natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The decisive element is that the State has created a system where the costs incurred by the network operators are fully compensated by the EEG-surcharge and where the electricity suppliers are empowered to pass on the surcharge to consumers.
V zadevi Doux Élevage je Sodišče ugotovilo, da prihodki, zbrani s prispevki, ne izvirajo iz državnega proračuna, da se jim država ni odpovedala, da so sredstva vseskozi ostala zasebna in da je bilo treba v primeru neplačila začeti postopek pred civilnimi sodišči [68].
Germany also points out that regulation and supervision of flows of private money alone cannot constitute State aid.
Poleg tega so se v zadevi Doux Élevage francoski organi omejili na to, da so predhodno prostovoljni prispevek spremenili v obveznega za vse operaterje v zadevnih panogah, v zadevnem primeru pa je država vzpostavila celoten mehanizem za izračun in izravnavo stroškov med zasebnimi operaterji.
Germany compares the system established by the EEG-Act 2012 to other fields of economic regulation, such as consumer protection in banking, the obligation of drivers to subscribe to car insurance, or price regulation in telecoms and health.
Nemčija pri ocenjevanju državnega nadzora trdi, da je način, kako je Komisija uporabila besedo „državni“, nejasen.
Germany argues that the regulation of a private economic activity as such does not as such entail State control.
Kot je razvidno iz zadeve Doux Élevage, bi morala beseda „državni“ zajemati zlasti izvršilno vejo, tj. vlado in upravne agencije, ne pa splošno veljavno zakonodajo, ki jo sprejme parlament.
The BNetzA does no more, according to Germany, than ensuring consumer protection.
Samo dejstvo, da je država uzakonila izvedbeno uredbo AusglMechV, ne pomeni državnega nadzora.
However, there is a significant difference between those fields where the State merely provides a protective framework for consumers and the situation at hand.
Vendar je treba merilo glede „državnega“ obravnavati širše.
Here, the State has enacted a separate piece of legislation, the EEG-Act 2012, the primary purpose of which is not consumer protection.
Sodišče je večkrat menilo, da koncept države seveda zajema tudi zakonodajalca [72].
Here, the State ensures a continuous flow of money across the sector in order to serve the policy goals of that legislation.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 124, se državni nadzor izvaja z različnimi regulativnimi in nadzornimi ukrepi, ki se ne bi smeli oceniti samostojno.
Moreover, it is settled case-law [67] that funds financed through compulsory charges imposed by the legislation of a Member State, managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of that legislation, must be regarded as State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty even if they are managed by entities separate from the public authorities.
V zadevnem primeru je zadevna zakonodaja tako podrobna, da sistem zagotavlja državni nadzor brez nadaljnje vključenosti državnih organov.
Therefore, the EEG-Act 2012 cannot be compared with State measures which the State does not influence or for which it does not ensure financing.
Poleg tega ima agencija BNetzA precejšnja pooblastila za vplivanje na postopek.
According to Germany, the situation is comparable to that in Doux Élevage.
Nasprotno pa Nemčija trdi, da se zakon EEG iz leta 2012 znatno razlikuje od primera v zadevi Essent.
In Doux Élevage, the Court found that the revenues collected from the contributions did not transit through the State budget, that the State did not forego revenue, that the funds remained private at all times and that non-payments had to be brought before the civil courts [68].
V slednji je bila stopnja dajatve določena z zakonom ne glede na to, kakšne stroške je bilo treba pokriti.
Moreover, the contributions were not ‘constantly under public control’ and were not ‘available to State authorities’ [69], and in fact, the public authorities were not permitted to exercise control over the contributions ‘except to check their validity and lawfulness’ [70].
Poleg tega so bili v državni proračun preneseni presežki v višini več kot 400 milijonov NLG.
Despite the claims of Germany, the case at hand is not comparable with Doux Élevage.
Nasprotno sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij stopnjo dodatne dajatve EEG določijo na podlagi prodaj na gotovinskem trgu, država pa na to nima vpliva.
The difference lies in the fact that in Doux Élevage, ‘it is the inter-trade organisation that decides how to use the resources, which are entirely dedicated to pursuing objectives determined by that organisation’ [71].
Poleg tega se presežki na računu za EEG ohranijo v sistemu, saj vplivajo na višino dodatne dajatve v naslednjem letu.
In the case at hand, the purpose of the EEG-surcharge has been set by the State and the implementation is fully controlled by the State.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 126, državni nadzor sredstev ne pomeni, da morajo potekati prilivi in odlivi, ki vključujejo zadevna sredstva, v proračun in iz njega [73].
