natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It has put forward that the full exemption could help ensuring security of supply by securing the existence of conventional power plants needed to ensure security of supply and could also help facilitating the promotion of renewable electricity.
Financiranje iz državnih sredstev po tem, ko je agencija BNetzA uvedla dodatno dajatev iz člena 19 (leti 2012 in 2013)
Those objectives, however, are external to network charges and must therefore be examined under the compatibility assessment in line with the case law of the Court (see section 3.3.1).
Agencija BNetzA je na podlagi mehanizma nadomestila, določenega v šestem in sedmem stavku člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 in opisanega v oddelku 2.4 tega sklepa, z regulativno odločbo z dne 14. decembra 2011 operaterjem distribucijskega sistema naložila obveznost, da od končnih uporabnikov pobirajo dodatno dajatev iz člena 19 in prilive od te dodatne dajatve mesečno prenesejo na operaterje prenosnega sistema.
Conclusion
Komisija je v uvodnih izjavah 49 do 84 sklepa o začetku postopka navedla, zakaj je menila, da je treba šteti, da se popolna oprostitev financira iz državnih virov.
The full exemption cannot be justified by the logic of the network charges in Germany to the extent that it goes beyond a reduction of the published network charges reflecting the contribution of baseload consumers to cost savings or the avoidance of costs.
Ti razlogi se lahko povzamejo, kot sledi:
The full exemption notably constitutes an unjustified deviation from the reference system as it exempts the baseload consumers from the costs that the reference system would allocate to them, that is to say the individual network costs calculated on the basis of the physical path methodology and which cannot go below 20 % of the published network charges.
popolna oprostitev ustreza politiki države;
The Commission therefore concludes that insofar as baseload consumers were exempted from paying network charges going beyond the network costs caused by their consumption or, where those costs amounted to less than the minimum contribution of 20 % of the published network charges, were exempted from that minimum contribution, the exemption is not within the logic of the reference system, and does confer a selective advantage.
operaterji omrežja imajo zakonsko zagotovilo, da bodo finančne izgube zaradi popolne oprostitve v celoti nadomeščene z dodatno dajatvijo na porabo električne energije s strani uporabnikov omrežja; to pomeni, da jim ni treba financirati oprostitve iz lastnih finančnih sredstev;
IMPUTABILITY
operaterji prenosnega sistema so bili pooblaščeni za upravljanje finančnih tokov, ki izhajajo iz oprostitve in dodatne dajatve iz člena 19;
The full exemption has been provided by Article 7 of the Law of 26 July 2011 (see recital 21 of this Decision), and has been implemented by administrative acts confirming the exemption requests (see recitals 24 of this Decision).
operaterji prenosnega sistema ne morejo prosto uporabljati prilivov od dodatne dajatve, saj mora biti dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 omejena na finančne izgube zaradi oprostitve; kakršen koli presežek prihodkov, ki izvira iz dodatne dajatve, je treba odšteti od dodatne dajatve, ki se plača v naslednjih letih;
It is therefore imputable to the State.
dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 ne ustreza plačilu za storitev ali blago.
Also the Paragraph 19-surcharge that financed the exemption is imputable to the State.
Komisija se ne strinja z Nemčijo in zainteresiranimi stranmi, da se za popolno oprostitev ne more šteti, da se financira iz državnih sredstev, ker naj finančna sredstva, s katerimi se financira oprostitev, ne bi šla prek državnega proračuna.
First, the Paragraph 19-surcharge was provided for by Article 7 of the Law of 26 July 2011 (see recital 21 of this Decision) and was further implemented by the BNetzA, a government agency (see section 2.4.2 and footnote 22 of this Decision).
Kot je opozorjeno v uvodnih izjavah 125 do 129 tega sklepa, je Sodišče že večkrat presodilo, da je lahko merilo državnih sredstev izpolnjeno tudi, če se pomoč financira iz zasebnih sredstev, ki jih naloži država ter se upravljajo in dodeljujejo v skladu z določbami zakonodaje.
The fact that the calculation of the charge is carried out by private entities mandated by law to do so does not affect that conclusion, because those private entities – the TSO – have no margin of discretion when carrying out that task, and have been mandated by the State to carry out that task, as part of their entrustment pursuant to Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 as TSO.
