natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When imposing obligations on them, the EEG-Act 2012 does not differentiate on the basis of whether the undertakings are in private or public ownership.
Poleg tega je bila podana trditev, da je prenos dodatne dajatve EEG s sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij na dobavitelje električne energije in nato z dobaviteljev električne energije na odjemalce električne energije stvar presoje sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij oziroma dobaviteljev električne energije, dodatna dajatev pa je zato element politike oblikovanja cen zasebnega podjetja in ne dajatev, ki jo je uvedla država.
As far as public bodies are involved in the process (BNetzA, BAFA, UBA), they allegedly do not control either the collection or the use of the resources, but are limited to a role of supervising the legality and the functioning of the system.
Vendar te trditve ne morejo vplivati na predhodno ugotovitev iz sklepa o začetku postopka.
Secondly, Germany stresses that the level of the EEG-surcharge is not determined by the EEG-Act 2012, nor by a public body.
Obstoj dodatne dajatve, ki jo je uvedla država
The level of the EEG-surcharge is determined by the operation of the market, given that the TSOs first sell the EEG electricity on the spot market and then determine the remaining costs, which need to be covered by the EEG-surcharge.
Glede trditve Nemčije, da se dodatna dajatev EEG nikoli ne vnese v državni proračun ali v okviru tega uporablja, je treba tako kot v uvodni izjavi 100 spomniti, da samo dejstvo, da prednost ni dodeljena neposredno iz državnega proračuna, ne more zadostovati za izključitev možnosti, da gre za državna sredstva, če je država določila ali ustanovila organ za upravljanje sredstev.
Several interested parties have shared Germany's analysis that the EEG-Act 2012 does not constitute State aid.
Nemčija je poudarila, da so plačila dodatne dajatve EEG, ki jih sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij prejmejo od električnih dobaviteljev, zasebne narave, saj sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij na podlagi javnega prava nimajo nobenih pristojnosti ali pooblastil za uveljavljanje zahtevkov za nadomestilo zoper dobavitelje.
In particular, they dispute the Commission's preliminary findings that the EEG-surcharge is administered by private bodies designated by the State.
Kot vsako drugo zasebno podjetje se morajo zanašati na civilna sodišča.
They also contend that BNetzA, rather than exercising control over the revenue stemming from the EEG-surcharge or the level of the surcharge itself, is merely monitoring legality without having any influence on the management of the funds.
Vendar v tej analizi ni upoštevano, da zadevna plačila ne temeljijo na prosto dogovorjenih pogodbah med zadevnimi strankami, ampak na pravnih obveznostih (gesetzliche Schuldverhältnisse), ki jih je uvedla država.
Finally, while the reduction of the EEG-surcharge is based on the EEG-Act 2012 and implemented by the BAFA, this allegedly cannot change the private nature of the funds, since payments occur between private undertakings and at no point leave the private sector, so that the State cannot exercise control over them.
Sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij morajo torej po zakonu od dobaviteljev električne energije izterjati dodatno dajatev EEG.
In addition, it is submitted that the pass-on of the EEG-surcharge from TSOs to electricity suppliers, and subsequently from electricity suppliers to electricity consumers is left to the discretion of the TSOs and electricity suppliers respectively, which makes the surcharge an element of the private undertakings' pricing policy and by no means a State-imposed charge.
Glede tega je ustaljena sodna praksa [57], da so lahko subjekti, določeni za upravljanje pomoči, zasebni ali javni organi.
However, these arguments cannot alter the preliminary conclusion reached in the Opening Decision.
Dejstvo, da so sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij zasebni operaterji, zato samo po sebi ne more izključiti obstoja državnih sredstev.
Existence of a surcharge introduced by the State
Poleg tega je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je „razlikovanje med pomočmi, ki jih dodeli država, in pomočmi, dodeljenimi iz državnih sredstev, namenjeno temu, da se v pojem pomoči ne vključijo le pomoči, ki jih dodeli neposredno država, temveč tudi pomoči javnih ali zasebnih organov, ki jih določi ali ustanovi država“ [58].
Concerning Germany's argument that the EEG-surcharge never enters or transits through the State budget, it is sufficient to recall, as was already done in recital 100, that the mere fact that the advantage is not financed directly from the State budget is not sufficient to exclude that State resources are involved, as long as the State has designated or established a body to administer the funds.
V zadevi Sloman Neptun [59] je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so državna sredstva vključena, ko si zadevni sistem prizadeva, da bi prek svojega namena in splošne strukture ustvaril prednost, ki bi bila dodaten strošek za državo ali zasebne organe, ki jih je določila ali ustanovila država [60].
