natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Van der Kooy, the Court of Justice ruled that a preferential tariff for natural gas granted to undertakings engaged in hothouse horticulture would not constitute aid if it was, ‘in the context of the market in question, objectively justified by economic reasons such as the need to resist competition on the same market from other sources of energy the price of which was competitive’ [38].
Sodišče je navedlo tudi, da okoliščina, da poskuša država članica z enostranskimi ukrepi pogoje konkurence v posameznem gospodarskem sektorju približati tistim v drugi državi članici, tem ukrepom ne more odvzeti narave pomoči [43].
However, contrary to the claims of Germany and of other interested parties, the issue at stake, that was referred to by the Court, was competition on the same market between different fuels and how a company selling such fuels can set its tariffs in accordance to it, that is to say, the application of the private investor test in a market economy.
Poleg tega lahko ukrepi, namenjeni izravnavi morebitnih neugodnosti, s katerimi so soočena podjetja s sedežem v določeni regiji države članice, pomenijo selektivne prednosti [44].
The question was whether the greenhouse companies would switch to coal because of the higher prices for gas and whether the preferential tariffs could therefore constitute rational economic behaviour on the part of the gas company.
Podobno je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da sodna praksa v zadevi Danske Busvognmænd ne velja, ko stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja, prevzame država.
In the case at hand, there is no indication that Germany behaved like a private investor, and Germany has in fact never claimed that the reductions from the EEG-surcharge granted to EIUs should be considered as fulfilling the private investor test.
Splošno sodišče je ponovno navedlo načelo, da obseg nadomestila, tj. izravnave slabega konkurenčnega položaja, nadomestilu ne more odvzeti njegove narave pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe [45].
In addition, the obiter dicta in the rulings of the General Court in Danske Busvognmænd [39] and Hotel Cipriani [40] have in the meantime been overruled by the Court of Justice and more recent rulings from the General Court.
V poznejši sodbi je Splošno sodišče priznalo, da cilj izravnave slabega konkurenčnega položaja podjetij, čemur so namenjena znižanja nekaterih prispevkov, zadevnim prednostim ne more odvzeti njihove narave pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
In Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ [41], the Court made it clear that that a measure is deemed not to constitute an advantage only when a State measure represents compensation for the services provided by undertakings entrusted with performing a service in the general public interest in order to discharge public service obligations, if those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and if the measure does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them [42].
Zato je ukrep, namenjen izravnavi strukturne pomanjkljivosti, mogoče razvrstiti le kot državno pomoč, razen če so izpolnjena merila iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark [46].
The Court added that the fact that a Member State seeks to approximate, by unilateral measures, the conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States cannot deprive the measures in question of their character as aid [43].
Zato trditev Nemčije in nekaterih zainteresiranih strani ni mogoče sprejeti.
Moreover, measures designed to compensate for possible disadvantages to which undertakings established in a certain region of a Member State are exposed are capable of constituting selective advantages [44].
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep vključuje selektivne prednosti za proizvajalce električne energije EEG, ki bi lahko vplivale na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami.
Similarly, the General Court has found that the case-law in Danske Busvognmænd does not apply when charges that normally burden an undertaking's budget are relieved by the State.
Pripis državi
The General Court restated the principle that the scope of compensation, that is to say, of removing competitive disadvantages, does not remove its character of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [45].
Komisija je v svojem sklepu o začetku postopka menila, da je prednosti mogoče pripisati nemški državi, saj so bile zagotovljena odkupna cena in premije ter dodatna dajatev EEG in njene omejitve uvedene z državno zakonodajo in izvedbenima uredbama, omejitev dodatne dajatve pa je bila uvedena šele, ko je organ BAFA, ki je javni organ, preveril, ali so pravni pogoji izpolnjeni.
In a later judgement, the General Court recognised that the objective of compensating for competitive disadvantages of undertakings, pursued by the reductions in certain contributions, could not remove from those advantages their character as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Nemčija in tretje strani so pripisu državi nasprotovale s trditvijo, da je država le sprejela zakonodajo, upravljavci omrežij pa ukrepajo po lastni presoji.
Therefore a measure intended to offset a structural disadvantage cannot escape the classification as State aid, unless the criteria established in Altmark [46] are fulfilled.
Vprašanje pripisa državi je morda potrebno skrbno oceniti, kadar se nanaša le na ravnanje podjetij v javni lasti.
