natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The complainant refers here to Annex 6 to Germany’s submission of 30 January 2009, containing an article from the online news source ‘Das Papier 2004-T174’ [23].
Pritožnik se strinja s stališčem, ki ga je Komisija navedla v sklepu o začetku postopka, tj. da ni verjetno, da lahko uporaba referenčnih cen izključi obstoj pomoči.
According to the complainant, the study covers only seven anonymous paper mills, and it is unclear whether they operate their own waste water treatment plant or are connected to the municipal system, and whether the costs considered include operational costs only (excluding capital or other non-operational costs).
Primerjava le papirnic, ki uporabljajo občinske kanalizacijske sisteme, ne bi bila reprezentativna, ker ima večina papirnic lastno čistilno napravo odpadnih voda.
If the study compares only paper mills using their own waste water treatment facilities, capital costs should be included.
Pritožnik navaja, da je Nemčija predložila le zelo selektivne informacije o komunalnih pristojbinah, ki jih plačujejo druge papirnice (študija, primerjava s tarifami Spreetal/Schwarze Pumpe in stara odločba iz leta 1990), in da ti primeri ne tvorijo podlage za določitev referenčne cene, med drugim tudi zato, ker so te pristojbine odvisne od subvencij in investicijskih stroškov, zakonodaja pa se lahko med regijami razlikuje.
Germany maintains its view that any State aid advantage resulting from the fees charged for the use of the TAZV plant would not constitute State aid as, in Germany’s view, the Commission’s decision in case N 644e/02 also covers indirect effects of the Gemeinschaftsaufgabe scheme, i.e. the fees).
Pritožnik razmere primerja z lastnim obratom, ki uporablja občinski kanalizacijski sistem v [zaupne informacije].
Germany further argues that the measure, which was considered in case N 644e/02 not to constitute State aid, could not become State aid at the level of the user.
Po njegovih izračunih bi moralo podjetje Propapier ob upoštevanju gradbene investicije v višini 42 milijonov EUR (kot v mestu Eisenhüttenstadt) plačevati 4 EUR na kubični meter, kar je precej več, kot plačuje zdaj.
According to Germany, the Commission changed its approach regarding the issue of whether or not aid to an infrastructure operator can be passed on to the user of an infrastructure only after the General Court ruled on the Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH case [24].
Ni jasno, ali imajo svojo čistilno napravo odpadnih voda ali pa so povezane z občinskim sistemom.
Germany admits that the decision in case N 644e/02 had expired when the support was granted to TAZV.
Prav tako ni znano, ali upoštevani stroški zajemajo le stroške obratovanja (brez kapitalskih stroškov ali drugih stroškov, ki niso povezani z obratovanjem).
However, it points out that the relevant legal provision on which the decision in case N 644e/02 was based was identical to the one on the basis of which the measure for TAZV was granted.
Če študija primerja le papirnice, ki imajo svojo čistilno napravo odpadnih voda, je treba upoštevati tudi kapitalske stroške.
The legal basis has merely been updated, but its content has remained unchanged.
Nemčija vztraja pri svojem stališču, da morebitna prednost, ki bi izhajala iz pristojbin, zaračunanih za uporabo čistilne naprave TAZV, ne bi pomenila državne pomoči, saj po mnenju Nemčije odločba Komisije v zadevi N 644e/02 zajema tudi posredne učinke sheme Gemeinschaftsaufgabe, tj. pristojbine.
Therefore, Germany argues, the mere updating of a legal basis does not automatically lead to qualification as State aid.
Nemčija nadalje navaja, da ukrep, za katerega je bilo v zadevi N 644e/02 ugotovljeno, da ni državna pomoč, ne more postati državna pomoč na ravni uporabnika.
Germany emphasises that the cost calculation is transparent and defined by law.
Po navedbah Nemčije je Komisija spremenila pristop v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali je pomoč za upravljavca infrastrukture mogoče prenesti na uporabnika infrastrukture, šele po sodbi Splošnega sodišča v zadevi Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH [24].
