natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As Germany has confirmed by Email of 24 October 2017, based on the then applicable ARegV 2011, the losses in revenue incurred in 2011 (that is to say the difference between allowed revenues and actually obtained revenues) could not be recouped by an adaptation of the 2011 network charges given that network charges had to be set in advance in the framework of the ‘Verprobung’ pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the StromNEV and could not be modified over the course of that year.
Navedlo je, da je lahko stabilizacijski učinek pasovnih odjemalcev kvečjemu utemeljitev za znižano omrežnino, ne pa za popolno oprostitev, saj tudi ti pasovni odjemalci uporabljajo omrežje.
They were actually obliged to set this loss off with profits from other years of the regulatory period.
Nazadnje je višje deželno sodišče ugotovilo, da dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 ni omrežnina, temveč dodatna dajatev, ki se pobira poleg omrežnin; ni cena za uporabo omrežja, temveč samo dodatna dajatev, uvedena za kritje finančnih izgub, ki so jih operaterji omrežja imeli zaradi popolne oprostitve.
This is also why network operators challenged the full exemption and the BNetzA regulatory decision of 14 December 2011.
Zvezno sodišče je nadalje ugotovilo, da prvi in tretji stavek člena 24(1) EnWG 2011 temeljita na načelu, da imajo operaterji omrežja pravico do nadomestila za uporabo njihovega omrežja in da se stabilizacijski učinek pasovnih odjemalcev ne more šteti za nadomestilo operaterju omrežja za uporabo omrežja, ker ta stabilizacijski učinek ni nadomestilo, plačano v zameno za uporabo omrežja, temveč zgolj posledica uporabe omrežja.
The losses in revenue incurred by the network operators due to the full exemption could also not be recouped through an increase in network charges in 2012 given that network charges for 2012 could only be linked to forecasted costs to be incurred in 2012.
Zvezno sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da čeprav lahko ima ta stabilizacijski učinek gospodarski pomen za operaterje omrežja in lahko utemeljuje znižane omrežnine, se ne more samodejno šteti, da utemeljuje popolno oprostitev zgolj na podlagi števila ur polne uporabe, zlasti ker tudi pasovni odjemalci prispevajo h konični obremenitvi omrežja.
By contrast, the losses in revenue – if not already compensated by efficiency gains in 2011 – had to be booked on the Regulierungskonto.
Pri znižanjih bo treba upoštevati konkretni učinek vsakega posameznega pasovnega odjemalca na omrežje.
Where, at the end of the first regulatory period, the losses in revenue for 2011 were set off against additional revenues in other years of that regulatory period, no compensation of the losses would occur.
Nazadnje je zvezno sodišče potrdilo tudi, da dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 ni omrežnina, temveč dodatna dajatev, ki se pobira poleg omrežnin; ni cena za uporabo omrežja, temveč samo dodatna dajatev, uvedena za kritje finančnih izgub, ki so jih operaterji omrežja imeli zaradi popolne oprostitve.
Only where the losses could not be set off against additional revenues in the regulatory period ending in 2013 could the loss of revenues in 2011 lead to an indirect compensation over the next regulatory period by leading to a slight increase of the approved maximum revenue level of the next regulatory period.
Višje deležno sodišče v Düsseldorfu in zvezno sodišče sta popolno oprostitev iz drugega stavka člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 in individualno oprostitev, odobreno na tej podlagi, razglasili za nični.
However, even in that situation, as the ARegV does not compensate full costs, but only costs of an efficient operator, there would normally not be a full compensation.
Vendar je glede na nemško upravno pravo videti, da nemška država od upravičencev ne more dejansko zahtevati vračila zaradi pravil o zastaranju.
It follows from the explanatory memorandum to the StromNEV 2011 that the full exemption for baseload consumers had been introduced because of the alleged stabilizing effects that baseload consumers have on the network.
Nemčija je z uredbo z dne 14. avgusta 2013 opustila popolno oprostitev s 1. januarjem 2014 in na ta datum ponovno uvedla individualne omrežnine za končne uporabnike, katerih letna poraba električne energije doseže 10 GWh in vsaj 7000 ur polne uporabe.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Agencija BNetzA je morala določiti podrobna pravila o metodologiji za določanje individualnih stroškov omrežja v skladu z uredbo StromNEV, kakor je bila spremenjena s členom 1 uredbe z dne 14. avgusta 2013 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: StromNEV 2014).
In its Opening Decision, the Commission concluded that the full exemption conferred a selective advantage on such baseload consumers that have an annual electricity consumption exceeding 7000 hours of full use and 10 GWh of consumption.