Moreover, while in Doux Élevage, the French authorities limited themselves to rendering a pre-existing voluntary contribution compulsory for all operators in the relevant trades, in the case at hand, the State has established the whole mechanism of calculating and equalising the costs between the private operators.
Poleg tega se v zadevnem primeru stopnja dodatne dajatve izračuna v skladu z regulativnimi določbami ob upoštevanju tržne cene, ki jo dosežejo sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij.
When assessing State control, Germany argues that the Commission's use of the word ‘State’ is ambiguous.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 13 sklepa o začetku postopka, je način, na katerega sistemski operaterji izračunajo dodatno dajatev EEG po tem, ko je znana cena, dosežena na gotovinskem trgu, popolnoma reguliran in določen v zakonu EEG iz leta 2012.
As evidenced by Doux Élevage, ‘State’ should primarily encompass the executive, that is to say, the government and administrative agencies, but not generally applicable legislation passed by parliament.
Nemčija poleg tega trdi, da je bil v zadevi Essent za upravljanje dajatve pooblaščen en določen organ, medtem ko zakon EEG iz leta 2012 obveznosti dejansko nalaga nedoločenemu številu zasebnih operaterjev, tj. upravljavcem omrežij, sistemskim operaterjem prenosnih omrežij in dobaviteljem elektrike, navedene obveznosti pa so določene na splošno.
The mere fact that the State has legislated for the AusglMechV does not constitute State control.
V tem primeru ne gre za pooblastilo, za tako veliko število zasebnih operaterjev pa se ne more šteti, da jih je država določila za upravljanje dajatve.
However, the ‘State’ criterion has to be understood widely.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 118, so subjekti, določeni za upravljanje dodatne dajatve EEG, sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij in ne drugi operaterji.
First, the Court has repeatedly held that the concept of the State naturally also encompasses the legislator [72].
Poleg tega očitno ni nobene pravne podlage, ki bi državi članici prepovedovala, da za upravljanje državnih sredstev pooblasti več subjektov.
Moreover, as mentioned in recital 124, State control is exercised by a series of regulatory and control measures that should not be assessed on a stand-alone basis.
Nemčija in zainteresirane strani poudarjajo tudi domnevne razlike med zakonom EEG iz leta 2012 in nedavno sodbo v zadevi Vent de colère [74]: v Franciji je zadevni prispevek od odjemalcev pobiral državni sklad, v Nemčiji pa zasebni sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij dodatno dajatev pobirajo od zasebnih dobaviteljev, ki jo nato lahko prenesejo na odjemalce.
In the case at hand, the relevant legislation goes into so much detail that the system ensures State control without needing further involvement of State authorities.
V Franciji je bila stopnja prispevka določena z ministrskim odlokom, v Nemčiji pa jo izračunajo sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij na podlagi svojih dejanskih stroškov.
In addition, the BNetzA has significant powers to influence the process.
V Franciji bi v primeru primanjkljaja posredovala država, v Nemčiji pa bi morali primanjkljaj pokriti sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij, ki bi nato prejeli nadomestilo z zvišanjem dodatne dajatve naslednje leto.
In contrast, Germany argues that the EEG-Act 2012 differs significantly from the situation in Essent.
Nemčija si s trditvijo, da so državna sredstva prisotna le, če lahko s sredstvi razpolaga izvršilna veja države, napačno razlaga sodno prakso.
In the latter case, the level of the charge was defined by the law regardless of what costs it needed to cover.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 130, koncept države ni omejen na izvršilno vejo, saj zajema tudi zakonodajalca, prav tako pa ni treba, da lahko država razpolaga s sredstvi, kot da so del njenega proračuna.
Moreover, surpluses in excess of NLG 400 million were transferred to the State budget.
Kot je razvidno iz uvodne izjave 114, ni pomembno, ali je subjekt, ki upravlja državna sredstva, javni ali zasebni.
In contrast, the level of the EEG-surcharge is determined by the TSOs based on the sales on the spot market, and the State has no possibility to influence this.
Poleg tega sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij dodatno dajatev EEG izračunajo na podlagi svojih stroškov na način, določen v zakonu EEG iz leta 2012, dejstvo, da je država v sistemu vzpostavila tržni mehanizem, pa ne vpliva na obstoj državnih sredstev.
Moreover, the EEG account's surpluses are kept within the system, as they influence the surcharge in the following year.
Država tudi določa, kaj je treba storiti v primeru primanjkljaja.
As shown in recital 126, State control over the resources does not mean that there have to be flows from and to the State budget [73] involving the respective resources.