Germany has stressed that the EEG-surcharge payments which the electricity suppliers have to make to the TSOs are of a private nature, given that the TSOs have no authority or powers stemming from public law to enforce their claim for compensation against the suppliers.
Zato je za vključenost državnih sredstev dovolj, da prednost zmanjša sredstva, do katerih je upravičen zasebni organ.
Rather, like any other private undertaking, they have to rely on the civil courts.
Znižana dodatna dajatev EEG, ki jo morajo plačati energetsko intenzivni uporabniki, ima natanko tak učinek, saj zmanjša znesek, ki jih od energetsko intenzivnih uporabnikov poberejo dobavitelji električne energije.
However, this analysis fails to take into account that the payments in question are not based on freely negotiated contracts between the parties concerned, but on legal obligations (gesetzliche Schuldverhältnisse) which the State has imposed on them.
Dejstvo, da dobaviteljem električne energije dodatne dajatve EEG ni treba prenesti na odjemalce električne energije, ne pomeni, da so pobrani prihodki zasebni, če so dobavitelji električne energije z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012 sami zavezani k plačilu dodatne dajatve sistemskim operaterjem prenosnih omrežij.
The TSOs are therefore bound by law to recover the EEG-surcharge from the electricity suppliers.
Ta obveznost namreč ne temelji na pogodbi, ki bi jo lahko operaterji prosto sklenili, ampak je pravna obveznost (gesetzliches Schuldverhältnis), ki izhaja neposredno iz državne zakonodaje.
In that respect, it is settled case-law [57] that the entities designated to administer the aid can be either public or private bodies.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 100, prvotno zasebna narava sredstev ne preprečuje, da se ta sredstva štejejo za državna sredstva.
Therefore, the fact that the TSOs are private operators cannot as such exclude the existence of State resources.
V nasprotju z zadevo PreussenElektra, v kateri so morali zasebni operaterji za plačilo nakupne cene proizvoda uporabiti lastna sredstva, so bili sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij skupaj določeni za upravljanje dodatne dajatve, ki jo morajo dobavitelji električne energije plačati, ne da bi dobili kaj enakovrednega v zameno.
Moreover, the Court has found that ‘[t]he distinction between aid granted by the State and aid granted through State resources serves to bring within the definition of aid not only aid granted directly by the State, but also aid granted by public or private bodies designated or established by the State’ [58].
Po trditvah Nemčije so nekatera nacionalna sodišča proučila dodatno dajatev EEG in sredstva, ki so bila prek nje zbrana, ter dejansko ugotovila, da jih država ne nadzira.
In Sloman Neptun [59], the Court of Justice found that State resources are involved when the system at issues seeks, through its object and general structure, to create an advantage which would constitute an additional burden for the State or for the private bodies designated or established by the State [60].
V enem primeru, ki ga navaja Nemčija [61], je nacionalno sodišče ugotovilo, da je Nemčija z oblikovanjem samozadostnega sistema za izpolnjevanje cilja v javnem interesu financiranje podpore za energijo iz obnovljivih virov v določeni meri oddala zasebnim operaterjem.
Therefore it is enough for the advantage to reduce the resources a private body is entitled to for State resources to be involved.
Zato je nacionalno sodišče menilo, da dodatna dajatev EEG ni pomenila posebnega prispevka (Sonderabgabe) v smislu nemškega ustavnega prava, saj prihodki od dodatne dajatve EEG niso bili namenjeni v državni proračun, javni organi pa s sredstvi niso mogli razpolagati niti posredno.
The reduced EEG-surcharge to be paid by the EIUs has exactly this effect of reducing the amounts collected from the EIUs by the electricity suppliers.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je bila ugotovitev nacionalnega sodišča omejena na uporabo nacionalnega ustavnega prava, zlasti na razlago pravnega koncepta „posebnega prispevka“.
The fact that electricity suppliers are not obliged to pass on the EEG-surcharge to electricity consumers does not lead to the finding that the collected revenues are private, as long as the electricity suppliers themselves are under an obligation, stemming from the EEG-Act 2012, to pay the surcharge to the TSOs.
Nacionalno sodišče ni obravnavalo vprašanja, ali zakon EEG iz leta 2012 vključuje državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Again, this obligation is not based on a contract into which the operators could enter freely, but is a legal obligation (gesetzliches Schuldverhältnis) stemming directly from the State's legislation.