Po mnenju Sodišča taka shema financiranja pomeni prenos državnih sredstev, čeprav jih ne izvajajo javni organi, temveč zasebni subjekti, ki jih imenuje država in ki so ločeni od javnih organov.
Furthermore, the BNetzA has the normal supervisory powers over the TSO, and can address binding decisions to the TSO, if they fail to comply with their obligations (Paragraphs 29 and 54 of the EnWG 2011).
Komisija meni, da so bile izgube prihodka zaradi popolne oprostitve omrežnin v letih 2012 in 2013 v celoti prenesene na končne uporabnike z mehanizmom popolnega nadomestila, ki je bil financiran z obveznim prispevkom, ki jim ga je naložila država.
Finally, for the year 2012, the BNetzA directly determined which total amount had to be compensated from the Paragraph 19-surcharge (see recital 37 of this Decision).
Kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 35 do 39 tega sklepa, je pravni okvir, ki je veljal v letih 2012 in 2013, določal mehanizem financiranja, s katerim so bile nadomeščene izgube prihodka, ki jih je imel operater omrežja, na katerega so bili priključeni oproščeni pasovni odjemalci.
EXISTENCE OF STATE RESOURCES
Operaterji prenosnega sistema so morali plačati nadomestilo operaterjem distribucijskega sistema za njihove izgube prihodka in medsebojno izravnati to dodatno finančno breme.
For selective advantages to amount to aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, they must be granted directly or indirectly through State resources.
V skladu z regulativno odločbo BNetzA z dne 14. decembra 2011, sprejeto na podlagi člena 29(1) EnWG in točke 6 člena 30(2) StromNEV 2011, so operaterji prenosnega sistema prejeli nadomestilo za to finančno breme prek dodatne dajatve iz člena 19.
The concept of ‘intervention through State resources’ covers not only advantages which are granted directly by the State but also ‘those granted through a public or private body appointed or established by that State to administer the aid’.
Dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 je bila davku podobna dajatev, ki so jo plačali končni uporabniki.
In this sense, Article 107(1) of the Treaty covers all the financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector.
Kot taka ni bila del splošnega sistema omrežnin, kot je navedeno v pripombah, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane strani.
The mere fact that the advantage is not financed directly from the State budget is not sufficient to exclude that State resources are involved.
Agencija BNetzA je sama pojasnila v svojih odločbi z dne 14. decembra 2011, da je imela dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 poseben namen, in sicer nadomestiti finančni izgubo operaterjev prenosnega sistema, zato ni ustrezala splošni omrežnini, temveč je pomenila „drugo dajatev“ v smislu člena 17(8) StromNEV, ki jo je treba pobirati ločeno od splošnih omrežnin.
It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that it is not necessary to establish in every case that there has been a transfer of money from the budget or from a public entity for the advantage granted to one or more undertakings to be capable of being regarded as a State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
To so potrdila tudi nemška sodišča in zlasti zvezno sodišče, ki je ugotovilo, da dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 ne ustreza omrežnini, temveč dodatni dajatvi, katere namen je kritje finančnih izgub zaradi oprostitve, določene v drugem stavku člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 (glej uvodni izjavi 52 in 53 tega sklepa).
The private nature of the resources does not prevent them from being regarded as State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 pomeni obvezni prispevek, ki ga je naložila država.
This was also recalled in the ruling France v Commission ruling where the General Court concluded that the relevant criterion for assessing whether the resources are public, regardless their initial origin, is the degree of intervention of the public authority in the definition of the measures in question and their methods of financing.
Določen je bil v StromNEV 2011 in uveden z zavezujočo regulativno odločbo BNetzA, ki je višji zvezni javni organ, pooblaščen za upravne in regulativne naloge, ter ki deluje pod nadzorom ministrstva za gospodarske zadeve in energijo.
Hence, the mere fact that a subsidy scheme benefiting certain economic operators in a given sector is wholly or partially financed by contributions imposed by the public authorities and levied on certain undertakings is not sufficient to take away from that scheme its status of aid granted by the State within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Njegovega predsednika in podpredsednike imenuje minister, njegov svet pa sestavljajo predstavniki Bundesrata in Bundestaga.
