natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the Commission’s view the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is not fundamentally different in terms of content from other economic activities.
Po mnenju Komisije se odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 glede na vsebino bistveno ne razlikuje od drugih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
For this reason it cannot be classed as a service of general economic interest.
Iz tega razloga ga ni mogoče uvrstiti med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Contrary to the view of the BVerwG, the strict control prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not mean that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material has to be regarded as a service of general economic interest.
V nasprotju z mnenjem sodišča BVerwG strog nadzor, določen z Uredbo (ES) št. 1069/2009, ne pomeni, da je treba odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 obravnavati kot storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Furthermore, the sector in question is regulated by provisions of Union law.
Poleg tega zadevni sektor urejajo določbe prava Unije.
In particular, those provisions require that the polluter bears cost for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
Te določbe zlasti zahtevajo, da onesnaževalec krije stroške odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
It follows that there is no scope for the public purse to take on part of the cost, as the Court of Justice found in GEMO [48].
Iz tega sledi, da javna blagajna ne more prevzeti dela stroškov, kot je razsodilo Sodišče v zadevi GEMO [48].
Because of these specific provisions of Union law there is no longer any room for national provisions seeking classify the disposal of category 1 and 2 material as a service of general economic interest, depart from Union law.
Zaradi teh posebnih določb prava Unije odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2 ni mogoče uvrstiti med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena na podlagi nacionalnih določb.
Classing it as a service of general economic interest is therefore ruled out.
Zato je uvrstitev med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena izključena.
Lastly as regards Germany’s claim that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material serves to protect human health, the Commission would refer to the GEMO judgment, where the Court of Justice held that Article 107(1) TFEU does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects.
Nazadnje se Komisija v zvezi s trditvijo Nemčije, da odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 služi varovanju zdravja ljudi, sklicuje na sodbo v zadevi GEMO, v kateri je Sodišče razsodilo, da člen 107(1) PDEU ne razlikuje med ukrepi državnega posredovanja glede na njihove vzroke ali cilje, ampak jih določa na podlagi njihovih učinkov.
It follows that in principle an economic operator must bear the costs entailed by regulatory provisions governing the performance of his activity, such as the strict rules on the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in the present case.
Iz navedenega sledi, da mora gospodarski subjekt načeloma kriti stroške, ki jih nalagajo uredbene določbe, ki urejajo izvajanje njegove dejavnosti, kot so stroga pravila o odstranjevanju snovi kategorij 1 in 2 v obravnavanem primeru.
The objective of protecting human health is taken into account for justifying granting an exclusive right with respect to the freedom to provide services and at the level of the compatibility of aid for farmers with the internal market.
Cilj varovanja zdravja ljudi se upošteva pri utemeljitvi dodelitve izključne pravice ob upoštevanju svobode za zagotavljanje storitev in na ravni združljivosti pomoči za kmete z notranjim trgom.
For these reasons the Commission considers that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material cannot be classed by Germany as a service of general economic interest.
Zaradi teh razlogov Komisija meni, da Nemčija odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2 ne more uvrstiti med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In the alternative: compensation payments are not a requirement in any case
Druga možnost: nadomestila v nobenem primeru niso zahteva
All the costs of the disposal of category 1 and 2 material must be borne by those responsible for producing them, as they are inherent costs of the economic activities of farmers and slaughterhouses.
Vse stroške odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2 krijejo tisti, ki so odgovorni, da so ti nastali, saj so neločljiv del gospodarskih dejavnosti kmetov in klavnic.
The Court of Justice held that State compensation for the costs arising from this obligation is not justified, as the costs have to be borne by those responsible.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da državno nadomestilo za stroške, ki so nastali zaradi te obveznosti, ni upravičeno, saj morajo stroške kriti tisti, ki so zanje odgovorni.
Contrary to the view of the BVerwG, the strict control prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not imply that the cost of disposal of category 1 and 2 material can be met by State compensation payments.
V nasprotju z mnenjem sodišča BVerwG strog nadzor, ki ga določa Uredba (ES) št. 1069/2009, ne pomeni, da se ti stroški odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2 lahko krijejo z državnimi nadomestili.
In other words the mere existence of a public service obligation does not necessarily imply that State compensation for the costs arising from that obligation is justified.
Z drugimi besedami, sam obstoj obveznosti javne storitve ne pomeni nujno, da je državno nadomestilo za stroške, nastale zaradi te obveznosti, upravičeno.
