natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The funds transferred to the account in the name of the CNE never became the property of this body, and were immediately paid to the beneficiaries according to a predetermined amount which the CNE is unable to modify in any way’.
Prvič, dobava električne energije je storitev splošnega pomena in država mora posredovati, da prepreči zlorabe prevladujočega položaja, kar je posledica obstoja enega samega omrežja (naravni monopol).
On the basis of this consideration, the Commission came to the conclusion that ‘it [was] not in a position to determine whether the proceeds of the levy established within the framework of the Stranded Costs scheme constitute State resources’.
Tako podjetja, ki opravljajo regulirane dejavnosti, izvajajo obveznosti javnih storitev.
Third, Spain contests the Commission's conclusion that regulated sales by distributors were financed via a ‘special tax’ payable by all Spanish electricity end-users.
Drugič, parametri za določitev tarif so bili določeni objektivno in pregledno.
According to Spain, distributors were not ‘financed by the State’, but received a reasonable and equitable remuneration for the performance of a statutory task which they were obliged to discharge.
Plačevanje reguliranih dejavnosti je bilo objektivno in pregledno.
Besides, in selling electricity at regulated tariffs and purchasing it on the ‘pool’ from generators, distributors generated a deficit (which was covered by the prefinancing mechanism laid down by Royal Decree-Law 5/2005) but it was the generators, not the distributors, which would receive the revenue from the surcharge added to the tariff.
Na distribucijski trg so lahko vstopila tudi druga podjetja EU.
NO ADVANTAGE
Tretjič, plačila za regulirane dejavnosti so zajemala le stroške izvajanja obveznosti javnih storitev.
Spain disagrees with the Commission's preliminary conclusion that regulated tariffs conferred an economic advantage on distributors.
Distributerjem so lahko bili poplačani le stroški, povezani z reguliranimi dejavnostmi.
As regards distributors, Spain contests the Commission's conclusion that the tariff systems guaranteed a minimum profit margin to distributors.
Četrtič, zapleteni regulativni okvir za določanje tarif in postopek poravnave kažeta, da je tarifni sistem temeljil na natančni analizi stroškov in prihodkov sistema ter analizi povpraševanja po električni energiji.
Spain submits that supply at regulated tariffs by distributors was justified by the need to guarantee a service of general interest, and that the remuneration of regulated activities was intended exclusively to cover the costs of discharging the obligations linked to these activities.
Španija na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da tarifni sistem ni pomenil državne pomoči, saj je bil v skladu s sodno prakso v zadevi Altmark.
NO IMPACT ON COMPETITION AND TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
PRESOJA UKREPA
According to the Spanish authorities, the regulatory provisions applicable to supply at regulated tariffs did not curtail the freedom of establishment of electricity suppliers and there was no preferential treatment of Spanish suppliers compared with suppliers from other Member States.
Področje uporabe tega sklepa je omejeno na električno energijo, ki jo dobavitelji dobavijo velikim in srednjim podjetjem po reguliranih tarifah, in ne zajema drugih dejavnosti, ki jih izvajajo dobavitelji in se nanašajo na čisto distribucijo.
In 2005 the Iberian Peninsula had such a low interconnection capacity that there was no real internal market for energy.
Zadnjenavedene so pravno in finančno popolnoma neodvisne od dejavnosti prodaje po reguliranih tarifah in v nobenem primeru ne spadajo na področje uporabe odločitve o začetku postopka, v kateri so bili izraženi dvomi le o skladnosti domnevne prednosti, dodeljene distributerjem, z notranjim trgom, kar je bila posledica nizke ravni reguliranih tarif in sprejetih ukrepov zaradi nadomestila in povračila primanjkljaja iz leta 2005.
The Spanish authorities take the view that, given this situation of isolation, it would be disproportionate to conclude — as the Commission does — that the tariff had an impact on competition and trade between Member States.
OBSTOJ DRŽAVNE POMOČI V SKLADU S ČLENOM 107(1) PDEU
The Spanish authorities maintain that electricity was not exported outside Spain and distributors operating in Spain could not sell Spanish energy outside the national territory.
Ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji:
On the other hand, any eligible company could take part in the distribution business on an equal footing with Spanish undertakings and enjoy the same legal and economic treatment.
ukrep (a) pomeni gospodarsko prednost za upravičenca;
Spain takes the view that suppliers, by contrast, exercised a free, non-regulated activity.
odobri ga država ali je odobren iz državnih sredstev;
They faced the corresponding risks and advantages.
