natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Alcoa provided one example of a bilateral market price and indicated that its three aluminium plants had always benefited from the G4 tariff.
Energetsko intenzivni uporabniki dalje navajajo, da je v primeru davku podobnih dajatev način financiranja ukrepa vsekakor pomemben le za oceno državne pomoči, če je dajatev „neločljivo vsebinsko povezana s pomočjo“, tj. če obstaja neposredna in takojšnja povezava med ukrepom in njegovim financiranjem [15].
However, Alcoa also owns an alumina plant (Alúmina Española) for which a bilateral contract was entered into with a supplier at the end of 2004.
Energetsko intenzivni uporabniki zanikajo obstoj take povezave, saj je bila dodatna dajatev namenjena pokritju primanjkljaja, nastalega med obračunavanjem reguliranih dejavnosti, ki se niso nanašale le na dobavo električne energije po reguliranih tarifah, temveč tudi na druge stroške sistema.
The contract was for two years, extendible for an additional year.
Tako dodatna dajatev ni bila posebej dodeljena za pokritje izgub, ki so izhajale iz dobave po reguliranih tarifah.
The three aluminium plants have the same flat consumption profile as the alumina plants.
Drugič, med ravnijo tarif in uporabljeno dodatno dajatvijo ni bilo nobene neposredne ali posredne povezave, saj je bila tarifa, določena leta 2004, brezpogojna (se ni spreminjala v poznejših letih).
However, the latter consume considerably lower volumes of electricity (0,35 TWh as against 1,3 TWh at the Avilés and La Coruña plants, and 3,4 TWh for the San Ciprián plant).
Energetsko intenzivni uporabniki navajajo tudi, da dodatna dajatev ni pomenila davku podobne dajatve ali prelevmana, saj po španskem zakonu ni bila davčna dajatev.
The average price agreed on the basis of this contract was EUR 34,45/MWh (including the cost of the nuclear moratorium, network access costs and other ancillary costs).
Davčni ukrepi se uporabljajo za financiranje javne porabe, medtem ko je bil v tem primeru namen dodatne dajatve pokriti primanjkljaj, ki je nastal zasebnim upravljavcem (distributerjem), ki so izvajali regulirane dejavnosti v okviru elektroenergetskega sistema.
This price was obtained on the basis of a competitive tender, and suppliers' bids were within EUR 5 of each other.
V skladu s špansko zakonodajo je mogoče nov davčni ukrep uvesti le z zakonom (in ne s kraljevim odlokom).
According to Alcoa, the difference between this bilateral price (EUR 34,45/MWh) and the G4 tariff (EUR 23,9/MWh) can be explained by objective factors.
Obračunski postopek je popolnoma samodejen in CNE nima nobene diskrecijske pravice, avtonomije ali nadzora nad namembnostjo ali zneskom sredstev, ki naj bi bila obračunana za različne akterje.
In particular, users on the G4 tariff are subject to regulatory restrictions which do not apply to bilateral contracts, such as the obligation to use all the power contracted under the G4 tariff (subject to penalties), the requirement to own voltage control equipment, and the requirement to pay within 20 days (whereas bilateral contracts have better terms of payment).
Po mnenju energetsko intenzivnih uporabnikom je Komisija to prepoznala v svoji odločbi o španskih nasedlih stroških [16], v kateri je navedla, da „prenos zneskov prek CNE poteka predvsem zaradi računovodstva“, in ni ugotovila, da bi ukrep vključeval državna sredstva.
Alcoa thus concludes that a hypothetical market price applicable to its three aluminium plants would be well below EUR 34,45/MWh because of the higher consumption level of these plants.
Energetsko intenzivni uporabniki navajajo, da je obravnavani položaj enak scenariju „nasedlih stroškov“, saj je vlada v obeh primerih uvedla dodatno dajatev zaradi kompenzacije stalnih stroškov sistema.