No economic advantage for Propapier
Nemčija priznava, da je odločba v zadevi N 644e/02 potekla, ko je bila TAZV odobrena pomoč.
Germany explains its views on the three possibilities for calculating the fee for a company using waste water treatment services (recital 68 of the opening decision): full cost method, private investor price, benchmark price.
Vendar poudarja, da je predpis, na katerem je temeljila odločba v zadevi N 644e/02, enak predpisu, na podlagi katerega je bil odobren ukrep za TAZV.
Applying the full cost method, there is no advantage
Pravna podlaga je bila zgolj posodobljena, vsebina pa je ostala enaka.
Germany disagrees that the fee paid by Propapier does not cover the full cost.
Zato Nemčija trdi, da zgolj posodobitev pravne podlage ne pomeni samodejno obstoja državne pomoči.
The cost calculation is prescribed by law (according to which it should in principle cover the costs, except that subsidies from third parties are not taken into account for the calculation of imputed interest [25]).
Nemčija poudarja, da je izračun stroškov pregleden in določen z zakonom.
The law lays down that costs should be covered but must not be exceeded.
Brez gospodarske prednosti za podjetje Propapier
All costs incurred by TAZV are covered, including interest on the TAZV part of the capital invested.
Nemčija pojasnjuje svoja stališča o treh možnostih izračuna pristojbine za podjetje, ki uporablja storitve čiščenja odpadnih voda (uvodna izjava 68 sklepa o začetku postopka): metoda vseh stroškov, cena zasebnega vlagatelja in referenčna cena.
Calculation of fictitious interest on subsidies from the Land would not be justified because TAZV did not incur such costs.
Uporaba metode vseh stroškov, ni prednosti
Whether the fee would have been higher without the subsidies from the Gemeinschaftsausgabe scheme for the construction of the waste water treatment plant depends on many factors, such as the availability of other financing, among other things.
Izračun stroškov je določen z zakonom (v skladu s katerim morajo biti stroški načeloma kriti, vendar se subvencije tretjih strani ne upoštevajo pri izračunu pripisanih obresti [25]).
Neither the ‘polluter pays’ principle nor the EU Water Framework Directive obliges the authorities to include subsidies in the calculation of interest on capital invested.
Zakon določa, da morajo biti stroški kriti, ne pa tudi preseženi.
The EU Water Framework Directive stipulates that costs of the water services should be recovered, but gives the Member States leeway regarding the manner of implementation.
Vsi stroški TAZV so kriti, vključno z obrestmi na del TAZV vloženega kapitala.
In the present case all costs of TAZV (the water service) are covered.
Izračun fiktivnih obresti na subvencije zvezne dežele ne bi bil upravičen, ker TAZV ni utrpel takih stroškov.
The polluter pays principle is not absolute but has to be ‘taken into account’.
Podjetje Propapier nima selektivne prednosti, saj so pristojbine enake za vse uporabnike nove čistilne naprave.
In the present case, it is taken into account through the calculation of all TAZV costs.
Od veliko dejavnikov je odvisno, ali bi bila pristojbina višja brez subvencij iz sheme Gemeinschaftsausgabe za izgradnjo čistilne naprave odpadnih voda, med drugim tudi od razpoložljivosti drugega financiranja.
The EU Water Framework Directive refers to an ‘adequate’ contribution.
Organov k vključitvi subvencij v izračun obresti na vloženi kapital ne obvezujeta niti načelo „plača povzročitelj obremenitve“ niti okvirna direktiva EU o vodah.
Germany notes that, compared with other regions in Germany or the European Union, the fee for Propapier is relatively high.
Načelo „plača povzročitelj obremenitve“ ni absolutno, vendar ga je treba upoštevati.
Germany further notes that the EU Water Framework Directive also states that Member States may have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of covering costs as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the regions affected.
V zadevnem primeru je načelo upoštevano v izračunu vseh stroškov TAZV.
Germany claims that comparison with the Kimberly-Clark or InfraLeuna cases (see also recital 70 of the opening decision) is not appropriate.