Med preskusom, ki ga je nacionalno sodišče uporabilo za namene nemškega ustavnega prava, in oceno, ki jo mora Komisija izvesti na podlagi člena 107(1) Pogodbe, morda obstajajo podobnosti, vendar je iz sodne prakse Sodišča razvidno, da ni treba, da so sredstva vključena v državni proračun ali v lasti države, da se štejejo za državna sredstva.
Moreover, as stated in recital 100, the originally private nature of the resources does not prevent them from being regarded as State resources.
Ker so lahko državna sredstva prisotna tudi, kadar je za njihovo upravljanje ustanovljen ali imenovan javni ali zasebni organ, je koncept državnih sredstev širši od preskusa, ki ga je uporabilo nacionalno sodišče na podlagi nemškega ustavnega prava [62].
Unlike in PreussenElektra, where private operators had to use their own resources to pay the purchase price for a product, the TSOs have been collectively designated to administer a surcharge which the electricity suppliers are obliged to pay without receiving anything equivalent in return.
Določitev sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij za upravljanje dodatne dajatve
According to Germany, some national courts have examined the EEG-surcharge and the monies collected through it and have actually concluded that the State has no control over them.
Nemčija nasprotuje ugotovitvi Komisije, da so bili sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij skupaj določeni za upravljanje državnih sredstev.
In one case Germany is referring to [61], the national court noted that by creating a self-sustaining system for the pursuit of a public policy objective, the German State had to a certain extent outsourced the financing of RES support to private operators.
Po mnenju Nemčije država sistemskim operaterjem prenosnih omrežij ni podelila nobenih pooblastil.
For this reason, the national court considered that the EEG-surcharge did not constitute a special contribution (Sonderabgabe) within the meaning of German constitutional law because the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge were not allocated to the State budget and because the public authorities did not have the funds at their disposal, even indirectly.
Namesto tega različni operaterji, zajeti z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, kot vsi operaterji v gospodarstvu le medsebojno poravnavajo zasebne zahtevke na podlagi pravic, ki jih imajo na voljo z zakonom.
The Commission therefore notes that the national court's conclusion was limited to the application of national constitutional law, and in particular to the interpretation of the legal concept of the ‘special contribution’.
Vendar Komisija meni, da zakon EEG iz leta 2012 sistemske operaterje prenosnih omrežij jasno pooblašča za izvajanje več obveznosti in nalog spremljanja v zvezi s sistemom EEG, zaradi česar so najpomembnejša točka delovanja sistema (glej uvodno izjavo 106).
The national court did not address the question whether the EEG-Act 2012 involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Vsak od štirih nemških sistemskih operaterjev prenosnega sistema za svoje omrežje centralizira vso električno energijo EEG in vse stroške zaradi nabave električne energije in plačila tržnih premij ter stroške zaradi upravljanja dodatne dajatve EEG.
While there may be similarities between the test applied by the national court for the purposes of German constitutional law and the assessment which the Commission has to carry out under Article 107(1) of the Treaty, it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that resources do not need to flow into the State budget or be the property of the State to be considered State resources.
Vsak posebej centralizira tudi prihodke od dodatne dajatve EEG za svoje omrežje.
Given that State resources can also be present when a public or private body has been established or appointed to administer them, the concept of State resources is wider than the test applied by the national court under German constitutional law [62].
Zato je jasno, da ne gre le za medsebojno poravnavo zasebnih zahtevkov med sistemskimi operaterji prenosnih omrežij, ampak za izvajanje njihovih pravnih obveznosti na podlagi zakona EEG iz leta 2012.
Designation of the TSOs to administer the surcharge
Spremljanje, ki ga izvaja država, zlasti agencija BNetzA
Germany disputes the Commission's finding that the TSOs have been collectively designated to administer a State resource.
Nemčija in zainteresirane strani nadalje trdijo, da so naloge javnih organov, zlasti agencije BNetzA in organa BAFA, preveč omejene, da bi lahko ti organi v večji meri nadzorovali dodatno dajatev EEG.
According to Germany, the TSOs are not subject to any entrustment by the State.
Agencija BNetzA in organ BAFA le nadzorujeta zakonitost ukrepov zadevnih zasebnih operaterjev in po potrebi naložita upravne sankcije (agencija BNetzA) ali preverita upravičenost energetsko intenzivnega uporabnika do znižane dodatne dajatve (organ BAFA).
Rather the different operators that are covered by the EEG-Act 2012, like all operators in the economy, merely settle private claims amongst themselves arising from the rights offered to them by law.