Equally, the fact that the resources would at no moment be the property of the State does not exclude that the resources might constitute State resources, if they are under the control of the State.
Poleg tega so bili operaterji omrežja določeni za pobiranje in upravljanje dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 v skladu z veljavnim pravnim okvirom.
In fact the concept of aid granted through State resources serves to bring within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty not only aid granted directly by the State, but also aid granted by public or private bodies designated or established by the State.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je Sodišče že večkrat presodilo, da je lahko za upravljanje državnih sredstev določen tudi zasebni subjekt.
This line of reasoning was also applied in Essent.
Poleg tega iz sodbe Essent izhaja, da se lahko za upravljanje dodatne dajatve določi tudi več kot en subjekt.
In that case, the Court of Justice had to assess a law which provided that the operators of the Dutch electricity network had to collect a price surcharge on electricity consumed by private electricity clients and pass on the proceeds of that surcharge to SEP, a joint subsidiary of the four electricity generators, in order to compensate the latter for so-called ‘stranded costs’.
Prvič, operaterji distribucijskega sistema in operaterji prenosnega sistema so morali obračunati in pobirati dodatno dajatev iz člena 19 od končnih uporabnikov, operaterji distribucijskega sistema pa so morali prenesti dodatno dajatev iz člena 19 na operaterje prenosnega sistema.
This surcharge had to be transmitted by network operators to SEP which had to collect the proceeds and use them up to a certain amount defined in the law for the purposes of covering stranded costs.
Drugič, operaterji prenosnega sistema so lahko prilive od dajatve iz člena 19 uporabili samo za nadomestitev izgub prihodka zaradi oprostitve za pasovne odjemalce v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 in mehanizma izravnave, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 35 tega sklepa.
In this regard, the Court observed that SEP had been appointed by the law to manage a State resource.
To dokazuje dejstvo, da je bil znesek dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 prilagojen finančnim potrebam, ki jih je povzročila popolna oprostitev.
The Court found that the Dutch system involved State resources.
Zlasti so kakršni koli prilivi v letu x, ki so presegali znesek, potreben za nadomestilo za to finančno breme, pomenili znižanje dodatne dajatve v letu x + 2 (glej uvodno izjavo 39).
On the basis of this case-law, it can be concluded that subsidies financed through parafiscal charges or contributions imposed by the State and managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of the legislation imply a transfer of State resources, even where they are not administered by public authorities but by private entities designated by the State that are separate from the public authorities.
Komisija se zato ne strinja z Nemčijo in zainteresiranimi stranmi, da so lahko operaterji omrežja prilive od dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 uporabili po lastni volji.
This has been confirmed by the Court of Justice in the Vent de Colère case where the Court in particular observed that the fact that part of the funds collected were not channelled to the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations but were retained by the undertakings subject to the obligation to purchase renewable electricity at feed-in tariffs was not sufficient to exclude an intervention through State resources.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je ugotovljeno, da so operaterji omrežja z uvedbo dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 dobili zagotovilo, da bodo njihove izgube prihodka zaradi oprostitve, odobrene v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011, v celoti nadomeščene, zato je primer drugačen kot zadevi PreussenElektra in ENEA, v katerih so morala podjetja, ki so imela obveznost odkupa, financirati obveznost iz lastnih sredstev in stroškov niso mogla prenesti na svoje kupce.
The Court of Justice excluded the transfer of State resources in only very specific circumstances: For instance, the Court considered that a decision by which a national authority extends to all traders in a certain sector an agreement which introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement certain promotional and public relations activities, does not constitute State aid.
V zvezi s tem se ni mogoče strinjati z mnenjem, ki so ga predložile zainteresirane strani, da priliv od dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 ni bil nujno namenjen financiranju oprostitve iz drugega stavka člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011.
The Court noted in this respect that the measure was not financed from State resources since it was not the State but the inter-trade organisation that decided how to use the resources stemming from the levy.
Od leta 2012 oprostitve omrežnin namreč ni bilo mogoče financirati drugače kot prek dodatne dajatve iz člena 19, ki je bila izračunana tako, da je natančno ustrezala finančnim potrebam zaradi oprostitve.
Those resources were entirely dedicated to pursuing objectives determined by that organisation.