Therefore, the line of argumentation raised by Germany and by certain interested parties cannot be accepted.
Ni pa nobenega dvoma, da se lahko ukrepi javne uprave in zakonodajalca vedno pripišejo državi [47].
The Commission concludes that the measure entails selective advantages to producers of EEG electricity that are likely to affect competition and trade between Member States.
Obstoj državnih sredstev
Imputability
Komisija je glede podpore za proizvajalce električne energije EEG v sklepu o začetku postopka predhodno ugotovila, da je država na podlagi zakona EEG iz leta 2012 sistemske operaterje prenosnih omrežij določila za upravljanje dodatne dajatve EEG in da so prihodki od dodatne dajatve EEG pomenili državno sredstvo (uvodna izjava 138).
In its Opening Decision, the Commission held that the advantages were imputable to the German State, because the feed-in tariffs and premiums, the EEG-surcharge and the cap of that surcharge resulted from State legislation and implementing decrees and because the capping of the surcharge was established only after the BAFA, a public body, had checked that the legal conditions were met.
Država ni le določila upravičenca do prednosti, meril za upravičenost in stopnje podpore, ampak je tudi zagotovila finančna sredstva za kritje stroškov podpore za električno energijo EEG.
Germany and third parties have disputed the imputability on the ground that the State has merely enacted legislation and the network operators are acting on their own accord.
V nasprotju z zadevo Doux Élevage [48] je bila dodatna dajatev EEG vzpostavljena in uvedena z zakonodajo, torej je to storila država, in ne gre le za zasebno pobudo sistemskih operaterjev distribucijskega omrežja, ki je po mnenju države obvezna, da se prepreči pridobivanje nezasluženih koristi.
The question of imputability may require a careful assessment where only the behaviour of publicly owned enterprises is concerned.
Država je določila namen in cilj dodatne dajatve: financira podporno politiko, ki jo je razvila država, in ni ukrep, za katerega so se odločili sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij.
However, there is no doubt about the fact that actions of the State's public administration and of the legislator are always imputable to the State [47].
Sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij dodatne dajatve ne morejo določiti po lastnih željah ter so pri izračunavanju, obračunavanju in upravljanju dodatne dajatve pod strogim nadzorom.
Existence of State resources
Država spremlja tudi, kako prodajajo električno energijo EEG.
Concerning the support for producers of EEG electricity, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion in the Opening Decision that under the EEG-Act 2012, the TSOs had been designated by the State to administer the EEG-surcharge and that the revenues from the EEG-surcharge constituted a State resource (recital 138).
Določbe, ki urejajo določanje dodatne dajatve EEG, zagotavljajo, da dodatna dajatev zagotavlja ustrezno finančno kritje za plačilo podpore za električno energijo EEG in stroške, ki nastanejo pri upravljanju sistema.
The State has not only defined to whom the advantage is to be granted, the eligibility criteria and the level of support, but it has also provided the financial resources to cover the costs of the support to EEG electricity.
Navedene določbe ne omogočajo pobiranja dodatnega prihodka, ki presega kritje navedenih stroškov.
Contrary to what was the case in Doux Élevage [48], the EEG-surcharge is created and imposed by the legislature, that is to say, the State, and is not merely a private initiative of the TSOs which the State renders compulsory in order to prevent free-riding.
Sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij z dodatno dajatvijo EEG tudi ne smejo financirati drugih vrst dejavnosti, finančne tokove pa morajo voditi na ločenih računih (uvodna izjava 137 sklepa o začetku postopka).
The State has defined the purpose and destination of the surcharge: it serves to finance a support policy developed by the State and is not an action decided by the TSOs.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča so v pojem državnih sredstev v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe vključene prednosti, ki jih država dodeli neposredno, in prednosti, ki se dodelijo prek javnega ali zasebnega subjekta, ki ga določi ali ustanovi ta država [49].
The TSOs are not free to establish the surcharge as they want and are strictly monitored in the way the surcharge is calculated, levied and managed.
Zato samo dejstvo, da prednost ni dodeljena neposredno iz državnega proračuna, ne more zadostovati za izključitev možnosti, da gre za državna sredstva [50].
The way they sell the EEG electricity is also monitored by the State.
Poleg tega tudi prvotno zasebna narava sredstev ne preprečuje, da se ta sredstva štejejo za državna sredstva v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe [51].
