natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The following steps describe in detail the methodology used to determine the benchmark:
Obe pogodbi med podjetji Hidroelectrica in Termoelectrica oziroma Electrocentrale Deva sta imeli ugotovljeno ceno nad predvidenimi cenami z razliko v ceni, večjo od 45,36 RON/MWh, kar pomeni razliko v višini 53,05 RON/MWh za pogodbo s Termoelectrica in 51,37 RON/MWh za pogodbo z Electrocentrale Deva (glej preglednico 2).
Firstly, for each contract under investigation, it is calculated if and how far the actual price every year departs from its corresponding benchmark price computed using the regression and the contract characteristics;
Razlika v ceni pogodbe MUD je bila leta 2011 ocenjena na 30,12 RON/MWh.
Secondly, the most-upward-diverging contract (‘MUD’) is identified [3]; this is the dataset contract with the observed price which departs the most above its own corresponding benchmark price (in absolute terms).
Obe pogodbi med podjetji Hidroelectrica in Termoelectrica oziroma med Hidroelectrica in Electrocentrale Deva sta imeli ugotovljene cene nad predvideno ceno z razliko v ceni, večjo od 30,12 RON/MWh, kar pomeni razliko v višini 38,62 RON/MWh za pogodbo s Termoelectrica in 32,64 RON/MWh za pogodbo z Electrocentrale Deva (glej preglednico 2).
The choice of MUD which provides a range of variation above the central estimate of benchmark price, whilst being conservative, is justified; firstly, the econometric model does not explain 100 % of the observed price in the dataset and the price benchmark single estimate is provided within an interval of confidence and a margin of error above or below the estimate; secondly, price deviations from a single possible price exist on the real market; the MUD, which stems from market-based contracts (see recitals 42 to 45) brings quantified information about the possible extent of such deviations and provides a market-based range around the calculated benchmark price;
Preglednica 2
Thirdly, the price difference from the MUD contract is used to separate observed prices above benchmark price from contracts below benchmark price:
Analiza pogodb v ustreznem obdobju 2009–2011
if a contract has an observed price above its corresponding benchmark price and if the price difference of this contract is higher than the MUD price difference [4], then this contract is considered prima facie not market conform,
(v RON/MWh)
otherwise the contract should be deemed to be market conform;
Ugotovljena cena (OP)
The table below presents detailed results from the regression analysis on the dataset.
Predvidena cena (PP)
The regression explains 36 % of the variations in the data.
Razlika (OP-PP)
The coefficient estimates presented in the table below are used in a second stage to predict the ‘benchmark’ price for the contracts under investigation (out-of-sample predictions), assuming they would also be retail contracts, like contracts in the dataset.
Razlika: Ugotovljena cena – Predvidena cena + MUD
Results of the econometric analysis
Zgornji rezultati kažejo, da so bile cene, ki jih je Hidroelectrica plačevalo tako podjetju Termoelectrica kot podjetju Electrocentrale Deva v letu 2010 in 2011, višje od razumne referenčne cene, ki je bila določena s pogodbami iz niza podatkov.
Table 1
Vendar je ta primerjava med maloprodajnimi pogodbami (vse pogodbe v nizu podatkov) ter veleprodajnimi pogodbami med podjetjem Hidroelectrica in Termoelectrica ter Electrocentrale Deva.
Regression analysis
Z drugimi besedami, simulirane referenčne cene vključujejo maloprodajne stroške, ki niso nastali v zvezi z zadevnima pogodbama, zato so simulirane referenčne cene višje od ustreznih veleprodajnih cen.
The following tables present the results of the empirical analysis which uses the regression analysis detailed in Table 1 when, for each year, the MUD is selected on the basis of the difference in price levels (in RON/MWh) between each contract’s estimated price and its corresponding observed price.
Da bi zajeli to razliko, je treba nujno odšteti 5 % maloprodajne marže od absolutne vrednosti MUD [5].
Tables 2 and 3 below present the differences between Hidroelectrica’s contractual purchase prices per each of the years (i.e.: 2009-2011) vis-à-vis the simulated price benchmark for the two companies under investigation.
Rezultati so prikazani v spodnji preglednici in za oba dobavitelja dodatno potrdijo cene nad tržno referenčno ceno v letih 2010 in 2011.
In 2009, the MUD contract, that is the contract in the dataset with the highest difference between the observed price and its corresponding estimated price, has a price difference estimated at 69,73 RON/MWh.
Preglednica 3
None of the two contracts between Hidroelectrica and Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva has an observed price above their estimated price with a price difference larger than 69,73 RON/MWh (see Table 2).