Komisija na podlagi teh elementov ugotavlja, da je treba za ugodnost, ki je bila dodeljena pasovnim odjemalcem v obliki popolne oprostitve v letih 2012 in 2013, šteti, da je bila financirana iz državnih virov.
Hence, the resources were not constantly under public control and were not available to State authorities.
Financiranje iz državnih virov pred uvedbo dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 (leto 2011)
In PreussenElektra, the Court found that the Electricity feed-in Act (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz), in its version applicable in 1998, did not involve a public or private body established or appointed to administer the aid.
Čeprav se je popolna oprostitev v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 uporabljala od 1. januarja 2011, je dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 začela veljati šele 1. januarja 2012 (glej uvodno izjavo 40 tega sklepa).
This conclusion was based on the observation that the Stromeinspeisungsgesetz put in place a mechanism that was limited at directly obliging electricity supply undertakings and upstream electricity network operators to purchase renewable electricity at a fixed price, without any body administering the stream of payments.
Komisija se je zato v sklepu o začetku postopka vprašala, ali so bile oprostitve, odobrene leta 2011, prav tako financirane iz državnih sredstev, in Nemčijo pozvala, naj zagotovi dodatne informacije o tem, kako je bila popolna oprostitev financirana leta 2011.
The situation under the Stromeinspeisungsgesetz was characterized by a multitude of bilateral relationships between renewable electricity generators and electricity suppliers.
Komisija na podlagi dodatnih informacij, ki jih je predložila Nemčija, in tudi ob upoštevanju pripomb zainteresiranih strani ne meni, da mehanizem financiranja v letu 2011 vključuje državna sredstva.
There was no surcharge established by the State to compensate the electricity suppliers for the financial burden resulting from the supply obligation.
Kot je pojasnila Nemčija (glej uvodno izjavo 77) in kot je agencija BNetzA izrecno navedla v regulativni odločbi z dne 14. decembra 2011, leta 2011 ni veljal noben mehanizem nadomestila in pobota.
Therefore, nobody had been appointed to administer such a surcharge and the corresponding financial flows.
Zlasti se šesti in sedmi stavek člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011 še nista uporabljala.
By contrast, the Court indicated in the Vent de Colère case that the French support system was different from the situation examined in the PreussenElektra case in two respects: In PreussenElektra the private undertakings concerned had not been appointed by the Member State concerned to manage a State resource, but were bound by an obligation to purchase by means of their own financial resources.
Tako se izgube zaradi popolne oprostitve omrežnin v letu 2011 niso prenesle na končne uporabnike z mehanizmom popolnega nadomestila ali – ker leta 2011 ni bilo dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 – z obveznim prispevkom, ki ga je naložila država.
In addition, in PreussenElektra there was no mechanism established and regulated by the State for offsetting additional costs arising from the purchase obligation and through which the State offered the private operators bound by the obligation to purchase the certain prospect that the additional costs would be covered in full.
Namesto tega so morali operaterji distribucijskega sistema in operaterji prenosnega sistema v skladu z regulativno odločbo z dne 14. decembra 2011 iz lastnih sredstev kriti izgube prihodka zaradi popolne oprostitve leta 2011.
The Court has recently confirmed this differentiated approach to the assessment of State resources.
Izgube prihodka – če niso bile nadomeščene z drugimi povečanji prihodka in s tem lastnih sredstev operaterjev prenosnega sistema in operaterjev distribucijskega sistema za leto 2011 – je bilo treba knjižiti na Regulierungskonto.
In the ENEA S.A. case, the Court ruled that a national measure placing an obligation on both private and public undertakings to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration does not constitute an intervention by the State or through State resources when the extra costs resulting from that purchase obligation cannot be passed on entirely to end users and are not financed by a compulsory contribution imposed by the State or by a full offset mechanism.
Če so bile ob koncu regulativnega obdobja, ki se je končalo leta 2013, izgube prihodka za leto 2011 nadomeščene z dodatnimi prihodki v drugih letih tega regulativnega obdobja, ni bilo nadomestitve izgub in izgube so iz lastnih sredstev krili operaterji prenosnega sistema in operaterji distribucijskega sistema.
