natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, with regards to the issue of determining the appropriate guarantee amount, Spain dismisses as inconclusive the statement dated 2 October 2013 of Ms Assumpta Feran (the Director of the Directorate in charge of the environment at the Generalitat de Catalunya) before the Environmental Committee of the Catalan Parliament, who stated that the financial guarantee should amount to EUR 200 million.
Poleg tega Španija v zvezi z vprašanjem določitve ustreznega zneska garancije kot neprepričljivo zavrača izjavo Assumpte Feran (direktorice direktorata za okolje pri Generalitat de Catalunya) z dne 2. oktobra 2013 pred okoljskim odborom katalonskega parlamenta, ko je izjavila, da bi morala finančna garancija znašati 200 milijonov EUR.
According to Spain, the statement was made amidst a debate among opposing political parties and therefore driven by political considerations.
Po trditvah Španije je bila izjava dana sredi razprave med nasprotnimi političnimi strankami, zato je bila politično motivirana.
Spain also finds the judgment of 11 October 2011 of the Higher Court of Justice of Catalonia inconclusive for the determination of the appropriate guarantee amount, because the court itself refrained from calculating it.
Španija tudi ugotavlja, da sodba višjega sodišča Katalonije z dne 11. oktobra 2011 ni odločilna za določitev ustreznega zneska garancije, ker se je sodišče samo odreklo njegovemu izračunu.
Furthermore, Spain considers as unreliable the study that the complainant supplied and that the Commission cited in recital 71 of the opening decision, because the study did not calculate the appropriate guarantee amount based on the criteria set forth in Decree 202/1994 of 14 of June, i.e. the applicable legislation relative to the guarantee amount.
Poleg tega Španija meni, da je študija, ki jo je predložil pritožnik in jo je Komisija citirala v uvodni izjavi 71 sklepa o začetku postopka, nezanesljiva, ker ustrezni znesek garancije v njej ni bil izračunan na podlagi meril iz odloka št. 202/1994 z dne 14. junija 1994, tj. veljavne zakonodaje v zvezi z zneskom garancije.
Spain argues, in addition, that Measure 1 does not confer a selective economic advantage to Iberpotash.
Španija tudi trdi, da se z ukrepom 1 družbi Iberpotash ne dodeljuje selektivna gospodarska prednost.
Any alleged advantage was fixed based on a legal framework which was equally applicable to all potential competitors.
Kakršna koli domnevna prednost je bila določena na podlagi pravnega okvira, ki se je uporabljal enako za vse morebitne konkurente.
What is more, the exploitations of Sallent and Suria are the only active ones in Spain, therefore Iberpotash could not have gained an advantage since there are no comparable exploitations in Spanish territory.
Še več, rudnika Sallent in Suria sta v Španiji edina delujoča, zato družba Iberpotash ni mogla pridobiti prednosti, saj na španskem ozemlju ni primerljivih obratov.
Spain supports that no State resources are involved because, in case that the guarantee amount proves to be insufficient, Iberpotash's obligation to restore the land affected by the extraction activities remains valid.
Španija trdi, da ne gre za državna sredstva, ker če se znesek garancije izkaže za nezadosten, ostaja veljavna obveznost družbe Iberpotash, da sanira zemljišče, na katero so vplivale rudarske dejavnosti.
Spain can enforce Iberpotash's obligation by means of seizure of the latter's rights and property on Spanish territory.
Španija lahko zagotovi izpolnitev obveznosti družbe Iberpotash z zasegom njenih pravic in premoženja na španskem ozemlju.
Finally, Spain notes that Measure 1 does not distort competition or affect trade between Member States, because the costs to be incurred by Iberpotash if it were obligated to set a higher guarantee amount are negligible for the standards of the potash extraction industry.
Nazadnje, Španija ugotavlja, da ukrep 1 ne izkrivlja konkurence ali vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, ker so stroški, ki bi jih nosila družba Iberpotash, če bi morala določiti višji znesek garancije, zanemarljivi glede na standarde v industriji pridobivanja kalijevega oksida.
In relation to Measure 4, Spain argues that Iberpotash cannot have gained an economic advantage because, by not being a polluter, Iberpotash did not have the obligation to cover the salt tip of Vilafruns, according to the generally applicable Spanish legislation.
Kar zadeva ukrep 4, Španija trdi, da družba Iberpotash ni mogla pridobiti gospodarske prednosti, ker ni bila onesnaževalec, zato ji v skladu s splošno veljavno špansko zakonodajo ni bilo treba prekriti jalovišča Vilafruns.