Ker morajo biti ti pogoji izpolnjeni kumulativno, bo Komisija omejila svojo presojo na obstoj gospodarske prednosti, dodeljene upravičencem.
Taking these risks meant accepting that, under certain unpredictable conditions, their retail activity might not be profitable.
Obstoj gospodarske prednosti
Profitability would nevertheless return as soon as the tariffs allowed or the exceptional circumstances ceased to exist.
Podjetja uživajo ugodnost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če pridobijo gospodarsko prednost, ki je sicer po tržnih pogojih ne bi pridobila.
ANALYSIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ALTMARK CASE-LAW
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče Evropske unije menilo, da v posebnih primerih pristojbine za storitve, opravljene v zameno za obveznosti, ki jih naložijo države članice, ki ne presegajo letnih nepokritih stroškov in ki so namenjene zagotovitvi, da zadevna podjetja ne ustvarjajo izgub, ne pomenijo pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, temveč prej protivrednost za storitve, ki so jih opravila zadevna podjetja [21].
Spain submits that in 2005 the existence of regulated tariffs was not contrary to Union law, given that the deadline for opening up the market to all consumers, including households, was 1 July 2007.
Tudi Komisija, zlasti v elektroenergetskem sektorju, v svoji obsežni praksi odločanja pri uporabi člena 107(1) in (3)(c) PDEU glede obveznosti, naloženih distributerjem, da kupujejo električno energijo od določenih virov energije po cenah, ki so nad tržnimi, ni menila, da je nadomestilo, ki pokriva razliko med stroški nakupa in tržnimi cenami, pomenilo gospodarsko prednost za distributerje.
According to Spain, the coverage of the costs incurred by distributors in supplying at regulated tariffs complied with the four criteria of the Altmark case-law and therefore this intervention does not fall within the scope of State aid.
V navedenih primerih so zadevni upravljavci v skladu z regulativnimi obveznostmi delovali zgolj kot posredniki v elektroenergetskem sistemu in so jim bili povrnjeni stroški, ne da bi za to nadomestilo veljalo, da pomeni gospodarsko prednost, pri čemer bi bilo mogoče v skladu z zakonodajo domnevno naložiti le obveznost nakupa brez nadomestila stroškov.
First, the supply of electricity is a service of general interest and the State must intervene to prevent abuses of dominant positions arising from the existence of a single network (natural monopoly).
Enako velja, zlasti na področju dobave električne energije po reguliranih tarifah, glede nadomestila, namenjenega financiranju razlik med prihodki in stroški nakupa električne energije na veleprodajnem trgu po reguliranih tarifah, ki so ga zahtevali upravičeni odjemalci [22].
Therefore, companies which carry on regulated activities discharge public service obligations.
Iz tega sledi, da nadomestilo za stroške nakupa električne energije, ki so jih imeli distributerji v elektroenergetskem sektorju, ne pomeni nujno gospodarske prednosti v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Second, the parameters for setting the tariffs were set in an objective and transparent manner.
Domnevno nadomestilo španskim distributerjem za dobavo po reguliranih tarifah je treba proučiti ob upoštevanju teh precedensov.
The remuneration of regulated activities was objective and transparent.
Komisija je v odločitvi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave predhodno ugotovila, da je šlo v primerjavi s tržnimi pogoji za gospodarsko prednost v korist španskim distributerjem na podlagi dveh argumentov.
Other EU undertakings were also able to enter the distribution market.
Prvič, distributerji so domnevno pridobili zagotovljeno profitno maržo za dejavnost dobave po regulirani tarifi.
Third, payments for regulated activities covered only the costs of discharging the public service obligation.
Drugič, s spodbujanjem uporabnikov, naj prestopijo na reguliran trg, ki so ga pokrivali distributerji, naj bi tarife domnevno povečale prihodek distributerjev.
Distributors could obtain repayment only of the costs related to regulated activities.
Ta dva argumenta je mogoče zajeti v eno samo trditev, da se je dobiček distributerjev leta 2005 povečeval sorazmerno z njihovimi dobavami električne energije po reguliranih tarifah.
Fourth, the complex regulatory framework for setting the tariffs and the settlement procedure demonstrate that the tariff system was based on a thorough analysis of the costs and revenues of the system, and an analysis of electricity demand.
Razpoložljivi opis španskega elektroenergetskega sistema in informacije, ki so bile predložene med postopkom in se kažejo v uvodnih izjavah 16, 19, 20, 57 in 58, ne podpirajo te trditve.