The provisions governing the establishment of the EEG-surcharge ensure that the surcharge provides sufficient financial cover to pay for the support for EEG electricity as well as for the costs stemming from the management of the system.
Dejstvo, da sredstva nikoli niso v lasti države, tudi ne preprečuje, da pomenijo državna sredstva, če so pod nadzorom države [52] (glej uvodne izjave 82, 83 in 84 sklepa o začetku postopka).
Those provisions do not allow for the collection of additional revenue beyond the coverage of those costs.
Sodišče je zato v več zadevah menilo, da bi lahko prispevki, obračunani zasebnim operaterjem, pomenili državno pomoč, saj je bil posebej za upravljanje navedenih prispevkov določen ali imenovan organ v skladu z državno zakonodajo [53] (glej uvodne izjave 85 do 89 sklepa o začetku postopka).
The TSOs are not allowed to use the EEG-surcharge to finance any other type of activity, and financial flows are to be kept on separate accounts (recital 137 of the Opening Decision).
„Ker se zadevna sredstva financirajo prek obveznih prispevkov, ki jih nalaga državna zakonodaja, in ker se, kakor je razvidno iz te zadeve, upravljajo in porazdelijo v skladu z določbami navedene zakonodaje, jih je treba obravnavati kot državna sredstva v smislu člena 107 Pogodbe, tudi če jih upravljajo institucije, ki so ločene od javnih organov“ [54].
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, both advantages which are granted directly by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State are included in the concept of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [49].
Komisija je zato v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, pri čemer je navedla ugotovitve Splošnega sodišča [55], da je ne glede na prvotni izvor sredstev upoštevno merilo za ugotavljanje, ali so ta javna, pomembnost vloge javnega organa pri določanju zadevnih ukrepov in podrobnih pravil njihovega financiranja.
Therefore, the mere fact that the advantage is not financed directly from the State budget is not sufficient to exclude the possibility that State resources are involved [50].
Sodišče je obstoj državnih sredstev v zadevah PreussenElektra in Doux Élevage izključilo, vendar zaradi posebnih okoliščin obeh zadev.
Moreover, the originally private nature of the resources does not prevent them from being regarded as State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [51].
V zadevi PreussenElektra [56] ni bilo dodatne dajatve ali prispevka, prav tako pa ni bil določen ali imenovan organ za upravljanje zadevnih sredstev, saj so morali zasebni operaterji obveznosti, ki so jim bile naložene, izpolniti z lastnim denarjem.
The fact that the resources are not, at any time, the property of the State does also not prevent them from constituting State resources, if they are under the control of the State [52] (see recitals 82, 83 and 84 of the Opening Decision).
V zadevi Doux Élevage je bil prispevek, ki ga je država določila za obveznega, vendar je lahko zasebna organizacija po lastni presoji uporabljala prihodke iz navedenega prispevka.
Thus, in several cases, the Court of Justice has held that contributions levied from private operators could constitute State aid due to the fact that a body had been specifically designated or established to administer those contributions in line with the State's legislation [53] (see recitals 85 to 89 of the Opening Decision).
Zbrana sredstva zato niso bila pod državnim nadzorom.
Indeed, as ‘the funds in question are financed through compulsory contributions imposed by State legislation and as, as this case shows, they are managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of that legislation, they must be regarded as State resources within the meaning of [Article 107], even if they are administered by institutions distinct from the public authorities.’ [54].
Komisija je pri uporabi teh načel za podporni sistem, ki je bil vzpostavljen z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, predhodno ugotovila naslednje:
The Commission therefore concluded in the Opening Decision, referring to the findings of the General Court [55], that the relevant criterion in order to assess whether the resources were public, whatever their initial origin, was that of the degree of intervention of the public authority in the definition of the measures in question and their methods of financing.
Država je prek zakona EEG iz leta 2012 uvedla posebno dajatev, in sicer dodatno dajatev EEG, in določila njen namen, tj. financiranje razlike med stroški, ki jih imajo sistemskih operaterji prenosnih omrežij pri nakupu električne energije EEG, in prihodki, ki jih ustvarijo s prodajo te električne energije.
While the Court excluded the existence of State resources in PreussenElektra and in Doux Élevage, this was due to the specific circumstances of those cases.
Način izračuna za določanje stopnje dodatne dajatve je prav tako določen v zakonu EEG iz leta 2012, kot tudi načelo, da se primanjkljaji in presežki v prihodnjem letu popravijo.