In light of those principles, for the purposes of examining whether the financing of the full exemption, as resulting from the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011, involves State resources, it is necessary to differentiate between the financing of the full exemption in 2011 and the financing of that exemption during the years 2012 and 2013, that is to say following the introduction of the § 19-surcharge.
Samo če izgub ni bilo mogoče nadomestiti z dodatnimi prihodki v regulativnem obdobju, ki se je končalo leta 2013, je lahko izguba prihodka leta 2011 vodila do nadomestila v naslednjem regulativnem obdobju.
Financing through State resources after the BNetzA imposed the Paragraph 19-surcharge (years 2012 and 2013)
Vendar tudi v tem primeru ni bilo zagotovljeno polno nadomestilo.
Based on the compensation mechanism provided for in the sixth and the seventh sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 described under section 2.4 of this Decision, the BNetzA imposed by regulatory decision of 14 December 2011 on the DSO the obligation to collect from end users the Paragraph 19-surcharge and to transfer the proceeds from this surcharge to the TSO on a monthly basis.
Višina nadomestila je bila odvisna od drugih dejavnikov, zlasti učinkovitosti (ali neučinkovitosti) operaterjev distribucijskega sistema in operaterjev prenosnega sistema, ker ARegV ne temelji na dejanskih stroških, temveč na idealnih stroških učinkovitega podjetja.
In recitals 49 to 84 of the Opening Decision, the Commission indicated why it considered that the full exemption had to be regarded as financed from State resources.
Operaterji omrežja torej niso imeli zagotovila, da bodo njihove izgube prihodka zaradi popolne oprostitve leta 2011 nadomeščene.
Those reasons can be summarized as follows:
Povedano drugače, leta 2011 so morali operaterji omrežja financirati popolno oprostitev iz lastnih finančnih sredstev.
the full exemption corresponds to a policy of the State;
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je morala biti ugodnost, ki je bila dodeljena pasovnim odjemalcem v obliki popolne oprostitve omrežnin leta 2011, financirana iz lastnih sredstev operaterjev omrežja in ni bila financirana iz državnih virov.
the network operators are being provided a guarantee in the law that the financial losses resulting from the full exemption will be fully compensated through a surcharge on the electricity consumption of network users; that is to say they do not need to finance the exemption from their own financial means;
VPLIV NA TRGOVINO MED DRŽAVAMI ČLANICAMI
the TSO have been entrusted with the management of the financial flows resulting from the exemption and the Paragraph 19-surcharge;
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča pri opredelitvi nacionalnega ukrepa za državno pomoč ni treba ugotavljati stvarnega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami, temveč je treba le preučiti, ali lahko ta pomoč vpliva na tako trgovino.
the TSO are not free to use the proceeds of the surcharge as they wish given that the Paragraph 19-surcharge must be limited to the financial losses resulting from the exemption; any excess revenues resulting from the surcharge must be deducted from the surcharges to be paid in following years;
Zlasti kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, se šteje, da pomoč vpliva na ta podjetja.
the Paragraph 19-surcharge does not correspond to the payment for a service or a good.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je velika večina zadevnih podjetij dejavnih v kemični industriji (vključno z industrijskimi plini), papirni, tekstilni in jeklarski industriji, industriji neželeznih kovin, rafinerijah nafte ter steklarstvu.
The Commission does not share the view expressed by both Germany and the interested parties that the full exemption could not be regarded as financed through State resources because the financial resources that finance the exemption would not transit through the State budget.
Nekateri upravičenci tudi upravljajo podatkovne centre kot ponudniki storitev.
As recalled in recitals 125 to 129 of this Decision, the Court has repeatedly ruled that the concept of State resources can also be fulfilled if the aid is financed through private means, which are imposed by the State and managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
Vse te panoge so odprte za trgovanje med državami članicami s čezmejno izmenjavo blaga.
According to the Court, such a financing scheme implies a transfer of State resources, despite the fact that those resources are not administered by the public authorities but by private entities designated by the State that are separate from the public authorities
S tem, ko so zadevna podjetja izvzeta iz stroškov (omrežnin), ki jih morajo običajno nositi podjetja, dejavna v istem sektorju v drugih državah članicah, se s popolno oprostitvijo krepi položaj oproščenih podjetij v primerjavi s konkurenčnimi podjetji v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, zato lahko popolna oprostitev omrežnin vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.