Ne moreta vplivati na finančne tokove in ne odločata o stopnji dodatne dajatve EEG.
However, the Commission considers that the EEG-Act 2012 clearly entrusts TSOs with a series of obligations and monitoring tasks in relation to the EEG system making them the central point in the functioning of the system (see recital 106).
Po mnenju Nemčije sta dejstvo, da zakon EEG iz leta 2012 določa način izračuna dodatne dajatve in zahteve glede preglednosti, in nadzor, ki ga izvaja agencija BNetzA, namenjena le preprečevanju neupravičenega bogatenja katerega od zasebnih operaterjev v plačilni verigi.
Each of the four German TSOs centralises, for its own area, all the EEG electricity and all the costs resulting from the acquisition of EEG electricity and the payment of market premiums, and the costs resulting from the administration of the EEG-surcharge.
Vendar morajo to uveljavljati zasebni operaterji z začetkom postopka pred civilnimi sodišči.
They also centralise each the proceeds of the EEG-surcharge for their area.
V nasprotju s trditvami Nemčije in zainteresiranih strani organ BAFA po prejemu vloge od morebitnih upravičencev pri ugotavljanju pravice do omejene dodatne dajatve EEG za energetsko intenzivne uporabnike izda upravno odločbo.
Therefore, it is clear that the TSOs do not just settle private claims between themselves, but are implementing their legal obligations under the EEG-Act 2012.
Navedena odločba se lahko izpodbija le pred nemškimi upravnimi sodišči in ne pred civilnimi sodišči, uporablja pa se neposredno.
Monitoring by the State, notably the BNetzA
Poleg tega ima agencija BNetzA na podlagi zakona EnWG pomembna pooblastila, na podlagi katerih lahko izreče globo vsem operaterjem v sistemu in izvršuje skladnost z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012.
Germany and interested parties further contend that the attributions of the public authorities, notably the BNetzA and the BAFA, are too limited to give them any significant measure of control over the EEG-surcharge.
Sodišče je nedavno v zadevi Elcogás potrdilo, da so državna sredstva prisotna, tudi če državni organ, ki je pooblaščen za razdeljevanje zbranih zneskov, v zvezi s tem nima diskrecijske pravice [63].
The BNetzA and the BAFA only supervise the legality of actions of the private operators involved and if necessary impose administrative sanctions (BNetzA), or ascertain an EIU's right to benefit from a reduced surcharge (BAFA).
Natančneje, Nemčija in zainteresirane strani v nasprotju z mnenjem Komisije v uvodni izjavi 134 sklepa o začetku postopka trdijo, da agencija BNetzA ne more določiti stopnje dodatne dajatve EEG.
They cannot influence the financial flows and they do not decide the level of the EEG-surcharge.
Kot pa je bilo že ugotovljeno v uvodni izjavi 43, je iz člena 6(3) izvedbene uredbe AusglMechAV razvidno, da agencija BNetzA lahko sprejema izvršljive odločitve za popravek stopnje dodatne dajatve.
Contrary to the assertions of Germany and the interested parties, the BAFA issues an administrative decision when establishing the entitlements to a capped EEG-surcharge for EIUs following the application from the potential beneficiaries.
Ugotovitev o državnem nadzoru na splošno
That decision can only be challenged before German administrative courts and not before civil courts, and is self-executing.
Nemčija in več zainteresiranih strani so Komisiji očitale, da naj bi neupravičeno proučila različne korake in razmerja v sistemu EEG kot celoti, da bi lahko trdila, da je sistem pod državnim nadzorom.
Furthermore, the BNetzA has important enforcement powers under the EnWG, which it can use to fine all operators involved in the system and enforce compliance with the EEG-Act 2012.
Trdijo, da bi Komisija, če bi korake proučila ločeno in se osredotočila le na en sklop razmerij hkrati (proizvajalec električne energije – sistemski operater distribucijskega/prenosnega omrežja; sistemski operater prenosnega omrežja – agencija BNetzA; sistemski operater prenosnega omrežja – dobavitelj; dobavitelj – odjemalec), morala ugotoviti, da država nadzora ne izvaja.
Moreover, the Court of Justice recently confirmed in Elcogás that State resources are involved even when the State body that was entrusted with the distribution of the collected amounts, does not enjoy discretion in this regard [63].
Vloga organa BAFA naj bi bila omejena na ocenjevanje upravičenosti, pri tem pa nima diskrecijske pravice.
More specifically, contrary to what the Commission held in recital 134 of the Opening Decision, Germany and interested parties argue that the BNetzA cannot set the level of the EEG-surcharge.