Furthermore, if an average marketing margin of EUR 10/MWh was considered, the net cost of supply of the alumina plant would be EUR 24,25/MWh, which is very close to the G4 integral tariff.
Tak pristop je bil očitno potrjen tudi v zadevi, v katero je bilo vključeno Združeno kraljestvo [17].
Ferroatlántica pointed out that the opening decision misrepresented the 3,4 regulated tariff used in 2005 by wrongly including discounts in the basic tariff and comparing it with an access charge ten times higher than the one applicable (and that of very large consumers).
Brez učinka na konkurenco ali trgovino
Ferroatlántica also provided evidence that, while the monthly average market price in 2004 for forward contracts for electricity supply in 2005 was EUR 31,68/MWh, this price was EUR 31,05/MWh in December 2004.
Družbi Asturiana de Zinc in Alcoa trdita, da ukrep glede cene električne energije, porabljene pri proizvodnji teh kovin, zaradi posebnih značilnosti trgov aluminija in cinka ne more vplivati na trgovino EU, saj so kovine borzno blago in njihove cene se na svetovni ravni določajo na Londonski borzi kovin.
It would follow that a company would have obtained its basic electricity supply in 2005 at that price at the time when the regulated tariffs were set.
V teh okoliščinah se nihanja lokalnih proizvodnih stroškov ne prenesejo v razlike v svetovnih cenah.
After adding ‘additional services’ (EUR 3,92/MWh) and the relevant access tariff (EUR 1,70/MWh), an industrial user would have obtained a market price of EUR 36,67/MWh, which is below the amount of EUR 56,11/MWh of the 3,4 tariff applicable to energy-intensive users.
Obe družbi navajata, da v EU obstaja vse večji primanjkljaj proizvodnje aluminija in cinka, medtem ko se na povpraševanje vse pogosteje odgovarja z uvozom iz držav, ki niso članice EU.
In fact, other discounts on that tariff remunerated the capacity to provide demand management services and the acceptance of these services for the benefit of the system.
Če bi proizvodnja aluminija in cinka v Španiji izginila, je ne bi nadomestil noben nov udeleženec iz EU, saj tovarne (aluminija) v EU že zdaj delajo na pragu zasičenosti in noben nov udeleženec ali obstoječi proizvajalec ne bi imel spodbude za povečanje zmogljivosti, saj so dolgoročne napovedi glede prihodnje razpoložljivosti dostopne električne energije negotove.
It is only these discounts, which were variable and set by regulation from 1995, and not the regulated tariff level, that explain and, in the view of Ferroatlántica, justify the lower average electricity price paid in 2005.
Poleg tega družba Alcoa trdi, da tarife ne ogrožajo drugih evropskih proizvajalcev, saj ponujajo električno energijo po ceni, enaki povprečni ceni, ki jo plačujejo drugi proizvajalci aluminija v EU-25.
Energy-intensive users contest the statement in the opening decision that the advantage was not proportional to the volumes consumed, and tended to increase for large consumers.
Čeprav bi prekinljive industrijske tarife pomenile pomoč, bi bila to „obstoječa pomoč“
On this point, energy-intensive users claim, for example, that the CNE itself confirmed that the level of the G4 tariff should have been even lower.
Energetsko intenzivni uporabniki trdijo, da so sporne tarife obstajale že pred pristopom Španije k EU.
Energy-intensive users note that large consumers under the G4 or 3,4 tariff consumed several thousand times more electricity than average high-voltage consumers, while paying three times less than them.
Čeprav je bilo poimenovanje „tarifa G4“ uradno uvedeno z ministrskim odlokom z dne 6. marca 1986, je dejansko obstajalo že pred 1. januarjem 1986, tj. datumom pristopa Španije k EU, saj ustreza prejšnji „tarifi dolgotrajnega industrijskega odjema I“, uvedeni z ministrskim odlokom z dne 14. oktobra 1983, tj. pred pristopom Španije.
On this basis, energy-intensive users claim that the conclusion that the industrial tariffs involved an advantage is debatable.