In the Commission’s view Germany cannot justify the annual contributions as State compensation for the cost to the ZT arising from the obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material, since under the polluter pays principle the entire cost must be covered by the fees that the ZT charges those responsible for producing that material.
Po mnenju Komisije Nemčija za podjetje ZT ne more upravičiti letnih prispevkov kot državno nadomestilo za stroške, nastale zaradi obveznosti odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2, saj morajo biti celotni stroški v skladu z načelom „onesnaževalec plača“ kriti s pristojbinami, ki jih podjetje ZT zaračunava tistim, ki so odgovorni za proizvajanje teh snovi.
Maintaining an epidemic reserve
Vzdrževanje rezerve za epidemije
As regards the question whether the reserve capacity, viewed in isolation, can be classed as a service of general economic interest, the following points should be made.
V zvezi z vprašanjem, ali je mogoče rezervno zmogljivost, obravnavano ločeno, uvrstiti med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, je treba poudariti naslednje.
Under German law, an undertaking that has a regional monopoly for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material must ensure that it can cope with an increased quantity of material in the event of an outbreak of disease.
Po nemškem pravu mora podjetje z regionalnim monopolom na področju odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2 zagotoviti, da se lahko v primeru izbruha bolezni spopade s povečano količino snovi.
As the comparison of the 16 Länder submitted by Germany shows, everywhere except in the ZT’s area the undertakings that run their plants in three shifts achieve this by running them at the weekend too and, if necessary, by transferring material to other Länder.
Kot kaže primerjava 16 dežel, ki jo je predložila nemška vlada, povsod, razen na območju, ki ga pokriva podjetje ZT, podjetja, katerih obrati obratujejo v treh izmenah, to dosežejo s tem, da obratujejo tudi čez vikende in po potrebi snovi predajo drugim deželam.
In other words, the obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve does not give rise to any extra costs, as the epidemic reserve can be covered by the operationally available spare capacity.
Z drugimi besedami, obveznost vzdrževanja rezerve za epidemije ne povzroča nobenih dodatnih stroškov, saj se lahko rezerva za epidemije krije z operativno razpoložljivo prosto zmogljivostjo.
Even if extra costs were to arise, they would have to be passed on to farmers and slaughterhouses.
Tudi če bi nastali dodatni stroški, bi jih bilo treba prenesti na kmete in klavnice.
Coping with increased use of material in an epidemic is part of the cost that is inherent in the operation of a plant for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
Spopadanje s povečanjem snovi pri epidemiji je del stroškov, ki je neločljivo povezan z delovanjem obrata za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
The fact that the owners, i.e. the regional and local authorities, oblige the undertakings that they own to maintain an epidemic reserve by an official act is irrelevant.
Dejstvo, da lastniki, tj. regionalni in lokalni organi, z uradnim aktom zavezujejo podjetja, da morajo sama vzdrževati rezervo za epidemije, ni pomembno.
Maintaining the epidemic reserve cannot be deemed to be a service of general economic interest for two reasons.
Vzdrževanje rezerve za epidemije se ne more šteti za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz dveh razlogov.
If the spare capacity that is operationally available — without extra cost — is not sufficient to cover the prescribed epidemic reserve so that the obligation to maintain the epidemic reserve gives rise to additional investment costs, the polluter pays principle requires that those costs must be covered by the fees charged.
Če prosta zmogljivost, ki je operativno razpoložljiva (brez dodatnih stroškov), ne zadostuje za kritje predpisane rezerve za epidemije, tako da obveznost vzdrževanja rezerve za epidemije povzroča dodatne naložbene stroške, načelo „onesnaževalec plača“ zahteva, da je treba te stroške kriti z zaračunanimi pristojbinami.
This is no different to the arguments relating to the disposal of other waste (see recitals 156 to 185 above for detail).
To se ne razlikuje od prej navedenih argumentov glede odstranjevanja drugih odpadkov (za podrobnosti glej zgoraj navedene odstavke 156 do 185).
If the spare capacity maintained is higher than actually required in the event of an epidemic, there is no public interest in maintaining that excess spare capacity.
Če je vzdrževana prosta zmogljivost večja od dejansko potrebne za primer epidemije, vzdrževanje te presežne proste zmogljivosti ni v javnem interesu.