Analiza pogodb z uporabo 5-odstotnega znižanja maloprodajne marže za ustrezno obdobje 2009–2011
In 2010, the MUD contract has a price difference estimated at 45,36 RON/MWh.
(v RON/MWh)
Both contracts between Hidroelectrica and Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva have an observed price above their estimated price with a price difference larger than 45,36 RON/MWh, that is a difference of 53,05 RON/MWh for the contract with Termoelectrica and 51,37 RON/MWh for the contract with Electrocentrale Deva (see Table 2).
Razlika: Ugotovljena cena – ((Predvidena cena + MUD) – 5 %)
In 2011, the MUD contract has a price difference estimated at 30,12 RON/MWh.
Na koncu ekonometrična analiza ugotavlja, da so pogodbene cene za podjetji Termoelectrica in Electrocentrale Deva višje od tržne cene.
The two contracts between Hidroelectrica and Termoelectrica and respectively between Hidroelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva have an observed price above their estimated price with a price difference larger than 30,12 RON/MWh, that is a difference of 38,62 RON/MWh for the contract with Termoelectrica and 32,64 RON/MWh for the contract with Electrocentrale Deva (see Table 2).
Vendar se mora, glede na široko obdobje negotovosti, ki ni zajeto v vzorcu, sklep ekonometrične analize dopolniti z dodatnimi gospodarskimi podatki o skladnosti ravnanja podjetja Hidroelectrica s tržnimi pogoji in/ali drugimi podatki.
Table 2
Spremenljivke trajanja pogodbe in profil odjema kupcev, opredeljenih v nizu podatkov, niso vključeni, ker niso statistično značilni.
Analysis of contracts in the relevant period 2009-2011
S predhodno obdelavo podatkov so bili zavrženi trije letni podatki o pogodbah, ki ustrezajo prodaji podjetja Alro znotraj skupine od leta 2009 do 2011, saj bi verjetno odražali različne tržne pogoje, ki ne prevladujejo v dvostranskih pogodbenih pogajanjih med dobaviteljem in neodvisnim kupcem, kar je v tem primeru glavno vprašanje.
(RON/MWh)
Regresija je bila opravljena na osnovi 137 ugotovitev podatkov individualnih pogodb v obdobju 2009–2011.
Observed price (OP)
Začetni MUD za leto 2011 ustreza prodaji nafte OMV Petrom znotraj skupine.
Predicted price (PP)
Ker taka prodaja znotraj skupine, kot je prodaja Alro (glej opombo 2), verjetno odraža drugačne tržne pogoje od tistih, ki prevladujejo v dvostranskih pogodbenih pogajanjih med dobaviteljem in neodvisnim kupcem, ki je glavno vprašanje v tej zadevi, se uporabi naslednji MUD.
Difference (OP-PP)
Na podlagi srednje vrednosti marže trgovca v Romuniji; KPMG Report for Energy Holdings (poročilo družbe KPMG o energetskem sektorju), maj 2014, Dodatek 3, str. 53.
Difference Observed price – Predicted price + MUD
Komisija je od podjetja Termoelectrica 11. junija 2012 in podjetja Electrocentrale Deva 12. junija 2012 prejela le predhodne pripombe, ki so jih romunski organi posredovali Komisiji 26. julija 2012.
The results above show that the prices paid by Hidroelectrica to both Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva in 2010 and 2011 are above a reasonable benchmark determined by the dataset contracts.
Romunski organi so iste predhodne pripombe poslali Komisiji tudi 2. avgusta 2012.
However, this comparison is made between retail contracts (all contracts in the dataset) and wholesale contracts between Hidroelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva and Termoelectrica.
Komisija je v dopisih dne 29. julija in 11. septembra 2013, 3. marca, 6. avgusta in 25. septembra 2014 ter 19. januarja 2015 od romunskih organov zaprosila za dodatne informacije.
In other words, the simulated benchmark prices include retailing costs which the two contracts did not incur and, therefore, the simulated benchmark prices are higher than corresponding wholesale prices.
Romunski organi so dodatne informacije predložili 11. septembra 2013, 24. marca, 14. maja, 3. septembra, 22. septembra, 10. oktobra in 21. oktobra 2014 ter 20. februarja 2015.
In order to capture this difference, it is therefore indispensable to deduce a retail margin of 5 % from the absolute value of the MUD [5].
Podjetje Hidroelectrica je bilo ustanovljeno leta 2000.
The results are shown in the table below and further confirm prices above a market benchmark in 2010 and 2011 for the two suppliers:
Ureja ga običajno pravo gospodarskih družb.