Država sicer samega primanjkljaja ne poplača, vendar regulira in nadzoruje način, na katerega se primanjkljaj pokrije, nazadnje tudi z dodatno dajatvijo EEG.
Moreover, in the case at hand the level of the EEG-surcharge is calculated in accordance with regulatory provisions taking into account the market price obtained by the TSOs.
Poleg tega Nemčija trdi, da je v zadevi Vent de colère zahtevana diskrecijska pravica države, da kadar koli uporabi finančna sredstva, v zakonu EEG iz leta 2012 pa država, ki je le sprejela zakonodajo, nima take diskrecijske pravice.
As explained in recital 13 of the Opening Decision, the way in which the TSOs calculate the EEG-surcharge after they know the price obtained on the spot market, is fully regulated and laid down in the EEG-Act 2012.
Po mnenju Nemčije Komisija ni ustrezno razlikovala med dejanskimi sredstvi izvršilnega nadzora in le zakonodajno dejavnostjo.
Moreover, Germany contends that while in Essent, one specific body had been entrusted with the administration of the charge, the EEG-Act 2012 actually imposes obligations on an indefinite number of private operators, that is to say, network operators, TSOs and electricity suppliers, and those obligations are defined in a general manner.
Državni nadzor pomeni, da ima država diskrecijsko pravico glede uporabe finančnih sredstev.
This is not an entrustment, and such a large number of private operators cannot be considered to be designated by the State to administer a charge.
Sodišče to ugotovitev potrjuje v točki 21 sodbe v zadevi Vent de colère.
As stated in recital 118, the TSOs, and not other operators, are the entities designated to administer the EEG-surcharge.
Po mnenju Nemčije odsotnost državnega nadzora dokazuje tudi dejstvo, da država ne more določiti stopnje dodatne dajatve EEG.
Moreover, there does not appear to be any legal ground which would prohibit a Member State from entrusting more than one entity with administering State resources.
Dejansko je stopnja dodatne dajatve odvisna od prihodka, ki ga sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij ustvarijo s prodajo električne energije EEG na trgu, zato jo v celoti določa trg.
Germany and interested parties also stress the alleged differences between the EEG 2012-Act and the recent judgment in Vent de colère [74]: In France, the relevant contribution was collected from consumers by a State-run fund, while in Germany, the private TSOs collect the EEG-surcharge from private suppliers, which can then pass it on to consumers.
Komisija priznava, da država ne določi vedno natančne stopnje dodatne dajatve EEG, ampak določa način, na katerega jo je treba izračunati ob upoštevanju prodajne cene električne energije.
In France, the level of the contribution was determined by ministerial decree, while in Germany, it is calculated by the TSOs on the basis of their actual costs.
Poleg tega lahko država v sistem financiranja uvede tržne mehanizme, ne da bi se odrekla nadzoru nad financiranjem.
In France, in the event of a deficit, the State would step in, while in Germany, a deficit will need to be borne by the TSOs before being compensated for by an increase of the surcharge in the following year.
Komisija glede tega meni, da ni nobene razlike med javno dajatvijo, ki jo določijo državni organi, in pravno obveznostjo, ki jo država uvede prek zakonodaje.
By arguing that State resources are only present if the State's executive has the funds at its disposal, Germany is misinterpreting the case-law.
V obeh primerih država organizira prenos finančnih sredstev prek zakonodaje in določa, za katere namene se lahko ta finančna sredstva uporabijo.
As explained in recital 130, the concept of the State is not limited to the executive, as it also encompasses the legislator, nor is it required that the State can dispose of the funds as if they were part of its own budget.
Komisija zato vztraja pri svoji oceni, da je podpora za proizvajalce električne energije iz obnovljivih virov in proizvodnjo električne energije iz zemeljskega plina prek zagotovljenih odkupnih cen financirana z državnimi sredstvi.
As shown in recital 114, it is irrelevant whether the entity administering the State resources is private or public.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in trgovine
Moreover, the TSOs calculate the EEG-surcharge on the basis of their costs in a manner that is laid down in the EEG-Act 2012 and the fact that the State has introduced a market-mechanism in the system does not affect the existence of State resources.
Prednosti, dodeljene proizvajalcem električne energije EEG in energetsko intenzivnim uporabnikom, bi lahko izkrivljale konkurenco in vplivale na trgovino, saj upravičenci delujejo v sektorjih, v katerih so trgi liberalizirani in v katerih poteka trgovina med državami članicami.