This was a question of the political responsibility of the regional and local authorities, not a question of aid law [49].
To je bilo vprašanje politične odgovornosti regionalnih in lokalnih organov in ne vprašanje zakonodaje o pomoči [49].
This argument cannot be accepted, since quite unnecessary capacity is unlikely to serve the public interest.
Tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti, saj ni verjetno, da bi dokaj nepotrebna zmogljivost služila javnemu interesu.
As examined more fully in section 9.3, in the case of the ZT the prescribed epidemic reserve can be covered by the operationally available spare capacity and compensation payments cannot be justified in any way.
Kot je podrobneje preučeno v oddelku 9.3, se lahko v primeru podjetja ZT predpisana rezerva za epidemije krije z operativno razpoložljivo prosto zmogljivostjo in nadomestil ni mogoče nikakor upravičiti.
For these reasons the Commission considers that the obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve cannot be deemed a service of general economic interest.
Zato Komisija meni, da se obveznost vzdrževanja rezerve za epidemije ne more šteti za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Alternatively the Commission considers that it does not provide any justification for the annual contributions as State compensation.
Komisija podredno meni, da ne zagotavlja nobene utemeljitve letnih prispevkov kot državnega nadomestila.
Disposal of category 3 material
Odstranjevanje snovi kategorije 3
As the ZT is not entrusted not with the disposal of category 3 material, it cannot be classed as a service of general economic interest for that reason alone.
Ker podjetje ZT ni pooblaščeno za odstranjevanje snovi kategorije 3, ga samo iz tega razloga ni mogoče uvrstiti med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In any case it cannot be classed as such for the reasons set out in section 9.1.1.
V nobenem primeru ga ni mogoče tako opredeliti iz razlogov, navedenih v oddelku 9.1.1.
The first Altmark criterion is therefore not met in the present case.
Prvo merilo iz sodbe Altmark torej v obravnavanem primeru ni izpolnjeno.
The following considerations regarding the second to fourth Altmark criteria are therefore merely set out in the alternative.
Tako so naslednje pripombe v zvezi z drugim do četrtim merilom iz sodbe Altmark navedene samo podredno.
The second Altmark criterion requires that the parameters on the basis of which compensation is calculated should be drawn up objectively and transparently in advance.
Drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark zahteva, da morajo biti parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, določeni vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
Therefore if a Member State compensates an undertaking for losses without the parameters having been laid down in advance, this constitutes an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,
Zato v primeru, če država članica podjetju povrne izgube brez vnaprej določenih parametrov, to pomeni prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In the present case a distinction must be made between the period from 1979 to 2008 and the period from 2009 to 2012.
V obravnavanem primeru je treba razlikovati med obdobjem 1979–2008 in obdobjem 2009–2012.
Period from 1979 to 2008
Obdobje 1979–2008
The Verbandsordnung adopted on 28 October 1994 allowed the ZT to cover all losses incurred in the course of the financial year by the annual contribution.
Statut podjetja ZT, sprejet 28. oktobra 1994, je temu omogočil, da vse izgube, nastale v finančnem letu, krije z letnimi prispevki.
However, as Germany has stated, the annual contributions were intended to finance the costs that the ZT incurred by maintaining the epidemic reserve.
Vendar, kot je navedla Nemčija, so bili letni prispevki namenjeni financiranju stroškov, ki jih je podjetje ZT ustvarilo z vzdrževanjem rezerve za epidemije.
In the 1994 Verbandsordnung, however, there are no indications as to the size of the epidemic reserve that the ZT was to maintain or as to the parameters for calculating the costs of the reserve.
Vendar pa v statutu iz leta 1994 ni nobenih navedb glede obsega rezerve za epidemije, ki naj bi jo podjetje ZT vzdrževalo, ali glede parametrov za izračun stroškov rezerve.
The loss incurred is not an objective indicator of the cost of the epidemic reserve, as the size of the loss depends on a large number of factors that have nothing to do with the cost of the epidemic reserve.
Nastala izguba ni objektiven kazalnik stroškov rezerve za epidemije, saj je velikost izgube odvisna od številnih dejavnikov, ki niso na noben način povezani s stroški rezerve za epidemije.
Thus no objective and transparent method was laid down in advance that might have made it possible to calculate the cost of the epidemic reserve.
Tako ni bila vnaprej določena nobena objektivna in pregledna metoda, ki bi morda omogočila izračun stroškov rezerve za epidemije.