Ministrski odlok iz leta 1983 je izrecno določal tudi druge prekinljive tarife.
They point out that in any event it is for the Commission to provide conclusive proof of the existence of such an advantage.
Poleg tega bi ukrep po mnenju energetsko intenzivnih uporabnikov zaradi izteka desetletnega zastaralnega roka pomenil obstoječo pomoč na podlagi člena 15 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije [18].
Alcoa also indicated that the price paid by Alcoa in Spain was almost identical to the average weighted price paid by aluminium plants in the EU, and was even higher than the average weighted price paid in the EEA.
Vračilo bi bilo izključeno na podlagi legitimnih pričakovanj
No state resources
Energetsko intenzivni uporabniki navajajo, da bi bilo vračilo tudi ob predpostavki, da tarif ne bi mogli šteti za obstoječo pomoč, izključeno na podlagi načela legitimnega pričakovanja.
Energy-intensive users submit that it was they who paid industrial tariffs directly to distributors, without the funds coming under the control of the State, and therefore, in line with the PreussenElektra case law, such an arrangement did not involve state resources.
Skozi vse leto 2005 so bile tarife neposredno plačilo med zasebnimi upravljavci.
Energy-intensive users argue that there was a time lapse between the setting of the tariffs, which took place at the end of 2004, and the adoption of the mechanism to recover the deficit from consumers, which did not take place until June 2006.
Uporabniki so tako legitimno pričakovali, da njihove tarife niso vključevale državne pomoči.
In the opening decision, the Commission argued that state resources were involved because of the introduction of the surcharge in users' bills, which was qualified as a parafiscal charge.
PRIPOMBE REGIONALNIH VLAD GALICIJE IN ASTURIJE
Energy-intensive users submit that, if this hypothesis is accepted, a measure which was not aid in 2005 would become aid (ex-post) in 2006.
Regionalna vlada Galicije glede morebitne pomoči energetsko intenzivnim uporabnikom navaja, da je Komisija napačno uporabila ceno na organiziranem trgu kot nadomestek za tržno ceno, saj energetsko intenzivni uporabniki običajno sklepajo dolgoročne pogodbe pod precej boljšimi pogoji.
Energy-intensive users point out that the classification of a measure as aid depends only on the circumstances existing at the time of its adoption, and cannot depend on future events, particularly when they are not reasonably predictable.
Druga možnost bi bila, da se referenčna cena pridobi na podlagi strokovne literature (Wilson, 1993 [19], in Castro-Rodriguez, 1999 [20]), ob upoštevanju stroškov najbolj učinkovite tehnologije, ki zadovoljuje posebne potrebe energetsko intenzivnih uporabnikov, ali povprečnih stroškov električne energije v različnih urah dneva.
They quote Advocate General Jacobs in the Van Calster case [14]:
Razlika med tako dobljeno referenčno ceno in regulirano tarifo, plačano leta 2005, bi bila tako precej manjša.
‘the situation should be assessed on the date of the initial introduction of the charges, and cannot be altered retroactively’.
Regionalna vlada Galicije dalje trdi, da bodo vsi španski uporabniki, vključno z energetsko intenzivnimi, sčasoma poplačali primanjkljaj, ki so ga povzročile nižje tarife, uporabljene leta 2005.
Energy-intensive users submit that the 2005 regulated tariffs did not constitute state aid in 2005.
Pripombe regionalne vlade Asturije so podobne predloženim pripombam španske vlade, na katere se sklicujejo.
These companies point out that, in these circumstances, the analysis of the financing mechanism is irrelevant, as the latter was introduced only in 2006.
PRIPOMBE ŠPANIJE
The assessment of the mode of financing would be relevant only if the measure constituted state aid from the outset.
Španija meni, da sistem reguliranih tarif iz leta 2005 ni vključeval pomoči niti za končne uporabnike niti za distributerje.
Since the tariffs did not include aid, energy-intensive users take the view that the Commission cannot rely on the surcharge to come to the opposite conclusion.