Table 3
Zoper podjetje Hidroelectrica je bil 26. junija 2012 [5] začet postopek zaradi insolventnosti, ki se je zaključil 26. junija 2013 [6].
Analysis of contracts by applying a 5 % retail margin reduction for the relevant period 2009-2011
Postopek zaradi insolventnosti zoper podjetje Hidroelectrica je bil ponovno začet 25. februarja 2014.
(RON/ MWh)
Dobavitelja, s katerima je podjetje Hidroelectrica sklenilo pogodbi, ki sta predmet preiskave, sta podjetji Termoelectrica in Electrocentrale Deva, oba proizvajalca električne energije iz premoga v izključni lasti države bodisi neposredno bodisi posredno in z letno zmogljivostjo proizvodnje na dan podpisa pogodb 1,7 TW oziroma 1,3 TW, s 3-odstotnim oziroma 5-odstotnim tržnim deležem leta 2009 [7] ter 1,9-odstotnim oziroma 4,1-odstotnim tržnim deležem leta 2011 [8].
Difference Observed price – ((Predicted price + MUD) – 5 %)
Podjetji Termoelectrica in Electrocentrale Deva sta prodajali električno energijo, proizvedeno iz dragega nekonkurenčnega domačega premoga [9].
In conclusion, the econometric analysis indicates contract prices for Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva above market prices.
Skupna neto proizvodnja električne energije je leta 2011 znašala 60,38 TWh.
However, given the wide interval of uncertainty which is not captured by the model, the conclusion of the econometric analysis needs to be complemented with additional economic information on market-conformity of Hidroelectrica's behaviour and/or other contract data.
Proizvodno mešanico sestavljajo pretežno hidroelektrarne (približno 28 % skupne proizvodnje), jedrske elektrarne (približno 18 %) in elektrarne na fosilna goriva (približno 51 %) [11].
The variables contract duration and buyer off-take profile defined in the dataset are not included since they are not statistically significant.
Romunski trg je povezan predvsem z Bolgarijo, kjer je neto prenosna zmogljivost v letih 2009–2010 znašala 400 MW, in Madžarsko, kjer je neto prenosna zmogljivost v letih 2009–2010 znašala 500–800 MW.
A preliminary treatment of the data discarded three annual data on contracts corresponding to the intra-group sales of ALRO from 2009 to 2011, as they are likely to reflect different market conditions than those prevailing in bilateral contract negotiations between a supplier and an independent buyer, which is the focus in this case.
Neto zmogljivost medsebojnih povezav s tema dvema državama članicama v tem obdobju ni bila v celoti uporabljena zaradi zasedenosti.
The regression is made on 137 observations of individual contract data in the period 2009-2011.
Romunski organi so predložili 75 zbirk letnih podatkov iz pogodb, ki so veljale eno ali več let v zadevnem obdobju 2009–2011.
The initial MUD for year 2011 corresponds to intra-group sales of OMV Petrom.
Komisija razume, da so romunski organi predložili ustrezne podatke v zvezi z vsemi pogodbami, ki so izpolnjevale merila, ki jih zahtevala Komisija (primerljiva obdobja in količine) za zadevno obdobje 2009–2011.
The Commission requested further information from the Romanian Authorities by letters dated 29 July and 11 September 2013, 3 March, 6 August and 25 September 2014 and 19 January 2015.
CEH je prevzel vse pravice in obveznosti podjetij Electrocentrale Paroseni in Electrocentrale Deva.
Hidroelectrica is governed by ordinary company law.
Primerjava je bila narejena za posamezno leto, saj so se prodajne cene po obeh pogodbah, vsako leto dvignile.
Hidroelectrica was placed under insolvency proceedings on 26 June 2012 [5] and exited them on 26 June 2013 [6].
Glede na predložitev informacij s strani Romunije dne 11. septembra 2013 in 20. februarja 2015 se je dobava električne energije ustavila konec leta 2011 v skladu s pogodbama.
On 25 February 2014, Hidroelectrica was again placed under insolvency proceedings.
Zato leta 2012 dobave ni bilo.
The suppliers with which Hidroelectrica entered into the contracts under investigation are Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva, two coal-based electricity producers, fully state-owned, directly or indirectly, with an annual production capacity at the date of signature of the contracts of 1,7 TW and 1,3 TW respectively and market shares of 3 % and 5 % in 2009 [7] and of 1,9 % and 4,1 % in 2011 [8].
Podjetje Termoelectrica je v postopku likvidacije [30] in ima sredstva v tržni vrednosti približno 80 milijonov EUR ter likvidacijski vrednosti približno 60,5 milijonov EUR glede na poročilo z dne 1. oktobra 2013.