The second Altmark criterion is therefore not met for the period from 1979 to 2008.
Zato drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark za obdobje 1979–2008 ni izpolnjeno.
Period from 2009 to 2012
Obdobje 2009–2012
Under § 9(2) and § 10(4) the costs of the epidemic reserve and hence the size of the annual contribution has to be set before the beginning of the financial year through the budget statute.
V skladu s členoma 9(2) in 10(4) je treba stroške rezerve za epidemije in s tem višino letnega prispevka določiti z finančnim načrtom pred začetkom finančnega leta.
In § 10(5) of the new Verbandsordnung rules were introduced for calculating the cost of the epidemic reserve.
S členom 10(5) novega statuta so bila uvedena pravila za izračun stroškov rezerve za epidemije.
In line with the Fraunhofer study, a proportion of the total capacity costs are allocated to the prescribed epidemic reserve.
V skladu s študijo Fraunhofer se del skupnih stroškov zmogljivosti uporabi za predpisano rezervo za epidemije.
The Verbandsordnung and the annual budget statutes set out the parameters needed to calculate the costs.
Statut podjetja ZT in letni finančni načrti določajo parametre, potrebne za izračun stroškov.
The Commission has checked that the parameters are objective and reasonable and the calculation method is set out unequivocally and transparently.
Komisija je preverila, ali so parametri objektivni in smiselni ter ali je metoda izračuna določena jasno in pregledno.
For the years from 2010 the annual contributions are therefore determined in advance on the basis of objective and transparent parameters.
Zato so za obdobje od leta 2010 letni prispevki določeni vnaprej na podlagi objektivnih in preglednih parametrov.
For the year 2009, on the other hand, the rules for calculating the cost, the budget statute and the size of the annual contribution were fixed retroactively and not in advance.
Po drugi strani pa so bili za leto 2009 pravila za izračun stroškov, finančni načrt in višina letnega prispevka določeni retroaktivno in ne vnaprej.
The second Altmark criterion is therefore not met for the year 2009.
Zato drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark za leto 2009 ni izpolnjeno.
The third Altmark criterion requires that 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.
Tretje merilo iz sodbe Altmark zahteva, da znesek nadomestila ne sme presegati zneska, ki je nujno potreben za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov izpolnjevanja obveznosti javnih storitev, pri čemer se upoštevajo realizirani dohodki in ustrezen dobiček iz izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
In calculating the cost of fulfilling the public service obligation, the Commission applies the net-avoided-cost method [50].
Komisija pri izračunu stroškov izpolnjevanja obveznosti javnih storitev uporablja metodo NAC [50].
The net costs that are necessary or ought to be necessary to fulfil the obligation to provide public services are calculated as the difference between the net costs of the service provider arising from fulfilment of the public service obligation and the service provider’s net costs without that obligation.
Dejanski ali pričakovani neto stroški, potrebni za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javnih storitev, se izračunajo kot razlika med neto stroški izvajalca storitve, ki izhajajo iz izpolnjevanja obveznosti javnih storitev, in njegovimi neto stroški, če ne izpolnjuje navedene obveznosti.
Particular care has to be taken to ensure that the costs or revenue that the service provider would not bear or earn if there were no public service obligation are correctly evaluated.
Posebno pozornost je treba nameniti pravilni oceni stroškov oziroma prihodka, ki jih izvajalec storitve ne bi kril oziroma zaslužil, če ne bi bilo obveznosti javnih storitev.
In calculating the net costs, the advantage to the provider of the service of general economic interest should be examined, if possible including immaterial advantages [51].
Pri izračunu neto stroškov je treba preučiti koristi za izvajalca storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, vključno z nematerialnimi koristmi, v kolikor je to mogoče [51].
Under § 10(2) of the Verbandsordnung of 2 February 2010 the size of the epidemic reserve to be maintained from 2009 is set at 7110 tonnes, which are to be processed within a period of six weeks.
V skladu s členom 10(2) statuta podjetja ZT z dne 2. februarja 2010 je obseg rezerve za epidemije, ki ga je treba vzdrževati od leta 2009 naprej, določen na 7110 ton, ki jih je treba predelati v šestih tednih.
In terms of tonnes per week, the ZT therefore has to take steps to ensure that in the event of an epidemic 1185 tonnes a week over and above the normal quantities can be processed over a period of six weeks [52].