Za ta namen je agencija BNetzA ponovno uvedla metodologijo fizične poti z regulativno odločbo, sprejeto na podlagi člena 29 EnWG.
Moreover, the Commission found that the Paragraph 19-surcharge, which was introduced in 2012, constituted a State resource and that the TSO had been appointed to administer it while being monitored by the BNetzA through the Regulierungskonto.
Čeprav je metodologija nekoliko spremenjena, v bistvu ustreza metodologiji fizične poti, kot se je uporabljala za izračun individualnih omrežnin v skladu s StromNEV 2010 (glej uvodno izjavo 19 tega sklepa).
The Commission indicated that the existence of State resources could be derived from the fact that Paragraph 9 of the KWKG entitled the network operators to levy a surcharge from the network users, the proceeds of which would be administered by the TSO.
Zvezno sodišče je posebej priznalo, da metodologija fizične poti zagotavlja oceno stroškov omrežja, ki jih povzročijo pasovni odjemalci, v skladu z načelom upoštevanja vzroka za stroške.
Also, the Commission considered that the losses in revenue due to the full exemption in 2011 could have been compensated via the Regulierungskonto which the Commission found to be monitored by the BNetzA.
Sklep višjega deželnega sodišča z dne 8. maja 2013 in sklep zveznega sodišča z dne 6. oktobra 2015 sta vplivala samo na stranke postopka in nista vodila do splošnega preklica vseh odločb o oprostitvi.
The Commission also noted that Germany had not presented any compatibility ground for the aid and had merely referred to the stabilising impact on networks without quantifying that impact.
Zvezno sodišče je s sklepom z dne 12. aprila 2016 regulativno odločbo z dne 14. decembra 2011 razglasilo za nično (glej uvodne izjave od 35 do 39 tega sklepa).
The Commission therefore opened the formal investigation procedure.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da navedena odločba ni spadala v okvir pooblastila iz člena 24 EnWG.
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE OPENING DECISION
Po navedeni sodbi je nemški zakonodajalec spremenil člen 24 EnWG in s tem retroaktivno odpravil pomanjkanje pooblastila za dodatno dajatev iz člena 19.
As network operators were not guaranteed that they would recoup the loss of revenues resulting from the full exemption in 2011, several of them challenged exemption decisions of the BNetzA and also directly the regulatory decision of 14 December 2011.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
By order of 8 May 2013, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf concluded that the full exemption in place between 2011 and 2013 was illegal and revoked the full exemption granted to the undertaking concerned by the procedure before that Court.
Komisija je prejela pripombe Ahlstrom GmbH, AlzChem AG, Aurubis AG, Bender GmbH, Fitesa Germany GmbH, Evonik Industries AG, Hans Adler OHG, Lindes Gas Produktionsgesellschaft, Norske Skog Walsum GmbH, Oxxynova GmbH, Ruhr Oel GmbH, Saalemühle Alsleben GmbH, Sasol Wax GmbH, SETEX-Textil GmbH, Bundesverband der Energieabnehmer e.V., Currenta GmbH & Co. KG, Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH, InfraServ GmbH & Co. KG, Naturin Viscofan GmbH, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Metalle, Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH, Norsk Hydro ASA, Papierfabrik Scheufelen GmbH & Co. KG, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, Trimet Aluminium AG, UPM GmbH, Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V., Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e.V. in Xstrata Zink GmbH/Glencore.
The Higher Regional Court found that the full exemption granted under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 did not respect the limits of Paragraph 24 of the EnWG 2011 which entitled the federal government merely to define the modalities of calculating individual network charges, but not to introduce a full exemption from network charges.
Z vsemi prejetimi pripombami se zatrjuje, da popolna oprostitev ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The Higher Regional Court further observed that network charges are the price for a service supplied to them (that is to say the access to and the use of the network) and that the full exemption could not be seen as an individual network charge or a price for a service but corresponded to a privilege, an exception to the principle that a proportionate network charge should be paid to network operators for the use of the network.
Trditve, navedene v različnih pripombah v podporo temu mnenju, so povzete v naslednjih uvodnih izjavah.
It noted that the stabilising effect of baseload consumers could at most justify a reduced network charge but not a full exemption given that also those baseload consumers were using the network.
Zainteresirane strani menijo, da s popolno oprostitvijo oproščeni pasovni odjemalci niso dobili prednosti.