In PreussenElektra [56], there was neither a surcharge or contribution, nor a body established or appointed to administer the funds, as the obligations imposed on the private operators had to be met by them with their own money.
S tem se zagotovi, da sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij nimajo izgub, pomeni pa tudi, da lahko prihodke od dodatne dajatve uporabijo le za financiranje električne energije EEG.
In Doux Élevage, there was indeed a contribution rendered compulsory by the State, but the private organisation was free to use the revenues from that contribution as it saw fit.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je v nasprotju z zadevo PreussenElektra država navedenim podjetjem zagotovila finančna sredstva, potrebna za financiranje podpore za električno energijo EEG (glej uvodne izjave 97 do 103 sklepa o začetku postopka).
There was therefore no element of State control over the funds collected.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da so bili sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij določeni za upravljanje dodatne dajatve.
When applying these principles to the support system established by the EEG-Act 2012, the Commission came to the following preliminary conclusions:
Sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij morajo:
Through the EEG-Act 2012, the State has introduced a special levy, the EEG-surcharge, and has defined its purpose, which is the financing of the difference between the costs TSOs incur in purchasing EEG electricity and the revenue they generate from selling this electricity.
nabavljati električno energijo EEG, proizvedeno v njihovem omrežju, in sicer neposredno od proizvajalca, če je ta neposredno povezan s prenosnim vodom, ali od sistemskih operaterjev distribucijskega omrežja po zagotovljenih odkupnih cenah oziroma plačati tržno premijo.
The calculation method for determining the surcharge level is also set in the EEG-Act 2012, as is the principle that deficits and surpluses are corrected in the following year.
Zato sta električna energija EEG in finančno breme podpore, ki jo zagotavlja zakon EEG iz leta 2012, centralizirana na ravni vsakega od štirih sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij,
This ensures that TSOs incur no losses, but also implies that they cannot use the revenue from the surcharge for anything else than the EEG financing.
pri dobaviteljih, ki to zahtevajo, uporabljati pravice, povezane z zeleno električno energijo, in izpolnjevati ustrezna merila iz člena 39(1) zakona EEG iz leta 2012,
The Commission concluded that, unlike in PreussenElektra, the State had provided those undertakings with the required financial resources to finance the support for EEG electricity (see recitals 97 to 103 of the Opening Decision).
medsebojno izravnati količino električne energije EEG, tako da vsak od njih nabavi enak delež električne energije EEG,
Moreover, the Commission held that the TSOs had been designated to administer the surcharge.
prodati električno energijo EEG na gotovinskem trgu v skladu s pravili iz zakona EEG iz leta 2012 in njegovima izvedbenima uredbama, kar lahko storijo skupaj,
They have to:
skupaj izračunati dodatno dajatev EEG, ki mora biti enaka za vsako kWh, porabljeno v Nemčiji, saj je razlika med prihodki od prodaje električne energije EEG in izdatki povezana z nakupom električne energije EEG,
purchase EEG electricity produced in their area either directly from the producer when it is directly connected to the transmission line or from distribution system operators (DSOs) at feed-in tariffs, or pay the market premium.
skupaj objaviti dodatno dajatev EEG v posebni obliki na skupni spletni strani,
apply the green electricity privilege to suppliers which ask for it and fulfil the relevant conditions, set out in § 39(1) of the EEG-Act 2012;
primerjati napovedano dodatno dajatev EEG z dajatvijo, kot bi dejansko morala znašati v zadevnem letu, in prilagoditi dodatno dajatev za naslednje leto,
equalise between themselves the amount of EEG electricity so that each of them purchases the same proportion of EEG electricity;
objaviti napovedi za več let vnaprej,
sell the EEG electricity on the spot market according to rules defined in the EEG-Act 2012 and its implementing provisions, which can be done jointly;
pobrati dodatno dajatev EEG od dobaviteljev električne energije,
jointly calculate the EEG-surcharge, which has to be the same for each kWh consumed in Germany, as the difference between revenues from the sale of EEG electricity and expenditure linked to the purchase of EEG electricity;
(vsak posebej) voditi vse finančne tokove (izdatke in prihodke), povezane z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, na ločenih bančnih računih.
jointly publish the EEG-surcharge in a specific format on a joint website;
Komisija je nazadnje ugotovila, da država strogo nadzoruje, kako sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij upravljajo dodatno dajatev (uvodne izjave 110 do 113 sklepa o začetku postopka).