Zato mora podjetje ZT glede števila predelanih ton na teden sprejeti ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se lahko v primeru epidemije v šestih tednih poleg običajnih količin predela 1185 ton na teden [52].
Germany argues that the annual contributions compensate for the net costs that the ZT incurs by maintaining the epidemic reserve.
Nemčija trdi, da so letni prispevki nadomestilo za neto stroške, ki so v podjetju ZT nastali zaradi vzdrževanja rezerve za epidemije.
Although the Verbandsordnung only contained an explicit obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve since it was amended on 2 February 2010, the ZT kept an epidemic reserve before that and had to bear the costs that this entailed.
Čeprav je statut podjetja ZT določal izključno obveznost vzdrževanja rezerve za epidemije samo od 2. februarja 2010, ko je bil spremenjen, je podjetje ZT rezervo za epidemije vzdrževalo tudi pred tem in je moralo kriti stroške, ki so zaradi tega nastali.
In particular, under the rules on charges in Rhineland-Palatinate the ZT was not able to include these costs in the charges for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
Podjetje ZT zlasti glede na pravila o dajatvah v zvezni deželi Porenje-Pfalz teh stroškov ni moglo vključiti v dajatve za odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
Relying on the Fraunhofer study, Germany calculates the costs of the epidemic reserve as roughly half of the entire costs of the facilities, since the utilisation rate of the technically possible capacity of the facilities during the week — i.e. in 5-day 3-shift operation — is less than 50 %.
Ob upoštevanju študije Fraunhofer je Nemčija izračunala, da stroški rezerve za epidemije znašajo približno polovico skupnih stroškov objektov, saj je izkoriščenost tehnično možne zmogljivosti objektov med tednom, tj. petdnevnim triizmenskim obratovanjem, manj kot 50-odstoten.
The Commission will show in the following paragraphs that contrary to Germany’s calculations, the ZT did not incur any net costs as a result of maintaining an epidemic reserve of the prescribed size.
Komisija bo v naslednjih odstavkih pokazala, da v podjetju ZT zaradi vzdrževanja predpisanega obsega rezerve za epidemije niso nastali nobeni neto stroški, kar je v nasprotju z izračuni Nemčije.
The costs cited by Germany comprise the cost of the operationally available spare capacity, which have to be covered by charges, and the cost of spare capacity resulting from the under-utilisation of the plants.
Stroški, ki jih je navedla Nemčija, zajemajo stroške operativno razpoložljive proste zmogljivosti, ki morajo biti kriti z dajatvami, in stroške proste zmogljivosti, ki izhajajo iz premajhne izkoriščenosti obratov.
Coverage of the prescribed epidemic reserve by the ZT’s unused operational capacity
Kritje predpisane rezerve za epidemije z neizrabljeno operativno zmogljivostjo podjetja ZT
The 1991 Böckenhoff report examined for the first time whether a larger disposal plant needed to be built in order to ensure sufficient capacity in the event of an epidemic.
Böckenhoffovo poročilo iz leta 1991 je prvič preučilo, ali je treba za zagotavljanje zadostne zmogljivosti v primeru epidemije zgraditi večji obrat za odstranjevanje.
It came to the opposite conclusion, since in normal operation the disposal plant runs in 5-day 2-shift operation and the operational spare capacity of the third shift was considered to be an adequate epidemic reserve.
Privedlo je do nasprotnega zaključka, saj obrat za odstranjevanje ob normalnem delovanju obratuje pet dni v dveh izmenah, operativna prosta zmogljivost treh izmen pa se je izkazala kot zadostna za rezervo za epidemije.
In the course of time many disposal undertakings have gone over to partial use of the third shift, even in normal operation, or to running one or two shifts on Saturdays at times when there are peaks in the quantities for disposal.
Sčasoma je več podjetij za odstranjevanje prešlo na delno uporabo tretje izmene tudi med normalnim obratovanjem ali pa na obratovanje v eni ali dveh izmenah ob sobotah v času, ko so količine za odstranjevanje največje.
This means that there is better capacity utilisation in normal operation and greater use will have to be made of the available spare capacity at the weekend in the event of an epidemic.
To pomeni, da je izkoriščenost zmogljivosti ob normalnem obratovanju boljša in da bo treba v primeru epidemije bolj izkoristiti razpoložljivo prosto zmogljivost ob vikendih.