Total net electricity generation in Romania amounted to 60,38 TWh in 2011.
Tržna cena
The generation mix consists mainly of hydro (approximately 28 % of total generation), nuclear (approximately 18 %) and fossil-fuel-based (approximately 51 %) power plants [11].
2009-2011
The Commission understands that the Romanian Authorities submitted the relevant data regarding all the contracts fulfilling the criteria required by the Commission (comparable durations and quantities) for the relevant period 2009-2011.
Prodaja drage električne energije
Council Decision (EU) 2015/1878
Sklep Sveta (EU) 2015/1878
authorising the Kingdom of Belgium and the Republic of Poland, respectively, to ratify, and the Republic of Austria to accede to the Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterways (CMNI)
o pooblastilu Kraljevini Belgiji oziroma Republiki Poljski, da ratificira Budimpeštansko konvencijo o pogodbi za prevoz blaga po celinskih plovnih poteh (CMNI), in Republiki Avstriji, da k navedeni konvenciji pristopi
The Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterways (CMNI) (‘the Budapest Convention’ or ‘the Convention’) is a valuable instrument to promote inland navigation across Europe.
Budimpeštanska konvencija o pogodbi za prevoz blaga po celinskih plovnih poteh (CMNI) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Budimpeštanska konvencija ali Konvencija) je dragocen instrument za spodbujanje celinske plovbe po Evropi.
The Union has exclusive external competence in particular with regard to Article 29 of the Budapest Convention in so far as the provisions of that Article affect the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council [1].
Unija ima izključno zunanjo pristojnost, zlasti kar zadeva člen 29 Budimpeštanske konvencije, v kolikor določbe navedenega člena vplivajo na pravila iz Uredbe (ES) št. 593/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [1].
The Budapest Convention is not open for participation by Regional Economic Integration Organisations such as the European Union.
Organizacije regionalnega gospodarskega povezovanja, kakršna je Evropska unija, ne morejo pristopiti k Budimpeštanski konvenciji.
As a result, the Union is not in a position to become a Contracting Party to the Convention.
Unija zato ne more postati pogodbenica Konvencije.
The Member States which have navigable inland waterways falling within the scope of the Budapest Convention should therefore be authorised to ratify or accede to the Convention.
Države članice, ki imajo celinske plovne poti, ki sodijo v področje uporabe Budimpeštanske konvencije, bi bilo zato treba pooblastiti, da Konvencijo ratificirajo ali da k njej pristopijo.
The Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Romania and the Slovak Republic are Contracting Parties to the Budapest Convention.
Kraljevina Belgija, Republika Bolgarija, Češka republika, Zvezna republika Nemčija, Francoska republika, Republika Hrvaška, Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg, Madžarska, Kraljevina Nizozemska, Romunija in Slovaška republika so pogodbenice Budimpeštanske konvencije.
The Kingdom of Belgium ratified the Budapest Convention after the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 by which the Union acquired exclusive external competence.
Kraljevina Belgija je Budimpeštansko konvencijo ratificirala po sprejetju Uredbe (ES) št. 593/2008, s katero je Unija pridobila izključno zunanjo pristojnost.
The Council should therefore ex post authorise the Kingdom of Belgium to ratify the Convention.
Svet bi zato moral Kraljevino Belgijo pooblastiti ex post za ratifikacijo Konvencije.
The Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland, which have navigable inland waterways falling within the scope of the Budapest Convention, have expressed their interest in becoming Contracting Parties to the Convention.
Republika Avstrija in Republika Poljska, ki imata celinske plovne poti, ki sodijo v področje uporabe Budimpeštanske konvencije, sta izrazili zanimanje, da bi postali pogodbenici Konvencije.
The remaining Member States have indicated that they do not have navigable inland waterways falling within the scope of the Budapest Convention and therefore do not have an interest in ratifying or acceding to the Convention.
Preostale države članice so sporočile, da nimajo plovnih celinskih plovnih poti, ki sodijo v področje uporabe Budimpeštanske konvencije, in da zato za ratifikacijo Konvencije ali pristop k njej nimajo interesa.
The Budapest Convention allows Contracting States to make declarations with regard to the scope of application of the Convention.
Budimpeštanska konvencija državam pogodbenicam dopušča, da podajo izjave o področju uporabe Konvencije.
Accordingly, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland should make the declarations allowed under its provisions which they deem appropriate and necessary.
Skladno s tem bi morali Republika Avstrija in Republika Poljska podati izjave, ki se jima zdijo ustrezne in potrebne ter so dopustne v okviru določb Konvencije.