The scope of this Decision is confined to the supply of electricity to large and medium-sized undertakings by distributors at regulated tariffs, and does not cover the other activities carried on by distributors and pertaining to pure distribution.
Iz tega sledi, da informacije, zbrane med postopkom, ne podpirajo trditve, da so prodaje električne energije po reguliranih tarifah leta 2005 povečale dobiček španskih distributerjev, ker so imeli zagotovljeno profitno maržo.
The latter are entirely independent, both legally and financially, from the activity of selling at regulated tariffs, and in any event, fall outside the scope of the opening decision, which raised doubts only about the compatibility with the internal market of the alleged advantage granted to distributors as a result of the low level of the regulated tariffs and the measures taken to compensate and refund the deficit in 2005.
Glede vprašanja, ali sta priznanje in nadomestilo stroškov dobave distributerjem zagotovila gospodarsko prednost, ki je sicer po tržnih pogojih ne bi pridobili, je treba poudariti, da priznanje nastalih stroškov v obliki pravic do izterjave, dodeljenih petim podjetjem, imenovanim v členu 24 kraljevega odloka z zakonsko močjo št. 5/2005, tj. Iberdrola, S.A., Unión Eléctrica Fenosa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico S.A., Endesa, S.A. in Elcogás, S.A., ni bilo plačilo za njihovo dejavnost distribucije.
EXISTENCE OF STATE AID PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 29 in 30, čeprav družba Elcogás S.A., ki ni imela v lasti nobenih podružnic, leta 2005 (ali v poznejših letih) ni poslovala v distribucijskem sektorju, so bila zadevna podjetja imenovana na podlagi svoje veljavne pravice, da prejmejo nasedle stroške, po možnosti ob upoštevanju njihove dejavnosti proizvodnje, ne pa dejavnosti distribucije po reguliranih tarifah.
A measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
Drugič, celo ob predpostavki, da bi lahko pravice do izterjave, ki izražajo obveznost za zgoraj navedenih pet podjetij, da prispevajo k predfinanciranju primanjkljaja v elektroenergetskem sistemu za leto 2005, razlagali kot nadomestilo za stroške distribucije za štiri podjetja, ki so poslovala v distribucijskem sektorju po reguliranih tarifah, je treba upoštevati dejanske pogoje, na podlagi katerih so bili distributerji zavezani opravljati to popolnoma regulirano dejavnost.
the measure (a) confers an economic advantage on the beneficiary;
Kot je bilo že navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 54 in 55, distributerji niso mogli ustvariti niti dobička niti izgube, izbrati načina nakupa električne energije, izbirati svojih odjemalcev, določati prodajnih cen ali ponujati kakršnih koli dodatnih storitev, ki bi prinašale profitno maržo.
is granted by the State or through State resources;
Sami distributerji, pa tudi vertikalno povezane skupine, ki so jim pripadali, niso imeli nobenega neposrednega ali posrednega gospodarskega interesa, da bi sodelovali pri dobavi električne energije po regulirani tarifi.
is selective;
Vertikalno povezani skupini bi bilo prej v interesu, da dobavlja končnim uporabnikom pod pogoji prostega trga, saj bi imel njen oddelek za dobavo s takimi prodajami dobiček, medtem ko dobička ne bi bilo, če bi distributer skupine uporabnikom dobavljal po reguliranih tarifah.
has an impact on intra-Community trade and is liable to distort competition within the Union.
Iz tega sledi, da primerjava s pogoji dobave na prostem trgu ne upošteva različnega pravnega in dejanskega položaja med dobavitelji na prostem trgu in distributerji, ki dobavljajo po reguliranih tarifah.
Since these conditions must be met cumulatively, the Commission will confine its assessment to the existence of an economic advantage conferred on the beneficiaries.
Medtem ko lahko država distributerjem v elektroenergetskem sistemu načeloma naloži cene nakupa in prodaje ter druge pogoje trgovanja, to ne pomeni, da se jim z nadomestilom stroškov, ki so jim nastali, dodeli gospodarska prednost, ki je sicer ne bi pridobili pod tržnimi pogoji.
Existence of an economic advantage
Tarifna ureditev, ki je dodatno podprta z obveznostjo dobavljanja, dejansko ne omogoča svobode odločanja o najbolj temeljnih gonilih ponudbe, kot so cene in izložki.
Undertakings are favoured within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if they obtain an economic advantage which they would not otherwise obtain under market conditions.