The State also determines what is to be done in the event of a deficit.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja državne pomoči
Indeed, the State does not pay for the deficit itself, but regulates and controls the manner in which the deficit is covered, ultimately also by the EEG-surcharge.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da zakon EEG iz leta 2012 vključuje državno pomoč v smislu člena 107 Pogodbe v korist proizvajalcev električne energije EEG in na podlagi posebnega pravila o nadomestilih v korist energetsko intenzivnih uporabnikov.
In addition, Germany argues that Vent de colère requires a discretionary power of the State to dispose of the financial resources at any time, while in the EEG-Act 2012, the State, having merely enacted legislation, has no such discretionary power.
Obstoječa pomoč/nova pomoč in zakonitost pomoči
According to Germany, the Commission has insufficiently distinguished between true means of executive control and mere legislative activity.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka navedla, da je za nemški zakon o energiji iz obnovljivih virov, ki je začel veljati 1. aprila 2000 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon EEG iz leta 2000) in je predhodnik zakona EEG iz leta 2012, menila, da ne vključuje državne pomoči (odločba Komisije v zadevi NN 27/2000) [75].
State control implies the fact that the State has a discretionary power to dispose of the financial resources.
Vendar je Komisija menila, da so bile spremembe, uvedene z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, bistvene in da je pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi zakona EEG iz leta 2012, pomenila novo pomoč, ki ni bila zajeta v prejšnji odločbi Komisije (uvodna izjava 150 sklepa o začetku postopka).
In Vent de colère, paragraph 21, the Court reconfirms this finding.
Temu so nasprotovale Nemčija in nekatere zainteresirane strani.
According to Germany, the absence of State control is also evidenced by the fact that the State cannot determine the level of the EEG-surcharge.
Nemčija in zainteresirane strani trdijo, da zaporedne spremembe, do katerih je prišlo med prvotno različico zakona EEG iz leta 2000 in zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, niso bistveno spremenile sheme pomoči, zato zakon EEG iz leta 2012 pomeni obstoječo pomoč.
In fact, given that the level of the surcharge depends on the revenue TSOs generate from selling the EEG electricity on the spot market, it is entirely determined by the market.
Nemčija kljub temu trdi, da sta med zakonom EEG iz leta 2012 in zakonom EEG iz leta 2000 dve razliki:
The Commission acknowledges that the State does not always determine the exact level of the EEG-surcharge, but it determines the manner in which it is to be calculated taking into account the selling price of the electricity.
spremenjen je bil mehanizem za izravnavo: prvotni fizični pretok električne energije EEG k dobaviteljem je zamenjala obveznost sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij, da električno energijo EEG sami prodajo na gotovinskem trgu.
Moreover, the State may introduce market mechanisms in the financing system without relinquishing control over the financing.
V zameno za plačilo dodatne dajatve EEG za določeno količino električne energije lahko dobavitelji električne energije navedeno količino označijo za električno energijo EEG.
In that respect, the Commission sees no difference between a public charge set by State authorities and a legal obligation imposed by the State through legislation.
Po mnenju Nemčije to pomeni, da dobavitelji električne energije pridobijo „obnovljivo kakovost“ električne energije in s tem možnost, da odjemalcem navedejo, v kolikšnem obsegu so plačali dodatno dajatev (glej člen 53(1) in člen 54(1) zakona EEG iz leta 2012);
Therefore, the Commission maintains its assessment that the support for RES electricity producers and electricity production from mine gas through feed-in tariffs is financed by State resources.
Komisija potrjuje svojo ugotovitev, da državna pomoč, vključena v zakon EEG iz leta 2012, pomeni novo pomoč, saj zakon EEG iz leta 2012 pomeni bistveno spremembo glede na zakon EEG iz leta 2000.
Distortive effect on competition and trade
Dejansko spremembi, ki jih priznava Nemčija, tj. sprememba mehanizma za izravnavo in uvedba posebnega pravila za nadomestila, pomenita bistveni spremembi.
Finally, the advantages to both EEG electricity producers and EIUs appear to be liable to distort competition and to affect trade, given that the beneficiaries operate in sectors where markets have been liberalised and where trade between Member States takes place.
Sprememba mehanizma za izravnavo
Conclusion on the existence of State aid
Komisija najprej poudarja, da je leta 2002 menila, da zakon EEG iz leta 2000 ne vključuje prenosa državnih sredstev, to oceno pa je podala kmalu po sodbi v zadevi PreussenElektra.
The Commission therefore concludes that the EEG-Act 2012 involves State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty both for the benefit of EEG electricity producers and, under the BesAR, for the benefit of EIUs.