Okvirna direktiva EU o vodah omenja „ustrezen“ prispevek.
The Kimberly-Clark case concerned a preferential tariff for one company, which gave rise to the suspicion that not all costs were covered.
Nemčija navaja, da je v primerjavi z drugimi regijami v Nemčiji in Evropski uniji pristojbina za podjetje Propapier precej visoka.
In the present case, all costs are covered and tariff conditions are the same for all users.
Nadalje navaja, da okvirna direktiva EU o vodah tudi določa, da lahko države članice upoštevajo družbene, okoljske in gospodarske učinke povračil ter geografske in podnebne razmere prizadetih regij.
In the Kimberly-Clark case an industrial zone was being developed for the specific needs of one company, while in the present case the industrial area is being developed for several settlers.
Po mnenju Nemčije primerjava z zadevama Kimberly-Clark in InfraLeuna (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 70 sklepa o začetku postopka) ni primerna.
The InfraLeuna decision concerns the price setting of private companies for the use of private infrastructure, while the present case relates to the use of municipal infrastructure and non-market-related fees which are prescribed by law.
Zadeva Kimberly-Clark se je nanašala na preferencialno tarifo za eno podjetje, kar je vzbudilo sum, da niso bili kriti vsi stroški.
In the present case, the users bear all the costs which a waste water service company would normally have to bear.
V zadevnem primeru pa so kriti vsi stroški, tarifni pogoji pa so enaki za vse uporabnike.
In a non-liberalised waste water treatment market, the cost items to be taken into account are the same for all companies and are prescribed by law (the Brandenburg KAG).
V zadevi Kimberly-Clark so industrijsko cono razvijali za posebne potrebe enega podjetja, v zadevnem primeru pa je bilo industrijsko območje razvito za več uporabnikov.
The Wagner and Weida Leder decisions cited in the opening decision (recital 71 and footnote 19) concern subsidies for the construction of private waste water treatment plants.
Odločba v zadevi InfraLeuna zadeva oblikovanje cene zasebnih podjetij za uporabo zasebne infrastrukture, v zadevnem primeru pa gre za uporabo občinske infrastrukture in pristojbine, ki niso povezane s trgom, saj jih predpisuje zakon.
In the present case, however, Propapier does not receive subsidies for voluntary private investments, but it pays user fees which are imposed on it by law.
V zadevnem primeru uporabniki krijejo vse stroške, ki bi jih drugače krilo podjetje za ravnanje z odpadno vodo.
The private investor test is not applicable
Na neliberaliziranem trgu čiščenja odpadnih voda so postavke stroškov, ki jih je treba upoštevati, enake za vsa podjetja in določene z zakonom (KAG Brandenburg).
Germany considers that water is not a normal commercial product.
Odločbi v zadevah Wagner in Weida Leder, navedeni v sklepu o začetku postopka (uvodna izjava 71 in opomba 19), zadevata subvencije za izgradnjo zasebnih čistilnih naprav odpadnih voda.
The waste water treatment sector in Germany is organised as a regional monopoly of public municipal bodies.
V zadevnem primeru pa podjetje Propapier ne prejema subvencij za prostovoljne zasebne naložbe, temveč plačuje pristojbine za uporabo, predpisane z zakonom.
TAZV acts as a public authority and not as an undertaking whose conduct can be analysed applying the market investor test.
Nemčija meni, da voda ni običajen tržni proizvod.
In Germany, there is an obligation to connect and use.
Sektor čiščenja odpadnih voda je v Nemčiji organiziran kot regionalni monopol javnih občinskih organov.
Users cannot opt for a service provider other than the municipal body.
Čiščenje odpadnih voda zato v Nemčiji ni gospodarska dejavnost, temveč obvezna dejavnost, ki jo morajo izvajati občine.
The fees are prescribed by law and decided by the authorities.
TAZV deluje kot javni organ in ne kot podjetje, katerega ravnanje bi bilo mogoče preveriti s preizkusom zasebnega vlagatelja.