publish also aggregate information on the EEG electricity;
Spremljanje izvaja agencija BNetzA, ki ima tudi ustrezna pooblastila.
compare the forecasted EEG-surcharge with what it should really have been in a given year and adapt the surcharge for the following year;
Agencija BNetzA lahko določi globe in sprejme odločitve, vključno z odločitvami, ki vplivajo na stopnjo dodatne dajatve EEG.
publish forecasts for several years in advance;
Komisija je ugotovila tudi, da organ BAFA, ki je javni organ, po prejemu vloge od morebitnih upravičencev energetsko intenzivnim uporabnikom dodeli pravico do omejene dodatne dajatve EEG.
collect the EEG-surcharge from electricity suppliers;
Nemčija se ne strinja z navedbo, da so vključena državna sredstva.
(each) keep all financial flows (expenditure and revenues) linked to the EEG-Act 2012 in separate bank accounts.
Trdi, da so v mehanizem za podporo EEG vključena le zasebna podjetja, ne glede na to, ali gre za upravljavce elektrarn za električno energijo EEG, upravljavce omrežij, sistemske operaterje prenosnih omrežij ali dobavitelje električne energije, saj je vsaka kategorija teh podjetij pretežno v zasebni lasti, čeprav imajo država ali javni organi v lasti pomembno število navedenih podjetij.
Finally, the Commission concluded that TSOs were being strictly monitored by the State in the administration of the surcharge (recitals 110 to 113 of the Opening Decision).
Zakon EEG iz leta 2012 pri uvajanju obveznosti za navedena podjetja ne razlikuje med podjetji v zasebni ali javni lasti.
The monitoring is performed by BNetzA, which also has the necessary enforcement powers.
Javni organi, ki sodelujejo v procesu (agencija BNetzA, organ BAFA in agencija UBA), domnevno ne nadzorujejo zbiranja ali uporabe sredstev, ampak le zakonitost in delovanje sistema.
The BNetzA in particular monitors the way in which the TSOs sell the EEG electricity for which feed-in tariffs are paid on the spot market, that TSOs properly determine, set and publish the EEG-surcharge, that TSOs properly charge electricity suppliers for the EEG-surcharge, that feed-in tariffs and premiums are properly charged to the TSOs, and that the EEG-surcharge is only reduced for electricity suppliers fulfilling the conditions of § 39 of the EEG-Act 2012.
Nemčija poudarja, da stopnje dodatne dajatve EEG ne določa zakon EEG iz leta 2012 ali javni organ.
The BNetzA also receives information from the TSOs on the support for EEG electricity and on the charging of the suppliers.
Stopnja dodatne dajatve EEG se določi na podlagi delovanja trga, saj sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij najprej električno energijo EEG prodajo na gotovinskem trgu, nato pa določijo ostale stroške, ki se morajo pokriti z dodatno dajatvijo EEG.
Finally, the BNetzA can set fines and adopt decisions, including decisions influencing the level of the EEG-surcharge.
Več zainteresiranih strani se je strinjalo z analizo Nemčije, da zakon EEG iz leta 2012 ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The Commission also concluded that the BAFA, a State entity, grants the entitlements to a capped EEG-surcharge for EIUs following the application from the potential beneficiaries.
Nasprotujejo zlasti predhodnim ugotovitvam Komisije, da z dodatno dajatvijo EEG upravljajo zasebni organi, ki jih je določila država.
Germany disputes the involvement of State resources.
Trdijo tudi, da agencija BNetzA ne nadzoruje prihodkov, ustvarjenih na podlagi dodatne dajatve EEG ali stopnje same dodatne dajatve, ampak le spremlja zakonitost, pri tem pa nima nobenega vpliva na upravljanje sredstev.
First, it states that the EEG support mechanism only involves private undertakings, be it the operators of the EEG electricity plants, the network operators, the TSOs or the electricity suppliers, each category of which is predominantly privately owned, even though the State or public bodies retain ownership of an important number of those undertakings.
Znižanje dodatne dajatve EEG temelji na zakonu EEG iz leta 2012, izvaja pa jo organ BAFA, vendar to naj ne bi moglo spremeniti zasebne narave sredstev, saj se plačila izvršijo med zasebnimi podjetji in nikdar ne zapustijo zasebnega sektorja, torej jih država ne more nadzorovati.