Brez vzročne povezave med ukrepom države in primanjkljajem, pri čemer slednjega ni mogoče pripisati državi
Energy-intensive users further submit that, in the case of parafiscal taxes, the mode of financing of a measure is in any event only relevant to the state aid assessment where the tax is ‘hypothecated to the aid’, i.e. when there is a direct and immediate link between the measure and its financing [15].
Španija trdi, da primanjkljaja ni mogoče pripisati državi, saj so ga povzročile nepredvidljive zunanje okoliščine, ne pa premišljen namen države, da subvencionira nekatere dejavnosti.
Energy-intensive users deny the existence of such a link, as the surcharge was designed to cover a deficit which arose during the settlement of regulated activities, which concerned not only the provision of electricity at regulated tariffs, but also other system costs.
Španija navaja, da zakonodaja EU leta 2005 ni preprečevala dobave po reguliranih tarifah, ki jih določi država.
The surcharge was therefore not specifically allocated to cover losses arising from the supply at regulated tariffs.
Zato je bil regulativni ukrep države pravno veljaven, saj je izražal nacionalno suverenost.
Secondly, there was no direct or indirect link between the level of the tariffs and the surcharge applied, since the tariff set in 2004 was unconditional (not subject to further adjustments in later years).
Ena od teh posebnih pravic države je v določanju tarif, tako da pričakovani stroški ustrezajo pričakovanemu povpraševanju.
Energy-intensive users also submit that the surcharge did not constitute a parafiscal charge or levy, because it was not of a fiscal nature under Spanish law.
Španija meni, da je primanjkljaj iz leta 2005 povzročila razlika med vladnimi napovedmi veleprodajnih cen električne energije in dejanskimi cenami, evidentiranimi na organiziranem trgu.
Fiscal measures are used to finance public expenditure, whereas in this case the aim of the surcharge was to recover a deficit that had been incurred by private operators (distributors) which carried out regulated activities within the electricity system.
Izjemno visoke cene leta 2005 so bile posledica nepredvidljivih razlogov zaradi višje sile.
According to the Spanish Constitution, a new fiscal measure can only be introduced by a law (not by a Royal Decree).
Ker je bil dogodek, ki je povzročil domnevno pomoč, povišanje veleprodajnih cen, ki je bilo večje od napovedanega, domnevne prednosti ni mogoče pripisati nobenemu pravnemu aktu.
Furthermore, the State never owns or has discretion to dispose of the proceeds of the surcharge; these funds are transferred to a deposit account managed by the CNE, and cannot be appropriated by the State.
Tudi če se predpostavlja, da je ta pomoč obstajala (kar ne drži), bi jo povzročile okoliščine, ki niso povezane z namerami države.
The settlement process is fully automatic, and the CNE has no margin of discretion, autonomy or control over the destination or the amount of the funds to be settled for the various players.
Obstoj višje sile po mnenju Španije prekinja vzročno povezavo med upravno odločbo, ki določa raven tarif, in konkurenčno prednostjo, ki pomeni državno pomoč.
According to energy-intensive users, this was recognized by the Commission in its Decision on the Spanish Stranded Costs [16], which stated that ‘the transfer of the amounts via the CNE is essentially for accounting purposes’ and does not conclude that the measure involved state resources.
Niti ob predpostavki (ki sicer ne drži), da je bil izpolnjen objektivni pogoj vzročne povezave, ne bi bilo subjektivnega pogoja namernosti (pripisljive odgovornosti) na strani države.
Energy-intensive users submit that this situation is identical to the ‘stranded costs’ scenario, since in both cases the government introduced a surcharge aimed at compensating a permanent cost of the system.
Španija navaja, da tarife niso vključevale javnih sredstev.
This line appeared to be confirmed also in a case involving the United Kingdom [17].
Prvič, Španija v zvezi s tem trdi, da dodatna dajatev ni „dajatev“ v smislu sodne prakse Sodišča Evropske unije glede davku podobnih dajatev, saj je ni pobrala država in ne ustreza davčnemu prispevku.