Vendar so nadaljnje sodbe Sodišča od takrat pojasnile in celo omejile zadevo PreussenElektra: na podlagi sodb v zadevah Essent, Vent de colère in Elcogás se zdi, da je država sistemske operaterje prenosnih omrežij na podlagi prvotnega mehanizma za izravnavo že pooblastila za upravljanje sheme pomoči, ki je bila financirana z dodatno dajatvijo, obračunano dobaviteljem električne energije.
Existing aid/new aid and lawfulness of the aid
Odločilno je, da je bil mehanizem za izravnavo bistveno spremenjen.
In its Opening Decision, the Commission stated that the German renewable energy law that had entered into force on 1 April 2000 (‘EEG-Act 2000’), the precursor of the EEG-Act 2012, had been considered not to involve State aid by the Commission (Commission Decision in case NN 27/2000) [75].
Ne sestavlja ga več niz obveznosti za fizične nabave električne energije (upravljavci omrežij od proizvajalcev električne energije EEG; sistemski operaterji prenosnih omrežij od upravljavcev omrežij; dobavitelji električne energije od sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij).
However, the Commission considered that the changes introduced by the EEG-Act 2012 had been substantial and that aid granted on the basis of the EEG-Act 2012 constituted new aid, not covered by the previous Commission decision (recital 150 of the Opening Decision).
Fizični prenos je prekinjen na ravni sistemskih operaterjev prenosnih omrežij, ki morajo tržiti električno energijo EEG.
This has been contested by Germany and by several interested parties.
Navedeno trženje ni več povezano z mehanizmom za izravnavo.
Germany and the interested parties argue that the successive changes that have occurred between the initial version of the EEG-Act 2000 and the EEG-Act 2012 have not substantially altered the aid scheme, so that the EEG-Act 2012 constitutes existing aid.
Pri slednjem gre le za finančno dodelitev stroškov različnim operaterjem.
Germany nevertheless concedes that there are two differences between the EEG-Act 2012 and the EEG-Act 2000:
Država je sistemskim operaterjem prenosnih omrežij naložila obveznost centralizacije in izračuna navedenih stroškov ter pobiranja teh stroškov od dobaviteljev električne energije.
there has been a change in the equalisation mechanism: the original physical flow of EEG electricity to suppliers is replaced by the TSOs' obligation to sell the EEG electricity themselves on the spot market.
Zakon EEG iz leta 2000 ni navajal, ali bi morali odjemalci električne energije tudi sodelovati pri stroških proizvodnje električne energije EEG.
In exchange for the payment of the EEG-surcharge for a given amount of electricity, the electricity suppliers may label that amount as EEG electricity.
Navedena odločitev je bila prepuščena pristojnemu regulatorju, ki je takrat še vedno lahko reguliral cene električne energije za končne odjemalce.
According to Germany, that means that the electricity suppliers acquire the ‘renewable quality’ of electricity, and thus the ability to indicate to consumers to what extent they have paid the surcharge (cf. §§ 53(1) and 54(1) EEG-Act 2012).
Zakon EEG iz leta 2012 izrecno dovoljuje dobaviteljem, da stroške prenesejo na odjemalce, in dejansko to storijo vsi.
the BesAR does not exist in the EEG-Act 2000.
Poleg tega ima agencija BNetzA, ki na podlagi zakona EEG iz leta 2000 ni imela nobene vloge, pooblastila za spremljanje navedenih finančnih tokov in izvrševanje skladnosti z zakonom EEG iz leta 2012, zlasti za namene varstva potrošnikov.
Apart from those two differences, the mechanism described in recitals 7, 8 and 9 is according to Germany identical to what was provided in the EEG-Act 2000.
Organ BAFA, ki prav tako ni imel nobene vloge na podlagi zakona EEG iz leta 2000, sprejme odločitev glede dodelitve znižanja dodatne dajatve EEG nekaterim podjetjem na podlagi meril iz zakona EEG iz leta 2012.
In particular, it argues that the essential feature, namely that electricity suppliers compensate the TSOs' additional costs from purchasing EEG electricity by using their own financial resources was already part of the EEG-Act 2000.
Posebno pravilo o nadomestilih (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung)
The Commission maintains its finding that the State aid involved in the EEG-Act 2012 constitutes new aid, because the EEG-Act 2012 constitutes a substantial alteration compared to the EEG-Act 2000.
Logična posledica vključitve odjemalcev električne energije v porazdelitev bremena je znižanje dodatne dajatve, dodeljeno energetsko intenzivnim podjetjem.