno kot onesnaževalec, Nemčija dvomi, ali je bilo podjetje ZT v skladu z nemško ustavo dejansko zadolženo za kritje stroškov čiščenja za škodo, ki jo je povzročil prejšnji lastnik ali izvajalec.
But since the facts lie more than 30 years back, the question of liability can no longer be clearly clarified.
Ker je od tega minilo že več kot 30 let, vprašanja o odgovornosti ni mogoče več jasno razčistiti.
Germany considers that the annual contribution, insofar as it contributes towards the clean-up costs for the Sohrschied site, represents compatible aid under the environmental aid guidelines since the ZT should not have been under an obligation to carry out the clean-up.
Nemčija meni, da letni prispevek, kolikor prispeva k stroškom čiščenja za lokacijo Sohrschied, pomeni združljivo pomoč v skladu s smernicami o okoljski pomoči, saj podjetje ZT ne bi smelo biti zadolženo za izvajanje čiščenja.