In addition, Iberpotash bears the maintenance costs of the covering of the tip and, therefore, even if, thanks to the public financing, it saved the tip's building costs, it is bound to spend a much greater amount on its maintenance for the next decades and therefore loses any economic advantage gained by the measure.
Poleg tega družba Iberpotash nosi stroške vzdrževanja prekritja jalovišča in bo zato morala, tudi če je zaradi javnega financiranja prihranila stroške izgradnje jalovišča, v naslednjih desetletjih porabiti veliko višji znesek za njegovo vzdrževanje in bo tako izgubila morebitno gospodarsko prednost, pridobljeno z ukrepom.
Spain alleges that Measure 4 cannot be selective because Iberpotash is the only undertaking in Spain involved in potash extraction activities.
Španija trdi, da ukrep 4 ne more biti selektiven, ker je družba Iberpotash edino podjetje v Španiji, ki se ukvarja s pridobivanjem kalijevega oksida.
In addition, the measure does not have a distortive effect on competition between Member States given that the extracted salt, due to transportation difficulties, cannot be transferred between member States.
Poleg tega ukrep nima izkrivljajočega učinka na konkurenco med državami članicami, saj pridobljene soli zaradi težav pri prevozu ni mogoče prevažati med državami članicami.
If, despite the above, the Commission decides that Measure 4 constitutes State aid, Spain considers that it falls within the thresholds for de minimis aid of Commission Regulations (EC) No 1998/2006 and (EU) No 1407/2013.
Če bo Komisija kljub vsemu odločila, da ukrep 4 pomeni državno pomoč, Španija meni, da spada v okvir pragov za pomoč de minimis iz Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 in Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 1407/2013.
Finally, Spain asks that Measure 4 be declared compatible on the basis of the 2008 Environmental Guidelines and especially in view of the innovative character of the technology used to cover the Vilafruns salt tip, which, unlike the technology used in other mining facilities, it is also designed to prevent leaks of the deposited material.
Nazadnje, Španija zahteva, naj se ukrep 4 razglasi za združljiv na podlagi okoljskih smernic iz leta 2008 in zlasti zaradi inovativnosti tehnologije, ki se je uporabila za prekritje jalovišča Vilafruns in ki je v nasprotju s tehnologijo, uporabljeno v drugih rudnikih, namenjena tudi preprečitvi izpiranja odloženega materiala.
RESPONSE OF SPAIN TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THIRD PARTIES
ODGOVOR ŠPANIJE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH OSEB
Spain responded to the observations formulated on Measure 1 by the two interested parties by pointing out, once more, to the administrative procedure in place under Spanish law for the enforcement of the environmental obligations of Iberpotash and for the recoupment from Iberpotash of any amount Spain would eventually pay if the guarantee for the environmental restoration proves to be insufficient.
Španija je v odgovoru na pripombe, ki sta jih v zvezi z ukrepom 1 navedli obe zainteresirani strani, še enkrat opozorila na upravni postopek, ki je po španskem pravu uveden za zagotovitev izpolnitve okoljskih obveznosti družbe Iberpotash in za izterjavo morebitnega zneska od družbe Iberpotash, ki bi ga Španija na koncu plačala, če se garancija za okoljsko sanacijo izkaže za nezadostno.
The ability to enforce as such Iberpotash's obligation means that there is no burden on the State budget and, consequently, no transfer of State resources.
Možnost, da se zagotovi izpolnitev obveznosti družbe Iberpotash kot take, pomeni, da ni obremenitve državnega proračuna in posledično ni prenosa državnih sredstev.
Spain responded to the observations formulated on Measure 4 by the two interested parties by explaining that the decision of the Barcelona Provincial Court of 22 February 2016 included a list of areas where Iberpotash was obligated to implement measures of environmental restoration, which neither includes the Vilafruns tip nor mentions that the tip is a source of pollution.
Španija je v odgovor na pripombe, ki sta jih v zvezi z ukrepom 4 navedli obe zainteresirani strani, pojasnila, da je odločba pokrajinskega sodišča v Barceloni z dne 22. februarja 2016 vključevala seznam območij, na katerih je morala družba Iberpotash izvesti ukrepe okoljske sanacije, ki niti ne vključuje jalovišča Vilafruns niti se v zvezi z njo ne omenja, da je to jalovišče vir onesnaženja.
What is more, the persons convicted pursuant to the decision belonged to the company that exploited the mines before the acquisition of the mining concession by Iberpotash.
Še več, osebe, ki so bile z odločbo spoznane za krive, so pripadale družbi, ki je rudnika izkoriščala, preden je družba Iberpotash pridobila rudarsko koncesijo.
