natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, the simultaneity function described in Paragraph 16(2) of the StromNEV and Annex 4 to the StromNEV allows for an allocation of the network costs to the various network users according to the probability that the electricity consumption of the individual user in question contributes to the annual peak.
Poleg tega metodologija fizične poti upošteva tudi izgube omrežja in morebitne omrežne storitve, ki jih uporablja pasovni odjemalec.
Germany has submitted that in a system in which electricity flows from the top down, the annual peak element is one of the main cost drivers of the network.
Zvezno sodišče je leta 2016 potrdilo, da je metodologija fizične poti primerna za določitev stroškov omrežja, ki jih povzročijo pasovni odjemalci.
Germany has however demonstrated that while this general methodology enables a reliable determination of the network costs caused by most end users, the simultaneity function – if applied in the same way to all network users – de facto overestimated the costs caused by baseload consumers in the period 2011-2013.
Komisija tako meni, da je drugačno obravnavanje netipičnih uporabnikov (tj. nekoničnih odjemalcev in pasovnih odjemalcev) v primerjavi z ostalimi uporabniki omrežja sestavni del referenčnega sistema in da je to izraženo v njegovi strukturi, kolikor temelji na sistemu individualnih stroškov omrežja, ki se pripišejo določenemu uporabniku omrežja.
This is explained by the fact that the calculation methodology based on the simultaneity function spreads the entire network costs between all users while these costs contain costs that baseload consumers did not cause, or caused in the period 2011-2013 to a much lower degree.
Popolna oprostitev, ki je veljala med letoma 2011 in 2013, pa odstopa od določanja individualnih omrežnin, ki se uporabljajo za netipične uporabnike, saj popolna oprostitev ne temelji na individualni določitvi stroškov, ki jih povzroči pasovni odjemalec.
In particular, the costs that are linked to balancing out sudden variations in the demand are not caused by baseload consumers, as they have a predictable and a much more constant consumption.
Čeprav so nekonični odjemalci in pasovni odjemalci glede na cilj sistema omrežnin v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju (so netipični uporabniki, pri katerih objavljene omrežnine v obdobju 2011–2013 ne bi pomenile omrežnin, ki upoštevajo dejanske stroške), so bili obravnavani različno.
The same is true for measures that need to be taken to keep the frequency of the network despite variations in load.
Poleg tega popolna oprostitev od referenčnega sistema odstopa tudi v tem, da od pasovnega odjemalca ne zahteva, naj plača vsaj 20 % objavljenih omrežnin, kot se zahteva od ostalih netipičnih uporabnikov, tj. nekoničnih odjemalcev.
It is true that baseload consumers contribute to peak load like all other network users and that peak load is relevant for the dimensioning of the network, and hence for one factor creating network costs.
Ta razlika v obravnavanju ustreza diskriminaciji, saj ni razloga, zakaj bi bili pasovni odjemalci izvzeti iz te zahteve.
However, it is not relevant for allocating other network costs (for example the costs linked to the reserves needed to supply balancing energy).
Zlasti ni razloga, zakaj bi se morala za individualne omrežnine za nekonične odjemalce uporabljati varovalka, za pasovne odjemalce pa ne, saj se ve, da imajo tudi pasovni odjemalci – tako kot nekonični odjemalci – korist od priključitve na omrežje.
If all network users had unpredictable and variable consumption patterns, it would still be rational to allocate those costs using the same allocation key, i.e. in proportion to their contribution to peak load.
Prav tako individualne omrežnine, izračunane z uporabo metodologije fizične poti, vključujejo določen približek.
However, baseload consumers have a predictable and much more stable load pattern.
Brez utemeljitve v naravi in logiki sistema omrežnin
In 2011-2013 given the energy mix, baseload consumers generated much less need for system services than other network users.
Pojem pomoči ne vključuje ukrepov, ki vzpostavljajo različno obravnavanje podjetij v zvezi z omrežninami, če se lahko ta razlika pripiše naravi in splošni shemi zadevnega sistema omrežnin.
Hence, in a network charge system based on the cost–causality principle, costs for system services that are not needed for baseload consumers could not be allocated to them by using the same key as for network users having a variable and unpredictable load.
Dokazno breme za ta zadnji del preskusa je na državi članici.
Also, the calculation methodology based on the simultaneity function does not take into account economies of scale.
Ugotovljeno je, da Nemčija ni predložila nobenega dokazila o tem, da bi bila popolna oprostitev utemeljena z naravo in splošno shemo sistema omrežnin v Nemčiji.
Where a network is constantly used up to its full capacity, the costs per unit are much lower than for where the same network is used by variable consumers only from time to time up to its full capacity but generally only up to 30 % of its capacity.
Navedla je, da bi lahko popolna oprostitev pripomogla k zagotavljanju zanesljivosti oskrbe z zagotavljanjem obstoja konvencionalnih elektrarn, potrebnih za zagotavljanje zanesljivosti oskrbe, in da bi lahko pripomogla tudi k lažjemu spodbujanju proizvodnje električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
Finally, due to the variability and unpredictability of the consumption of users in general, network operators have to take a safety margin into account when they dimension the network.