Hipotetični tržni pogoji, tj. neobstoj regulativnih omejitev glede takih temeljnih parametrov, niso edini primer, ko bi lahko distributerji končnim uporabnikom zaračunavali precej višjo tarifo, ki pokrije stroške.
In this respect, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that, in specific cases, fees for services provided in return for obligations which Member States impose, which do not exceed annual uncovered costs and which are intended to ensure that the undertakings concerned do not make losses, do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU but rather consideration for the services performed by the undertakings concerned [21].
Poleg tega, in kar je celo pomembneje, je bil distributer – ali upravljavec visokonapetostnega omrežja za energetsko intenzivne odjemalce – v španskem elektroenergetskem sistemu leta 2005, tako kot v vsakem drugem elektroenergetskem sistemu, preprosto posrednik, ki je uporabnike fizično povezoval z omrežjem, kar je nujni pogoj za dobavo električne energije.
More specifically in the electricity sector, nor has the Commission taken the view, in its extensive decision-making practice in application of Article 107(1) and (3)(c) TFEU regarding the obligations imposed on distributors to purchase electricity from certain energy sources at a price above the market price, that compensation covering the difference between purchase costs and market prices entailed an economic advantage benefiting distributors.
Ker v Španiji leta 2005 ni bilo hipotetičnega alternativnega distribucijskega omrežja, so bili imenovani zadevni distributerji, ki so dobavljali na prostem in reguliranem trgu.
In those cases, the operators in question were acting under regulatory obligations as mere intermediaries in the electricity system and were compensated for their costs, without this compensation being held to entail an economic advantage, whereas, arguably, the legislation could have merely imposed a purchase obligation without cost compensation.
Distributerji imajo bistveno vlogo, saj omogočajo dobavo električne energije, ne glede na posebne regulativne ureditve ali politiko oziroma dejstvo, ali pogoji konkurence, ki urejajo ponudbo, temeljijo na tržnih mehanizmih ali ureditvi.
The same is true, more specifically in the area of the supply of electricity at regulated tariffs, as regards compensation intended to finance differences between revenues and wholesale electricity procurement costs at regulated tariffs requested by eligible consumers [22].
V reguliranih tarifnih sistemih, kot je bil španski leta 2005, se primanjkljaj sredstev pri običajnem poslovanju na skupnih računih sistema v enem letu navadno nadomesti z višjimi tarifami in/ali pristojbinami za dostop za končne uporabnike v naslednjem letu, medtem ko lahko znižanja stroškov povzročijo presežek, kar nato omogoča nižje tarife in pristojbine.
It follows that compensation of the electricity purchase costs of distributors in the electricity sector does not necessarily imply an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Vendar če posebne kategorije prihodkov niso namenjene posebnim stroškom, povečanje (zmanjšanje) prihodkov in/ali stroškov morda ne bo pomenilo ustreznega primanjkljaja ali presežka v korist distributerjem.
The alleged compensation to Spanish distributors for the costs of supply at regulated tariffs must be examined in the light of these precedents.
Na primer, kot je prikazano v grafu 1 v uvodni izjavi 27, ki kaže, da so bile implicitne cene električne energije iz povprečnih integralnih reguliranih tarif večino mesecev leta 2005 na splošno nižje od veleprodajnih tržnih cen, pa velja nasprotno za obdobje od novembra 2006 do decembra 2007, vendar se to ne kaže v večjem dobičku za dejavnost dobave distributerjev po reguliranih tarifah.
The preliminary conclusion of the Commission decision opening the formal investigation was that there was an economic advantage over market conditions in favour of Spanish distributors on the basis of two arguments.
To je v skladu z zakonsko ureditvijo sistema, na podlagi katere distributerji ne bi v celoti ali deloma nosili stroškov neravnovesij pri stroških in prihodkih sistema, prav tako pa ne bi nikoli imeli dobička od te dejavnosti, saj bi se vsak presežek, ki bi izhajal iz prodaje električne energije po reguliranih tarifah, uporabil za pokritje drugih stroškov sistema.
First, distributors allegedly obtained a guaranteed profit margin on the activity of supply at the regulated tariff.
Distributerji so delovali kot finančni posredniki elektroenergetskega sistema v smislu, da so centralizirali vse finančne tokove, tj. vhodne (regulirane prihodke iz tarif in pristojbin za dostop) in izhodne (vse splošne stroške sistema).
Second, by encouraging users to switch to the regulated market served by distributors, the tariffs allegedly increased the distributors' income.