The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.
Uredba (ES) št. 593/2008 zavezuje tudi Združeno Kraljestvo in Irsko, ki zato sodelujeta pri sprejetju in uporabi tega sklepa.
The Council hereby authorises the Kingdom of Belgium and the Republic of Poland, respectively, to ratify, and the Republic of Austria to accede to the Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterways (CMNI).
Svet pooblašča Kraljevino Belgijo oziroma Republiko Poljsko, da ratificira Budimpeštansko konvencijo o pogodbi za prevoz blaga po celinskih plovnih poteh (CMNI), in Republiko Avstrijo, da k navedeni konvenciji pristopi.
The Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland shall make the appropriate declarations allowed under the provisions of the Budapest Convention.
Republika Avstrija in Republika Poljska podata ustrezne izjave, ki so dopustne v okviru določb Budimpeštanske konvencije.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland.
Ta sklep je naslovljen na Kraljevino Belgijo, Republiko Avstrijo in Republiko Poljsko.
Done at Luxembourg, 8 October 2015.
V Luxembourgu, 8. oktobra 2015
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6).
Uredba (ES) št. 593/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. junija 2008 o pravu, ki se uporablja za pogodbena obligacijska razmerja (Rim I) (UL L 177, 4.7.2008, str. 6).
Council Decision (EU) 2015/1889
Sklep Sveta (EU) 2015/1889
on the dissolution of the Europol pension fund
o razpustitvi pokojninskega sklada Europola
Having regard to the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees [1] (the ‘Europol Staff Regulations’), and in particular Article 37(3) of Appendix 6 thereto,
ob upoštevanju Akta Sveta z dne 3. decembra 1998, ki določa kadrovske predpise za zaposlene v Europolu [1] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Kadrovski predpisi Europola), in zlasti člena 37(3) Dodatka 6 k navedenemu aktu,
Having regard to the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting rules on the Europol pension fund, and in particular Article 13 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Akta Sveta z dne 12. marca 1999 o sprejetju pravil o pokojninskem skladu Europola in zlasti člena 13 Akta,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Management Board of Europol after hearing the management board of the Europol pension fund (the ‘fund’),
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je predložil upravni odbor Europola po posvetovanju z upravnim odborom pokojninskega sklada Europola (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklad),
Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) [2] (‘Europol Decision’) replaced, as from the date of its application, namely 1 January 2010, the Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (‘Europol Convention’) [3].
Sklep Sveta 2009/371/PNZ z dne 6. aprila 2009 o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada (Europol) [2] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sklep o Europolu) od začetka svoje uporabe, to je od 1. januarja 2010, nadomešča Akt Sveta z dne 26. julija 1995 o Konvenciji na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada [3] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Konvencija o Europolu).
The Europol Decision provides that all measures implementing the Europol Convention shall be repealed with effect from 1 January 2010, unless otherwise provided in the Europol Decision.
Sklep o Europolu določa, da se vsi ukrepi za izvajanje Konvencije o Europolu razveljavijo z učinkom od 1. januarja 2010, razen če v Sklepu o Europolu ni določeno drugače.
Article 57(5) of the Europol Decision further provides that the Europol Staff Regulations and other relevant instruments shall continue to apply to staff members who are not recruited under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 [4] (‘Staff Regulations’).
Člen 57(5) Sklepa o Europolu nadalje določa, da se Kadrovski predpisi Europola in drugi ustrezni instrumenti še naprej uporabljajo za člane osebja, ki niso zaposleni na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropske unije in Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropske unije, kot so določeni v Uredbi Sveta (EGS, Euratom, ESPJ) št. 259/68 [4] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Kadrovski predpisi).
The Europol Decision also provides that the Staff Regulations shall apply to the Director, the Deputy Directors and to Europol staff engaged after 1 January 2010.
Sklep o Europolu določa tudi, da se Kadrovski predpisi uporabljajo za direktorja, namestnike direktorja in osebje Europola, zaposlene po 1. januarju 2010.
The Europol Decision further provides that all employment contracts concluded by Europol as established by the Europol Convention and in force on 1 January 2010 shall be honoured until their expiry date and may not be renewed on the basis of the Europol Staff Regulations after the date of application of the Europol Decision.
Sklep o Europolu nadalje določa, da vse pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki jih je sklenil Europol, kot je bil ustanovljen s Konvencijo o Europolu, in ki veljajo 1. januarja 2010, veljajo še naprej do datuma njihovega izteka, vendar jih po datumu začetka uporabe Sklepa o Europolu ni mogoče več podaljšati na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov Europola.