Zakon EEG iz leta 2012 ter pooblastila in ukrepi agencije BNetzA, organa BAFA, agencije UBA in zveznega urada Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung so medsebojno tako tesno povezani in soodvisni, da jih je mogoče obravnavati kot neločljive.
However, as was already established in recital 43, § 6(3) AusglMechAV shows that the BNetzA can take enforceable decisions to correct the level of the surcharge.
Nemčija trdi tudi, da je Komisija zaradi načina upravljanja presežkov in primanjkljajev na računu za EEG glede državnega nadzora napačno sklepala.
Moreover, the extent to which the BNetzA has exercised its powers is irrelevant as long as it had them.
Nemčija ugotavlja, da ni povezave med računom za EEG in državnim proračunom.
The BNetzA may simply not have considered it necessary to take any enforceable decisions.
Država ne plača nadomestila za primanjkljaj na računu za EEG, poleg tega pa tako kot v zadevi Essent presežki niso namenjeni v državni proračun.
The finding of State control in general
Na podlagi primanjkljajev in presežkov se določi stopnja dodatne dajatve EEG za naslednje leto.
Germany and several interested parties have criticised the Commission for allegedly unduly considering the different steps and relationships in the EEG-system as a whole in order to argue that the system was under State control.
Torej jih medsebojno izravnajo zadevni zasebni operaterji.
They claim that, had the Commission examined the steps separately and focused only on one set of relationships at a time (EEG electricity producer — DSO/TSO; TSO — BNetzA; TSO — supplier; supplier — consumer), the Commission would have had to conclude that there was no State control.
Država glede tega ne odloča.
Allegedly, the BAFA's role is limited to assessing eligibility, and the BAFA has no ability to exercise discretion in this.
Vendar Komisija meni, da državni nadzor sredstev ne pomeni, da morajo potekati prilivi in odlivi, ki vključujejo zadevna sredstva, v proračun in iz njega [66].
To the contrary, it is Germany and the interested parties which err by assuming a too fragmented view of the financing system set up by the EEG-Act 2012.
Da bi lahko država nadzorovala sredstva, je dovolj, da v celoti odloča, kaj naj bi se zgodilo s primanjkljajem ali presežkom na računu za EEG.
In Bouygues, the Court held: ‘As State interventions take various forms and have to be assessed in relation to their effects, it cannot be excluded […] that several consecutive measures of State intervention must, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, be regarded as a single intervention.’ [64].
Odločilen element je, da je država oblikovala sistem, v katerem upravljavci omrežij z dodatno dajatvijo EEG prejmejo nadomestilo za vse nastale stroške, dobavitelji električne energije pa lahko dodatno dajatev prenesejo na odjemalce.
The Court went on to state that this ‘could be the case in particular where consecutive interventions, especially having regard to their chronology, their purpose and the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of those interventions, are so closely linked to each other that they are inseparable from one another’ [65].
Nemčija poudarja tudi, da urejanje prilivov in odlivov zasebnega denarja ter nadzor nad njimi sama po sebi ne moreta pomeniti državne pomoči.
This is exactly the situation of the EEG-system.
Nemčija sistem, vzpostavljen z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, primerja z drugimi področji gospodarske ureditve, kot so varstvo potrošnikov v bančništvu, obveznost voznikov glede sklenitve avtomobilskega zavarovanja ali urejanje cen na področju telekomunikacij in zdravja.
The EEG-Act 2012, and the powers and actions of BNetzA, BAFA, UBA and Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung are so very closely interlinked and dependant on each other that they can only be viewed as inseparable.
Trdi, da urejanje zasebne gospodarske dejavnosti kot take samo po sebi ne vključuje državnega nadzora.
Germany also contends that the Commission has wrongly inferred State control from the way surpluses and deficits are managed in the EEG account.
Po mnenju Nemčije agencija BNetzA le zagotavlja varstvo potrošnikov.
First, Germany notes that there is no connection between the EEG account and the State budget: the State does not compensate for a deficit in the EEG account, nor — as was the case in Essent — are any surpluses allocated to the State budget.
Vendar obstaja bistvena razlika med področji, na katerih država zagotavlja le okvir za varstvo potrošnikov, in zadevnim primerom.
In fact, both deficits and surpluses determine the level of the EEG-surcharge in the following year.
V tem primeru je država sprejela ločen del zakonodaje, tj. zakon EEG iz leta 2012, njegov glavni namen pa ni varstvo potrošnikov.