The fees cannot exceed costs.
V Nemčiji obstaja obveznost povezave in uporabe.
The waste water treatment sector in Germany is accessible to private enterprises only to a limited degree.
Uporabniki ne morejo izbrati nobenega drugega ponudnika storitev kot občinsko podjetje.
They can act only as manager, operator or concessionaire of a waste water treatment plant in the technical fulfilment of the legal provisions.
Sektor čiščenja odpadnih voda je v Nemčiji za zasebna podjetja odprt le v omejenem obsegu.
Responsibility for the task remains, however, with the municipality and the municipality is not legally obliged to put the contract out to tender.
Zasebna podjetja lahko delujejo le kot poslovodje, upravljavci ali koncesionarji čistilne naprave odpadnih voda, in sicer s tehničnim izpolnjevanjem predpisov.
Besides, private companies can execute technical tasks (or, in exceptional cases, charge fees), but the fees cannot exceed their costs in this case either.
Vendar občina ostaja odgovorna za to storitev, občine pa zakon ne obvezuje k izvedbi javnega razpisa za pogodbo.
TAZV has not transferred any technical tasks to third parties.
Poleg tega lahko zasebna podjetja izvajajo tehnične naloge (ali v izjemnih primerih zaračunavajo pristojbine), vendar tudi v tem primeru pristojbine ne smejo presegati stroškov.
As the fees are prescribed by law and cannot exceed the costs of the infrastructure, there is no market in which waste water fees can be set by private companies with a view to profit-making.
TAZV tehničnih nalog ni prenesel na nobeno tretjo stran.
There is no competition between private companies or between private and public companies to have more users.
Ker so pristojbine določene z zakonom in ne smejo presegati stroškov infrastrukture, ni trga, na katerem bi pristojbine za čiščenje odpadnih voda lahko določala zasebna podjetja z namenom ustvarjanja dobička.
Germany is of the opinion that in such a case it is not possible to compare the operator’s conduct with the conduct of a private investor.
Med zasebnimi podjetji ali zasebnimi in javnimi podjetji ni boja za uporabnike.
The private investor test is therefore not applicable.
Nemčija meni, da v takem primeru ravnanja upravljavca ni mogoče primerjati z ravnanjem zasebnega vlagatelja.
Because of the obligation to connect to the waste water treatment plant, there is no competition and to that extent no market price either that could be used as a benchmark for assessing advantage under the State aid rules.
Preizkus zasebnega vlagatelja torej ne velja.
Germany rejects the complainant’s statement that only a few paper mills use municipal waste water sewage systems and that therefore it would not be representative for the sector to only use data from those paper mills as a benchmark.
Zaradi obveznosti povezave s čistilno napravo odpadnih voda ni konkurence, prav tako pa tudi ni tržne cene, ki bi jo bilo mogoče uporabiti kot referenco za ocenjevanje prednosti na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
In its comments, Germany made the correction that Propapier does not pay a fee of EUR 0,95/m3 (as stated in recitals 72 and 80 of the opening decision), but since 2010 a fee of EUR 1,18/m3.
Nemčija zavrača navedbo pritožnika, da občinske kanalizacijske sisteme uporablja le nekaj papirnic in da zato za sektor ne bi bilo reprezentativno, če bi se za referenco uporabili le podatki teh papirnic.
Compared with other locations in the European Union, this is high or at least not unusual.
Nemčija je v svojih pripombah predložila popravek, da podjetje Propapier ne plačuje pristojbine v višini 0,95 EUR na kubični meter (kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 72 in 80 sklepa o začetku postopka), temveč od leta 2010 plačuje pristojbino v višini 1,18 EUR na kubični meter.
According to a survey by the German association of paper producers, undertaken among 77 German paper companies, representing 68 % of the sector, the average fee for the year 2007 was EUR 1,12/m3 (varying between EUR 0,31/m3 and 2,20/m3).