Regulirani prihodki in stroški elektroenergetskega sistema so leta 2005, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 19, 20 in 28, vključevali veliko različnih reguliranih stroškov, ki so posledica trga in politike, kot so stroški nakupov električne energije, tudi iz obnovljivih virov energije, dodatni stroški proizvodnje električne energije na španskih otokih, stroški prenosa in distribucije itd., ne da bi bili posebni prihodki namenjeni nekaterim stroškom.
These two arguments can be subsumed into the single proposition that distributors' profit increased in proportion to their supplies of electricity at regulated tariffs in 2005.
Regulirani prihodki niso nikoli postali last distributerjev, razen plačila za čisto distribucijo, ki so ga zadržali po odbitku vseh drugih stroškov sistema.
The available description of the Spanish electricity system and the information supplied in the course of the proceedings, which is reflected in recitals 16, 19, 20, 57 and 58, does not lend support to this proposition.
Vsak primanjkljaj na računih, kot na primer tisti iz leta 2005, bi se tako ne glede na vzroke zanj pojavil na računih distributerjev, ki ne bi imeli nobene možnosti odločati o ravni reguliranih prihodkov in stroškov ali financiranju posebnih stroškov s posebnimi prihodki.
Whereas, for pure distribution, the remuneration received by distributors in 2005 included a profit margin, for supply at the regulated tariff distributors received only a reimbursement (‘recognition’) of costs without any profit margin.
Zato se uvrstitev primanjkljaja iz leta 2005 med „izgube distributerjev“ ne zdi utemeljena, saj primanjkljaja ni mogoče pripisati ravnanju distributerjev, temveč regulativnim določbam, ki opredeljujejo pravico končnih uporabnikov do dobave po reguliranih tarifah, ter, v določenem obsegu, regulativnim odločitvam in odločitvam politike, ki so na primer podprle proizvodnjo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov energije in soproizvodnje.
Similarly, the distributors' remuneration in respect of their pure distribution activities was independent of the number of customers on regulated tariffs and the quantity of electricity sold at the tariff, and therefore their revenue would not have increased if they had served a larger number of customers on regulated tariffs.
Iz tega sledi, da financiranje primanjkljaja na računih elektroenergetskega sistema prek mehanizmov, opisanih v uvodnih izjavah od 29 do 32, ni način za prevzemanje določenih izgub distributerjev, temveč skupnih izgub sistema.
It follows that the information gathered during the proceedings does not support the assertion that sales of electricity at regulated tariffs increased the profits of Spanish distributors in 2005 because they enjoyed a guaranteed profit margin.
Če pet velikih podjetij za oskrbo z električno energijo leta 2005 ne bi priznalo 3811 milijonov EUR primanjkljaja in zagotovilo predfinanciranja zanj, dejansko ne bi bilo mogoče plačati stroškov sistema za prenos in distribucijo, ki so nastali zaradi oskrbe vseh uporabnikov, na reguliranem ali prostem trgu.
On the question whether the recognition of supply costs and compensation thereof provided distributors with an economic advantage which they would otherwise not have obtained under market conditions, it must be stressed that the recognition of the costs incurred in the form of collection rights granted to the five undertakings designated by Article 24 of Royal Decree-Law 5/2005, namely Iberdrola, SA, Unión Eléctrica Fenosa, SA, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SA, Endesa, SA and Elcogás, SA. was not remuneration for their distribution activity.
V formalnem postopku preiskave ni bil ugotovljen obstoj nobenih drugih elementov prednosti za distributerje.
As already explained in recitals 29 and 30, although Elcogás SA, which did not own any subsidiaries, was not operating in the distribution sector in 2005 (or in later years), the undertakings in questions were designated by virtue of their existing right to receive stranded costs, possibly taking into account their generation activity, but not their distribution activity at regulated tariffs.
Distributerji so celotno korist iz nizkih reguliranih tarif prenesli na končne uporabnike, saj niso imeli nobenega dobička od prodaje in nobenih koristi od vračanja uporabnikov na regulirani trg.
Second, even assuming that the collection rights that reflect the obligation for the five undertakings referred to above to prefinance the deficit in the electricity system for 2005 could be interpreted as compensation for the costs of distribution for the four undertakings that operated in the distribution sector at regulated tariffs, account should be taken of the actual conditions under which distributors were obliged to carry on this fully regulated activity.
Iz tega sledi, da je bil položaj distributerjev v Španiji s finančnega vidika popolnoma primerljiv s položajem posrednika v sistemu.