Besides, those persons were convicted for actions and omissions that took place long before the covering of the Vilafruns tip.
Poleg tega so bile te osebe spoznane za krive ravnanj in opustitev, ki so se zgodili veliko pred prekritjem jalovišča Vilafruns.
Spain also reiterates its arguments with regards to the lack of obligation of Iberpotash, according to Spanish law, to cover the Vilafruns tip.
Španija tudi ponovi trditve, da družbi Iberpotash v skladu s španskim pravom ni bilo treba prekriti jalovišča Vilafruns.
Finally, Spain points out that, although the first interested party highlights that no documents related to the public financing of the covering of the tip describe the project as a ‘pilot’ project, nevertheless said party does not question that the technology used for the covering of the tip is distinguishable and, unlike the technology used in other potash mines, it is also designed to prevent leaks of the deposited material.
Nazadnje, Španija opozarja, da prva zainteresirana stran sicer poudarja, da prekritje jalovišča v nobenem dokumentu, ki se nanaša na javno financiranje, ni opisano kot „pilotni“ projekt, vendar navedena stran ne dvomi, da je tehnologija, ki se je uporabila za prekritje jalovišča, posebna in da je v nasprotju s tehnologijo, ki se uporablja v drugih rudnikih kalijevega oksida, namenjena tudi preprečitvi izpiranja odloženega materiala.
The fact that the word ‘pilot’ is not mentioned does not exclude the innovative character of the technology used.
Dejstvo, da beseda „pilotni“ ni omenjena, ne izključuje inovativnosti uporabljene tehnologije.
This decision first assesses whether the two Measures under scrutiny entail State aid to Iberpotash in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, and then whether such aid, were it to be present, would be lawful and compatible with the internal market.
V tem sklepu je najprej ocenjeno, ali oba ukrepa, ki se preučujeta, vključujeta državno pomoč za družbo Iberpotash v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU ter ali je taka pomoč, če obstaja, zakonita in združljiva z notranjim trgom.
By virtue of Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli pomoč iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
In order to conclude whether State aid is present, the Commission must assess whether the cumulative criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU (i.e. transfer of State resources and imputability, selective advantage, potential distortion of competition and affectation of intra-EU trade) are met for the Measures under assessment.
Komisija mora pri ugotavljanju obstoja državne pomoči oceniti, ali so za obravnavana ukrepa izpolnjena kumulativna merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU (tj. prenos državnih sredstev in pripisljivost državi, selektivna prednost, možno izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino znotraj EU).
MEASURE 1: REDUCED LEVEL OF THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
UKREP 1: ZNIŽANA RAVEN FINANČNIH GARANCIJ
Under national law and, in case of mines already operated on 1 May 2008 as of 2014 also Union law, operators of mining facilities are obliged to establish a financial guarantee aimed at ensuring that they have sufficient resources set aside for covering the costs of restoration of their sites once their mining activities are closed.
Upravljavci rudnikov morajo v skladu z nacionalnim pravom, v primeru rudnikov, ki so 1. maja 2008 že obratovali, pa od leta 2014 tudi v skladu s pravom Unije, zagotoviti finančno garancijo, namenjeno zagotovitvi, da imajo rezerviranih dovolj sredstev za kritje stroškov sanacije svojih območij, ko bodo njihove rudarske dejavnosti zaprte.
Further, these resources may be used by public authorities under the relevant national law to finance environmental protection measures which the operators are obliged to take but fail to do so.
Poleg tega lahko ta sredstva javni organi v skladu z zadevno nacionalno zakonodajo porabijo za financiranje ukrepov varstva okolja, ki jih morajo upravljavci sprejeti, vendar tega ne storijo.
The operator may establish such guarantees in the form of a bank guarantee for which they pay a fee.
Upravljavec lahko take garancije zagotovi v obliki bančne garancije, za katero plača provizijo.
According to the Complainant, Iberpotash received an illegal and incompatible aid by having the amount of the financial guarantee set by the relevant authorities at a very low level.
Po navedbah pritožnika je družba Iberpotash prejela nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ker so zadevni organi zanjo določili zelo nizko finančno garancijo.
The Commission first needs to assess whether the levels of the financial guarantees as set by the Spanish authorities were indeed lower than required by the applicable rules in the relevant period.
Komisija mora najprej oceniti, ali so bile ravni finančnih garancij, kot so jih določili španski organi, dejansko nižje, kot se je v zadevnem obdobju zahtevalo z veljavnimi pravili.
This is a necessary requirement for any existence of possible State aid with respect to this particular measure.