No impact on competition and trade
Po mnenju Španije je dodatna dajatev sestavni del tarife in ji je po naravi podobna.
In these circumstances, variations in local production costs do not translate into differences in world prices.
Drugič, sredstev ne pobira država in se ne vplačujejo v sklad, ki ga določi država.
The two companies submit that there is a growing production deficit in the EU for aluminium and zinc, while demand is increasingly being met by exports from non-EU states.
Tarif ne pobira država, temveč distributerji, zato gre za zasebne cene, ki zagotavljajo pravično plačilo akterjev (kot določa zakon LSE).
If the aluminium and zinc industries disappeared in Spain, no new EU entrant would step in, as EU (aluminium) plants are already working at full capacity, and no new entrant or existing producer would have an incentive to increase capacity, given that long-term prospects are uncertain as regards future availability of affordable power.
Niso niti davki niti javne cene.
The deficit would therefore be covered by imports alone.
Država ničesar ne plačuje, saj je sistem tisti, ki je določil plačilo na podlagi tržnih sil za neregulirane dejavnosti in na podlagi tarif za dostop, ki jih država določi za regulirane dejavnosti.
Moreover, Alcoa claims that the interests of other European producers are not threatened by the tariffs, since they offer electricity at a price which is identical to the average price paid by other aluminium producers in EU-25.
Ker v takem sistemu ni nobenega bremena za državo, ne bi bila vključena državna sredstva, kot izhaja iz sodne prakse v zadevi Sloman Neptune [21].
Even if the industrial interruptible tariffs constituted aid, it would be ‘existing aid’
Poleg tega se ta sredstva nikoli ne stekajo v državno blagajno, niso navedena v proračunski zakonodaji, računsko sodišče jih ne preverja in od dolžnikov jih ni mogoče izterjati z upravnimi postopki izterjave.
Energy-intensive users claim that the contested tariffs already existed before the accession of Spain to the EU.
Za dolgove do elektroenergetskega sistema se ne uporablja obrestna mera, ki velja za dolgove do države.
All electricity end-users benefiting from industrial tariff I were automatically switched to the G4 tariff, which was de facto the same tariff under a new name.
Opozarja, da je Komisija v odločbi o španskih nasedlih stroških iz leta 2001 (SA NN 49/99) že ugotovila, da „je prenos zneskov prek CNE predvsem računovodski.
The other interruptible tariffs are also explicitly provided for in the 1983 Ministerial Order.
Sredstva, prenesena v dobro računa na ime CNE nikoli niso postala last tega organa in so bila takoj plačana upravičencem v skladu s predhodno določenim zneskom, ki ga CNE nikakor ne more spreminjati“.
Furthermore, according to energy-intensive users, the measure would constitute existing aid on the basis of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [18], owing to the expiry of the 10-year limitation period.
Komisija je na podlagi tega premisleka sklenila, da „ni bila v stanju ugotoviti, ali prihodki iz dajatve, določene v okviru sheme nasedlih stroškov, pomenijo državna sredstva“.
Recovery would be precluded by legitimate expectations
Brez prednosti
Energy-intensive users submit that, even assuming that the tariffs could not be deemed to constitute existing aid, recovery would be precluded by the principle of legitimate expectation.
Španija se ne strinja s Komisijo, da regulirane tarife dajejo gospodarsko prednost končnim uporabnikom (ali distributerjem).
Throughout 2005, the tariffs were a direct payment between private operators.
Potem ko je Španija znova poudarila, da je primanjkljaj posledica višje sile, pa glede končnih uporabnikov trdi, da primanjkljaj ni prinesel koristi velikim odjemalcem, saj je bil z obrestmi prenesen na tarife za naslednja leta.
Users could not have predicted that tariffs set in December 2004 would become aid by virtue of a government measure adopted in June 2006.