V primerjavi z drugimi lokacijami v Evropski uniji je ta pristojbina visoka ali vsaj ne nenavadna.
The fee paid by Propapier is within the spread and above the average of that sample.
Raziskava, ki jo je nemško združenje proizvajalcev papirja izvedlo med 77 nemškimi papirnicami, ki pomenijo 68 % sektorja, je v povprečju pristojbina leta 2007 znašala 1,12 EUR na kubični meter (med 0,31 in 2,20 EUR na kubični meter).
In later submissions, Germany informed the Commission that the fee was increased in 2012 to EUR 1,41/m3, in order to cover losses in the start-up years of the waste water treatment plant.
Pristojbina, ki jo plačuje podjetje Propapier, je v tem razponu in višja od povprečja tega vzorca.
As there had been some savings related to energy costs, and in line with the legal obligation that the fees have to cover but must not exceed the costs, since the beginning of 2013 the fee had been set at EUR 1,39/m3.
V poznejših pripombah je Nemčija Komisijo obvestila, da se je leta 2012 pristojbina zvišala na 1,41 EUR na kubični meter, da bi se pokrile izgube iz začetnega obdobja delovanja čistilne naprave odpadnih voda.
In addition, Propapier has to pretreat the waste water before conducting it into the TAZV plant.
Pristojbina od začetka leta 2013 znaša 1,39 EUR na kubični meter, ker so v zvezi s stroški energije obstajali prihranki in ker morajo po zakonu pristojbine kriti stroške, ne smejo pa jih presegati.
The costs for the pre-treatment amount to approximately EUR (…)/m3, which brings the total cost for waste water treatment for Propapier to EUR (…)/m3, compared with an average cost in the sector (in 2010) of EUR 1,27/m3.
Poleg tega mora podjetje Propapier odpadno vodo predhodno obdelati, preden jo odvede do čistilne naprave TAZV.
Germany claims that comparison with fees paid by other paper producers in the European Union is the correct benchmark for verifying whether there is an economic advantage, and that the Commission’s doubts that such a comparison would not be correct are unfounded.
Stroški predhodne obdelave znašajo približno […] EUR na kubični meter, kar pomeni, da skupni stroški čiščenja odpadnih voda za podjetje Propapier znašajo […] EUR na kubični meter, v sektorju pa povprečni stroški znašajo 1,27 EUR na kubični meter (podatek za leto 2010).
Germany indicates that the examples it communicated to the Commission are average prices based on full cost values.
Nemčija trdi, da je primerjava s pristojbinami, ki jih plačujejo drugi proizvajalci papirja v Evropski uniji, prava referenca za preverjanje obstoja gospodarske prednosti, ter navaja, da so dvomi Komisije o neprimernosti take primerjave neutemeljeni.
It claims that it had no reason to believe that these fees contained State aid.
Nemčija navaja, da so primeri, ki jih je sporočila Komisiji, povprečne cene, ki temeljijo na vrednostih vseh stroškov.
Germany argues that the example of Lenzing Lyocell [26] is valid, even if related to 10 years ago (Propapier pays more than double the fee but the fees have not risen by more than 100 % in the last 10 years).
Trdi, da ni bilo razloga za predpostavko, da so pristojbine državna pomoč.
Existing aid
Nemčija trdi, da je primer Lenzing Lyocell [26] veljaven, čeprav se nanaša na čas pred desetimi leti (pristojbina podjetja Propapier znaša več kot dvakrat več, vendar se pristojbine v zadnjem desetletju niso zvišale za več kot 100 %).
Germany advances two arguments in support of its view that the fees, if they constitute aid, would constitute existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Obstoječa pomoč
The Commission based this assessment on the fact that the ‘Zweckverband’ was subject to oversight by the municipality, and that it was carrying out a public service.
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da je Komisija leta 2003 v svoji odločbi v zadevi N 644e/02 sklenila, da shema Gemeinschaftsausgabe ne pomeni državne pomoči za upravljavce čistilnih naprav odpadnih voda, če so ustanovljeni – kot je to pri TAZV ‒ v obliki „Zweckverband“ (medobčinsko združenje javnega prava za posebne namene).