To je nujna zahteva za obstoj morebitne državne pomoči v zvezi s tem konkretnim ukrepom.
If, on the contrary, the level of the guarantees had been set in line with applicable rules, then Iberpotash would have been treated as any other undertaking in a similar situation and there would have been no reason to consider it has been selectively favoured by the concrete application in its case of the rules laid down to set financial guarantees.
Če pa bi bila, nasprotno, raven garancij določena v skladu z veljavnimi pravili, potem bi bila družba Iberpotash obravnavana kot katero koli drugo podjetje v podobnem položaju in ne bi bilo razlogov za sklepanje, da je imela selektivno prednost zaradi konkretne uporabe, v njenem primeru, pravil za določitev finančnih garancij.
Applicable legislation
Veljavna zakonodaja
Therefore, it is necessary first to summarise the relevant Union and national rules governing the setting of the financial guarantees.
Zato je treba najprej povzeti zadevna pravila Unije in nacionalna pravila, ki urejajo določitev finančnih garancij.
According to Article 14 of the Extractive Waste Directive, the competent national authorities must, ‘prior to the commencement of any operations involving the accumulation or deposit of extractive waste in a waste facility, require a financial guarantee (e.g. in the form of a financial deposit, including industry-sponsored mutual guarantee funds) or equivalent’.
V skladu s členom 14 direktive o rudarskih odpadkih morajo pristojni nacionalni organi „pred začetkom vsakršne dejavnosti, ki vključuje odlaganje odpadkov na objektu za ravnanje z odpadki, zahteva[ti] finančno garancijo (npr. v obliki pologa, vključno z vzajemnim zajamčenim kapitalom, financiranim s strani industrije) ali enakovredno jamstvo“.
The aim of this guarantee is that ‘all obligations under the permit issued pursuant to this Directive, including after-closure provisions, are discharged’ and that ‘there are funds readily available at any given time for the rehabilitation of the land affected by the waste facility’.
Namen tega jamstva je, da „se izpolnijo vse obveznosti, vključno s tistimi, ki se nanašajo na ukrepe po zaprtju, iz dovoljenja, izdanega po tej direktivi,“ in da „so sredstva za sanacijo zemljišča, na katerega neposredno vpliva objekt za ravnanje z odpadki, […] takoj na voljo“.
According to Article 14(2) of the Directive, the calculation of the guarantee should be made on the basis of (i) the likely environmental impact of the waste facility, and (ii) the assumption that independent and suitably qualified third parties will assess and perform any rehabilitation work needed.
V skladu s členom 14(2) Direktive bi moral izračun garancije temeljiti na (i) verjetnih vplivih objekta za ravnanje z odpadki na okolje in (ii) domnevi, da bo vsa potrebna sanacijska dela ocenila in izvedla neodvisna, za to ustrezno usposobljena tretja oseba.
The size of the guarantee shall be periodically adjusted in accordance with any rehabilitation work needed.
Višina garancije se periodično prilagaja v skladu s sanacijskimi deli, ki jih je treba izvesti na zemljišču.
As regards the national rules, the Extractive Waste Directive has been transposed to the Spanish law by a Royal Decree 975/2009 of 12 June 2009 on waste management in mining and quarrying and protection and rehabilitation of areas affected by mining activities (‘Royal Decree 975/2009’).
Kar zadeva nacionalna pravila, je bila direktiva o rudarskih odpadkih v špansko pravo prenesena s kraljevim odlokom št. 975/2009 z dne 12. junija 2009 o ravnanju z odpadki pri pridobivanju rudnin in kamnin ter sanaciji območij, na katera so vplivale rudarske dejavnosti (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kraljevi odlok št. 975/2009).
According to First Transitory Disposition (Disposición transitoria primera) of the Royal Decree 975/2009, the provisions of that act concerning the financial guarantees (i.e. in particular Article 43) would apply as from 1 May 2014 to the mining sites already operated as on 1 May 2008 (i.e. including Iberpotash's sites).
V skladu s prvo prehodno določbo (Disposición transitoria primera) kraljevega odloka št. 975/2009 naj bi se določbe navedenega akta, ki se nanašajo na finančne garancije (tj. zlasti člen 43), od 1. maja 2014 uporabljale za rudnike, ki so 1. maja 2008 že obratovali (tj. vključno z rudnikoma družbe Iberpotash).
However, before the applicability of the Royal Decree 975/2009 transposing the Extractive Waste Directive, in the Catalan region the permits, restoration plans and guarantees in case of mining companies had been governed by Law 12/1981 establishing additional measures for the protection of natural sites affected by mining activities (‘Law 12/1981’) and by Decree 202/1994 establishing the criteria for determining the guarantees related to the restoration programmes for mining activities (‘Decree 202/1994’).