Finally the Higher Regional Court observed that the Paragraph 19-surcharge did not correspond to a network charge but to a surcharge that is collected in addition to network charges; it did not correspond to the price for the use of the network but merely corresponded to a surcharge introduced to cover the financial losses caused to network operators by the full exemption..
Po mnenju zainteresiranih strani je bila popolna oprostitev nadomestilo za prispevek pasovnih odjemnikov k splošni stabilnosti elektroenergetskega omrežja.
By judgment of 6 October 2015, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the order of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf of 8 May 2013.
Ena od zainteresiranih strani meni, da popolna oprostitev ustreza nadomestilu za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena v smislu sodbe Altmark.
The Federal Court of Justice confirmed that the full exemption granted under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 did not respect the limits of Paragraph 24 of the EnWG 2011 which entitled the government merely to define the modalities of calculating individual network charges, but not to introduce a full exemption from network charges.
Zlasti se navaja, da je bil pasovni odjem, pri katerem so bili izpolnjeni pogoji za popolno upravičenost, osnovni pogoj za neprekinjeno proizvodnjo električne energije v elektrarnah, opremljenih s sinhronskimi generatorji.
The Federal Court of Justice further observed that the first and the third sentence of Paragraph 24(1) of the EnWG 2011 were based on the principle that network operators are entitled to a compensation for the use of their networks and that the stabilising effect of baseload consumers could not be seen as a compensation to the network operator for the use of the network given that this stabilising impact was not a compensation paid in exchange of the use of the network but simply the consequence of the use of the network.
Ti se štejejo za potrebne za stabilnost omrežja, ker pripomorejo k preprečevanju frekvenčnih premikov.
Reductions will have to take account of the specific impact of each baseload consumer on the network.
Več zainteresiranih strani pa meni, da prednost ni selektivna, temveč jo upravičujeta logika in narava omrežnin v Nemčiji.
Finally, the Federal Court of Justice also confirmed that the Paragraph 19-surcharge did not correspond to a network charge but to a surcharge that is collected in addition to network charges; it did not correspond to the price for the use of the network but merely corresponded to a surcharge introduced to cover the financial losses caused to network operators by the full exemption.
V zvezi s tem pojasnjujejo, da se zaradi predvidljivosti vzorca porabe pasovnih odjemnikov znatno znižajo stroški omrežja, ker se zmanjša potreba po izravnalni energiji in rezervah.
Both the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf and Federal Court of Justice declared the full exemption in the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 and the individual exemption granted on that basis for void.
Poleg tega se z vzorcem neprekinjene porabe dalj časa ohrani omrežna oprema in s tem znižajo materialni stroški.
However, it appears from German Administrative Law that the German State could de facto not ask for reimbursement by the beneficiaries due to prescription rules.
Te stroške bi sicer moral nositi operater prenosnega sistema kot del omrežnih odgovornosti, opredeljenih v členu 11 EnWG.
Moreover, as described in recital 55, the new Paragraph 32(7) of the StromNEV 2014 provides that the exemption decisions adopted on the basis of the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 stopped being valid only on 1 January 2014.
Nekatere od zainteresiranih strani trdijo tudi, da pasovni odjemalci prispevajo k regulaciji napetosti in preprečevanju razpada sistema ter da je popolna oprostitev njihovo nadomestilo za to.
By ordinance of 14 August 2013 Germany abolished the full exemption as of 1 January 2014 and reintroduced as of that date individual network charges for end users with an annual electricity consumption reaching 10 GWh and at least 7000 hours of full use.
Nazadnje, v pripombah je navedeno, da oproščeni pasovni odjem zagotavlja dovajanje električne energije, ki jo proizvajajo nestalni viri obnovljive energije.
The BNetzA was required to lay down detailed rules on the methodology for determining the individual network costs under the StromNEV as amended by Article 1 of the ordinance of 14 August 2013 (‘StromNEV 2014’).
Zaradi tega naj bi se znižali stroški širitve omrežja in plačila nadomestil v skladu z zakonom o obnovljivih virih energije (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, v nadaljnjem besedilu: EEG).
To this end, the BNetzA reintroduced the physical path methodology by a regulatory decision adopted on the basis of Paragraph 29 of the EnWG.
Poleg tega zainteresirane strani menijo, da se popolna oprostitev ne financira iz državnih sredstev.
Although slightly modified, the methodology corresponds in substance to the physical path methodology as it was applied for the calculation of individual network charges under the StromNEV 2010 (see recital 19 of this Decision).
Po mnenju zainteresiranih strani je bil drugi stavek člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 del splošnega sistema omrežnin in je zato predstavljal samo uravnavanje cen.