Zato je domnevna gospodarska prednost, ki izhaja iz nižje cene električne energije, le navidezna, saj odjemalci z obrestmi poplačajo razliko glede na cene na prostem trgu.
No economic operator, however prudent, could have expected this change in its legal situation.
Dobava po reguliranih tarifah je storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena
Therefore, users had a legitimate expectation that their tariffs did not involve state aid.
Španija navaja, da leta 2005 obstoj reguliranih tarif ni bil v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU, saj je bil rok za odprtje trga vsem odjemalcem, vključno z gospodinjstvi, 1. julij 2007.
COMMENTS FROM THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF GALICIA AND ASTURIAS
Španski organi zlasti navajajo, da je dobava električne energije storitev splošnega pomena in da mora država posredovati, da prepreči zlorabe prevladujočega položaja, kar je posledica obstoja enega samega omrežja (naravni monopol).
As regards possible aid to energy-intensive users, the Regional Government of Galicia submits that the Commission was wrong to use the pool price as a substitute for the market price, since energy-intensive users normally enter into long-term contracts on considerably better terms.
Parametri za določitev tarif so bili določeni objektivno in pregledno.
Given that the liberalisation of the Spanish market has not yet been completed, and given in particular the absence of bilateral contracts between producers and large consumers, the Regional Government of Galicia considers that it would make sense to use as a benchmark the actual costs paid by producers to supply these customers.
Zapleteni regulativni okvir za določanje tarif in postopek poravnave po mnenju Španije kažeta, da je tarifni sistem temeljil na natančni analizi stroškov in prihodkov sistema ter analizi povpraševanja po električni energiji.
An alternative would be to obtain a benchmark price based on the technical literature (Wilson, 1993 [19] and Castro-Rodriguez [20], 1999), by considering either the cost of the most efficient technology meeting the specific needs of energy-intensive users or the average cost of electricity during the different hours of the day.
Ukrepanje Španije
The gap between a benchmark price thus obtained and the regulated tariff paid in 2005 would be much lower.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 25 in 26, poplačilo primanjkljaja, ustvarjenega leta 2005, poteka v letnih obrokih, z obrestno mero na ravni mere Euribor, in sicer brez kakršnega koli razmika.
The Regional Government of Galicia further argues that, in any event, all Spanish users, including energy-intensive users, will, in time, repay the deficit caused by the lower tariffs applied in 2005.
Španija se je ne glede na svoje pripombe zavezala, da bo za nazaj povišala obrestno mero, zaračunano poslovnim uporabnikom s priključki, ki presegajo 1 kV.
Furthermore, according to the Regional Government of Galicia, the tariff system as it stood in 2005 was not legally selective, since the State did not intend to confer an advantage on end-users but merely made errors in its forecasts of market trends and prices when it set the tariffs in 2004.
Povišanje bo določeno sorazmerno s tem, koliko so k primanjkljaju iz leta 2005 prispevali poslovni uporabniki, ki so predmet tega postopka in katerim se je dobavljalo po integralnih reguliranih tarifah.
The Regional Government of Galicia also contests the conclusion that the system had an impact on trade within the EU.
Izhajalo bo iz uporabe obrestnega razmika do referenčne mere Euribor v višini 65 bazičnih točk, s čimer bo na splošno usklajeno s stopnjo, ki bo za primanjkljaj uporabljena v naslednjih letih.
The comments from the Asturias regional government are similar to those put forward by the Spanish Government, to which they refer.
Ustrezni znesek bo poslovnim uporabnikom zaračunan tako:
OBSERVATIONS BY SPAIN
glede letnih obrokov za del primanjkljaja iz leta 2005, ki je bil že poplačan, bo uporabljeno enkratno povišanje tarif za dostop;
Spain maintains that the regulated tariffs system in 2005 did not involve aid, either for end-users or for distributors.
glede zneskov, ki jih je treba še povrniti, pa se bo višja obrestna mera uporabljala neposredno za vsak letni znesek, znova z višjimi tarifami za dostop.