However, as the Commission itself pointed out in recital 57 of the opening decision, even if the scheme should have been seen in the meantime as aid due to the evolution of the internal market, it would be existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Komisija je to oceno utemeljila na dejstvu, da je „Zweckverband“ pod nadzorom občine in da opravlja javno storitev.
As explained in recital 100 of the present Decision, according to Germany, the decision in case N 644e/02 also covers indirect effects of the Gemeinschaftsaufgabe scheme, i.e. the fees.
Če pa bi shema zaradi razvoja notranjega trga medtem obveljala kot pomoč, bi to bila, kot je Komisija sama poudarila v uvodni izjavi 57 sklepa o začetku postopka, obstoječa pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
The fees never required separate notification, as the regulation relating to the fee calculation constitutes implementation of the scheme.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 100 tega sklepa, po besedah Nemčije odločba v zadevi N 644e/02 zajema tudi posredne učinke sheme Gemeinschaftsaufgabe, tj. pristojbine.
With reference to the line of argument that the fees constitute existing aid, Germany states that the fees constitute aid that existed before the entry into force of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on 1 January 1958.
Pristojbin ni bilo treba ločeno priglasiti, saj uredba v zvezi z izračunom pristojbin predstavlja izvedbo sheme.
Aid that existed before the entry into force of that Treaty also remains existing aid in the event of subsequent modifications, as long as the actual substance of the original aid scheme is not altered [27].
Pojasnila splošnih predpisov, veljavnih pred 1. januarjem 1958, ne pomenijo nove pomoči, ki bi jo bilo treba priglasiti Komisiji [28].
Clarifications of general specifications applicable before 1 January 1958 do not constitute new aid that should be notified to the Commission [28].
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da so občinski zakoni o pristojbinah obstajali že pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe EGS leta 1958 in veljajo vse od takrat.
Germany explains that municipal charges laws already existed prior to the entry into force of the EEC Treaty in 1958 and continued to be applicable thereafter.
Člen 6(2) sedanjega zakona KAG Brandenburg zaradi dejstva, da se Brandenburg nahaja v delu ozemlja nekdanjega pruskega kraljestva, izhaja iz zakona o občinskih dajatvah pruskega kraljestva z dne 14. julija 1893 (PrKAG) in bavarskega zakona o občinskih dajatvah (BayGAG).
§6(2) of the current KAG Brandenburg dates back, due to the fact that Brandenburg is situated in a part of the territory of the former Kingdom of Prussia, to the municipal charges law for the Kingdom of Prussia of 14 July 1893 (PrKAG) and the municipal charges law for Bavaria (BayGAG).
Nemčija je ta argument utemeljila na naslednjih podargumentih:
Germany based this argument on the following sub-arguments:
Ta zakona sta veljala med letoma 1919 in 1933 ter med letoma 1933 in 1945.
These laws continued to be in force between 1919 and 1933 and from 1933 to 1945.
Današnji zakoni o občinskih dajatvah starih nemških zveznih dežel segajo vse do zakona PrKAG.
Today’s Municipal Charges Acts of the old German Länder date back to the PrKAG.
Med zakonoma KAG Brandenburg in PrKAG obstaja zgodovinska kontinuiteta ne glede na posebni položaj novih dežel zaradi delitve Nemčije.
There is historical continuity between the KAG Brandenburg and the PrKAG, regardless of the special position of the new states due to the division of Germany.
Podargument (a):
Sub-argument (a):
Zakon PrKAG je že vseboval možnost, da občine zaračunajo pristojbine za uporabo javne infrastrukture.
The PrKAG already included the possibility for municipalities to charge fees for the use of public infrastructure.
To možnost vsebuje tudi uredba o občinskih dajatvah, ki je na Bavarskem veljala od leta 1938 (in je bila podlaga za vrsto podobnih uredb v drugih zveznih deželah južne Nemčije) [29].