The regulatory decision on the physical path methodology was upheld by order of 13 December 2016 of the Federal Court of Justice.
Dejstvo, da je popolna oprostitev odvisna od dovoljenja agencije BNetzA, se šteje zgolj za formalnost, ki naj sama po sebi ne bi zadostovala za ugotovitev, da se popolna oprostitev financira iz državnih sredstev.
The Federal Court of Justice specifically acknowledged that the physical path methodology ensures an assessment of the network costs caused by baseload consumers in line with the cost-causality principle.
Zainteresirane strani zlasti trdijo, da se za popolno oprostitev ne more šteti, da je bila financirana iz državnih sredstev po uvedbi dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 leta 2012.
Both the order of 8 May 2013 of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf and the order of 6 October 2015 of the Federal Court of Justice had an effect only on the parties to the procedure and did not lead to a general revocation of all exemption decisions.
Dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 se šteje za del splošnega sistema omrežnin.
Paragraph 32(7) of the StromNEV 2014 therefore provides that exemption decisions adopted by a regulator on the basis of the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 would stop to be valid as of 1 January 2014.
Zato zainteresirane strani zavračajo označitev dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 za davku podobno dajatev.
Pending requests for exemption decisions adopted by a regulator on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 as well as cases in which the exemption decision was revoked by a Court would be subject to the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2014 (with retroactive effect as of 1 January 2012.
V pojasnilu zainteresirane strani trdijo, da zneska dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 ni določila država, temveč so ga izračunali operaterji omrežja na podlagi izgub prihodka zaradi popolne oprostitve.
For 2011 in those same cases, the StromNEV as predating the introduction of the full exemption was applied (i.e. the individual network charges based on the physical path – if relevant).
Namen dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 naj bi bil zgolj izravnati finančno breme zaradi popolne oprostitve za vse uporabnike omrežja v Nemčiji.
By order of 12 April 2016, the Federal Court of Justice annulled the regulatory decision of 14 December 2011 (see recitals 35 to 39 of this Decision).
Prilivi od dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 naj ne bi pripadali državnemu proračunu, niti naj ne bi bili pod državnim nadzorom.
The Court found that that decision was not covered by the empowerment laid down in Paragraph 24 of the EnWG.
Zainteresirane strani v zvezi s tem pojasnjujejo, da so imeli operaterji prenosnih sistemov diskrecijsko pravico glede uporabe prilivov od dodatne dajatve iz člena 19.
In the aftermath of that judgment the German legislator amended Paragraph 24 of the EnWG and thereby retroactively remedied the lack of an empowerment for the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
Zainteresirane strani so zavrnile ugotovitev, da so operaterji prenosnih sistemov centralizirali prilive od dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 in s tem ravnali podobno kot sklad.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Pojasnjeno je, da je bila skupna projektna skupina „Horizontaler Belastungsausgleich“ (PG HOBA), navedena v sklepu o začetku postopka, ustanovljena prostovoljno in da je bil njen namen zgolj tehnično usklajevanje med operaterji prenosnih sistemov.
The Commission received comments from Ahlstrom GmbH, AlzChem AG, Aurubis AG, Bender GmbH, Fitesa Germany GmbH, Evonik Industries AG, Hans Adler OHG, Lindes Gas Produktionsgesellschaft, Norske Skog Walsum GmbH, Oxxynova GmbH, Ruhr Oel GmbH, Saalemühle Alsleben GmbH, Sasol Wax GmbH, SETEX-Textil GmbH, Bundesverband der Energieabnehmer e.V., Currenta GmbH & Co. KG, Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH, InfraServ GmbH & Co. KG, Naturin Viscofan GmbH, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Metalle, Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH, Norsk Hydro ASA, Papierfabrik Scheufelen GmbH & Co. KG, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, Trimet Aluminium AG, UPM GmbH, Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V., Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e.V. and Xstrata Zink GmbH/Glencore.
Zainteresirane strani trdijo tudi, da dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 ni nujno namenjena financiranju oprostitve omrežnin.
All comments received argue that the full exemption does not constitute State aid.
Prednost zaradi oprostitve bi nastala tudi brez dodatne dajatve iz člena 19, pri tem pa bi morali izgube prihodka zaradi popolne oprostitve nositi operaterji omrežja.
The arguments put forward by the various comments in order to support this view are summarized in the following recitals.
Mehanizem nadomestila, opisan v oddelku 2.4 tega sklepa, naj bi bilo treba obravnavati neodvisno od prednosti, dane pasovnim odjemalcem.