Vendar sta pred začetkom uporabe kraljevega odloka št. 975/2009, s katerim je bila prenesena direktiva o rudarskih odpadkih, dovoljenja, sanacijske načrte in garancije v primeru rudarskih družb v Kataloniji urejala zakon št. 12/1981 o določitvi dodatnih ukrepov za varstvo naravnih območij, na katera vplivajo rudarske dejavnosti (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon št. 12/1981), in odlok št. 202/1994 o uvedbi meril za določitev garancij v zvezi s sanacijskimi programi za rudarske dejavnosti (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odlok št. 202/1994).
According to Article 8(2) of Law 12/1981, the financial guarantee should be established while taking into account the area affected by the restoration and/or the global costs of such restoration.
V skladu s členom 8(2) zakona št. 12/1981 bi bilo treba finančno garancijo določiti ob upoštevanju območja, na katero vpliva sanacija, in/ali skupnih stroškov take sanacije.
Article 2 of Decree 202/1994 quantifies the amount of guarantees per hectare for various standard restoration measures and indicates that for any other specific measures the amount should take into account their costs.
Člen 2 odloka št. 202/1994 določa znesek na hektar za različne standardne sanacijske ukrepe in navaja, da je treba za morebitne druge posebne ukrepe pri znesku upoštevati njihove stroške.
Further, Article 3 of Decree 202/1994 stipulates that for mining activities not situated in natural sites of special interest (including Ibepotash's sites), the resulting amount on the basis of Article 2 should be reduced by 50 %.
Poleg tega člen 3 odloka št. 202/1994 določa, da bi bilo treba za rudarske dejavnosti, ki niso umeščene na naravna območja posebnega interesa (vključno z rudnikoma družbe Iberpotash), znesek, dobljen na podlagi člena 2, znižati za 50 %.
Financial guarantee amounts set for Iberpotash
Zneski finančnih garancij, določeni za družbo Iberpotash
On the basis of these national rules, Iberpotash obtained from the Generalitat de Catalunya a permit to operate its extractive activity of potash on its site in Súria on 9 November 2006 and on its site in Balsareny/Sallent on 28 April 2008.
Družba Iberpotash je na podlagi teh nacionalnih pravil od Generalitat de Catalunya 9. novembra 2006 dobila dovoljenje za opravljanje dejavnosti pridobivanja kalijevega oksida v rudniku Súria, 28. aprila 2008 pa je tako dovoljenje dobila za rudnik Balsareny/Sallent.
These permits constitute individual administrative decisions which set the financial guarantees to EUR 1130128 for the site in Balsareny/Sallent and EUR 773682,28 (increased to EUR 828013,24 in 2008) for the site in Súria.
Ti dovoljenji sta posamični upravni odločbi, s katerima sta finančni garanciji določeni na 1130128 EUR za rudnik Balsareny/Sallent in na 773682,28 EUR (v letu 2008 zvišana na 828013,24 EUR) za rudnik Súria.
These amounts of the guarantees have been revised only in 2015, when the Spanish authorities proposed significantly higher levels amounting to EUR 6979471,83 for the site in Balsareny/Sallent (effective only after the approval by the Higher Court of Justice of Catalonia in December 2016 — see below) and EUR 6160872,35 for the site in Súria (effective as of May 2015).
Ta zneska garancij sta bila revidirana šele leta 2015, ko so španski organi predlagali bistveno višji ravni, in sicer 6979471,83 EUR za rudnik Balsareny/Sallent (veljavna šele po odobritvi višjega sodišča Katalonije decembra 2016 – glej spodaj) in 6160872,35 EUR za rudnik Súria (veljavna od maja 2015).
The amounts of guarantees were set by individual and specific decisions adopted by the Generalitat addressed to Iberpotash.
Zneska garancij sta bila določena s posameznima in posebnima odločbama, ki ju je sprejela Generalitat in sta naslovljeni na družbo Iberpotash.
Evidence that Ibepotash's guarantee amounts are lower than required
Dokaz, da sta bila zneska garancij za družbo Iberpotash nižja, kot se je zahtevalo
In this respect it needs to be stressed that it is first for the competent environmental authorities to determine and approve the amounts of the financial guarantees under national or regional rules applicable to the case at hand.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da morajo pristojni okoljski organi zneske finančnih garancij najprej določiti in odobriti na podlagi nacionalnih ali regionalnih pravil, ki se uporabljajo v obravnavani zadevi.