The interested parties consider that the full exemption did not confer an advantage on the exempted baseload consumers.
Brez mehanizma nadomestila bi operaterji omrežja preprosto upoštevali izgube prihodka pri izračunu omrežnin za neoproščena podjetja, tako kot leta 2011.
According to the interested parties, the full exemption was a compensation for the baseload consumers' contribution to the overall stability of the electricity network.
Zainteresirane strani trdijo, da oprostitev omrežnin ni izkrivljala konkurence ali trgovine med državami članicami, saj je samo zmanjšala finančno breme in izboljšala neugoden konkurenčni položaj, ki izhajata iz omrežnin v Nemčiji, ki se štejejo za znatno višje kot v drugih državah članicah.
One interested party considers that the full exemption corresponds to the compensation of a service of general economic interest within the meaning of the Altmark judgment.
Samo omejeno število zainteresiranih strani trdi, da je oprostitev omrežnin združljiva z notranjim trgom.
In particular, it is put forward that the baseload consumption qualifying for the full exemption was a prerequisite for a continuous electricity generation from power plants equipped with synchronous generators.
Njihove trditve se nanašajo predvsem na prispevek pasovnih odjemalcev k stabilnosti omrežja in s tem k zanesljivosti oskrbe v Evropi.
The latter are considered necessary for the stability of the network as they help to avoid frequency shifts.
Poleg tega trdijo, da naj bi glede na podnebne politike Unije oprostitev okrepila konkurenčnost energetsko intenzivnih podjetij in s tem preprečila selitev njihovih dejavnosti iz Unije, kar bi imelo negativne posledice za gospodarstvo Unije, ker bi na primer vodilo do izgube vrednostnih verig in povečalo odvisnost Unije od uvoza.
Several interested parties refer in this respect to a study of 20 January 2012 into the minimum generation by conventional power plants needed in Germany to ensure a secured network management in the context of high renewable penetration (the ‘2012 Study’).
Nazadnje, omejeno število zainteresiranih strani trdi, da bi se s kakršnim koli povračilom kršilo načelo legitimnega pričakovanja.
Alternatively, several interested parties consider the advantage not to be selective but to be justified by the logic and nature of network charges in Germany.
Za ta namen trdijo, da bi Komisija, če bi ugotovila, da se popolna oprostitev financira iz državnih sredstev, odstopala od razlage pojma državna pomoč, uporabljene pred popolno oprostitvijo v njeni praksi obravnavanja zadev in v sodni praksi Evropskega sodišča, zlasti od razlage državnih sredstev v sodbi PreussenElektra.
They explain in this respect that the predictability of the consumption pattern of the baseload consumers leads to a significant reduction of network costs as it would reduce the need for balancing energy and reserves.
Po izteku roka za predložitev pripomb zainteresiranih strani je Komisija prejela pripombe dveh dodatnih zainteresiranih strani (Wacker Chemie AG in Koehler Kehl GmbH).
Moreover, the continuous consumption pattern would conserve the network equipment longer and thereby reduce material costs.
Izrazila je tudi negativno mnenje o tem, da se hidroelektrarne ne štejejo za bazne elektrarne in da mora biti zadevna elektrarna sposobna kriti celotno potencialno obremenitev pasovnega odjemalca.
The aforementioned costs would otherwise have to be borne by the TSO as part of their network responsibilities defined in Paragraph 11 of the EnWG.
Menila je, da je bila popolna oprostitev preprostejše načelo, ki je ustrezneje upoštevalo prispevek pasovnih odjemalcev k stabilnosti omrežja.
Some of the interested parties also argue that baseload consumers contribute to voltage control and the prevention of black-outs and that the full exemption compensates them for that.
Ni pa predložila nobenih dokazil, ki bi opisovali stabilizacijske učinke pasovnih odjemalcev.
Finally, the comments consider the exempted baseload consumption to guarantee the feed-in of electricity produced from intermittent renewable energy sources.
Za ta namen s svojimi pripombami izpodbija metodologijo, uporabljeno za oblikovanje poročila, kot netočno, ker se poročilo opira na primer na navedbe operaterjev nizkonapetostnega omrežja, na katerega pa ni priključen noben pasovni odjemalec.
Thereby, both grid expansion costs and compensation payments under the Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, ‘EEG’) would be reduced.
Poročilo naj torej ne bi vsebovalo nobene veljavne navedbe, s katero bi bil izpodbit stabilizacijski učinek pasovnega odjema.