Ti cilji pa so zunaj okvira omrežnin in jih je zato treba preučiti v okviru ocene združljivosti v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča (glej oddelek 3.3.1).
Indeed, the simultaneity factor only expresses the likelihood that a given consumer will consume at the moment of peak load but cannot guarantee this.
Sklepna ugotovitev
Such a safety margin is however not needed to the same degree for baseload consumers, if at all.
Popolna oprostitev ne more biti toliko utemeljena z logiko omrežnin v Nemčiji, ker presega znižanje objavljenih omrežnin, pri katerem se upošteva prispevek pasovnih odjemalcev k prihranku stroškov ali preprečevanje stroškov.
Hence if the network charges of baseload consumers would be calculated on the basis of the network charge methodology using the simultaneity function, they would again be overestimated
Popolna oprostitev zlasti pomeni neutemeljeno odstopanje od referenčnega sistema, ker pasovne odjemalce izvzema iz stroškov, ki bi jim bili dodeljeni v okviru referenčnega sistema, in sicer individualnih stroškov omrežja, izračunanih po metodologiji fizične poti, ki ne smejo biti nižji od 20 % objavljenih omrežnin.
The Commission therefore considers that the possibility provided for in Paragraph 24 of the EnWG 2011 to determine individual network charges for atypical users such as baseload consumers is in line with the principle of cost-causality and non-discrimination.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da če so bili pasovni odjemalci oproščeni plačila omrežnin v obsegu, ki presega stroške omrežja, povzročene z njihovo porabo, ali pa so bili, če so ti stroški znašali manj kot minimalni prispevek v višini 20 % objavljenih omrežnin, oproščeni tega minimalnega prispevka, oprostitev ni v okviru logike referenčnega sistema in daje selektivno prednost.
It must be regarded as an integral part of the reference system as it serves as a corrective to take into account the network costs actually caused by atypical network users such as baseload consumers.
PRIPISLJIVOST DRŽAVI
The Commission also considers that the provision according to which the individual network charges paid by atypical network users cannot go below 20 % of the published network charges forms an integral part of the rules governing individual network charges under the StromNEV.
Popolna oprostitev je bila zagotovljena s členom 7 zakona z dne 26. julija 2011 (glej uvodno izjavo 21 tega sklepa) in izvedena z upravnimi akti, s katerimi so bili potrjeni zahtevki za oprostitev (glej uvodno izjavo 24 tega sklepa).
First, this minimum contribution has continuously been a requirement as regards the group of atypical network users addressed in the first sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV and was in particular applicable in the period 2011 to 2013 (see recital 21 of this Decision).
Zato jo je mogoče pripisati državi.
Second, it also applied to baseload consumers under the StromNEV 2010 (see recital 20 of this Decision).
Tudi dodatno dajatev iz člena 19, s katero je bila financirana oprostitev, je mogoče pripisati državi.
And finally, the minimum contribution network charge of 20 % for atypical end users such as baseload consumers corresponds – as Germany has explained (see recital 20) – to a safety net that ensures that atypical consumers contribute to a minimum to remunerating the benefit that derives from being connected to the network.
Prvič, dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 je bila zagotovljena s členom 7 zakona z dne 26. julija 2011 (glej uvodno izjavo 21 tega sklepa) in jo je nadalje izvajala vladna agencija BNetzA (glej oddelek 2.4.2 in opombo 22 tega sklepa).
Specifically as regards baseload consumers, the minimum contribution of 20 % also takes into account that the physical path methodology, while mirroring closely the network costs caused by baseload consumers, still implies a certain approximation.
Dejstvo, da izračun dajatve opravijo zasebni subjekti, ki so za to pooblaščeni z zakonom, ne vpliva na to ugotovitev, ker ti subjekti – operaterji prenosnega sistema – nimajo diskrecijske pravice pri izvajanju te naloge in jih je za izvajanje te naloge pooblastila država kot del njihove pooblastitve v skladu s členom 19(2) StromNEV 2011 kot operaterji prenosnega sistema.
Deviation from the reference system
Poleg tega ima agencija BNetzA običajne nadzorne pristojnosti v razmerju do operaterjev prenosnega sistema in jim lahko izda zavezujoče odločbe, če ne izpolnijo svojih obveznosti (člena 29 in 54 EnWG 2011).
However, the Commission considers that the full exemption introduced by the Law of 26 July 2011 is at odds with the concept of individual network charges set out in point 3 of the first sentence of Paragraph 24 of the EnWG 2011 pursuant to which atypical forms of network use might be subject to individual network charges.
Nazadnje, za leto 2012 je agencija BNetzA neposredno določila, kateri skupni znesek je treba nadomestiti iz dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 (glej uvodno izjavo 37 tega sklepa).
The cost-causality principle and the principle that network charges should be proportionate and non-discriminatory imply that network charges are determined based on the individual network costs attributable to a given network user.
OBSTOJ DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
The full exemption from network charges would therefore be in line with those principles only if it were demonstrated that baseload consumers do not cause any network costs.
Da se selektivna prednost šteje za pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, mora biti dodeljena neposredno ali posredno iz državnih sredstev.
This has however not been demonstrated.
Pojem „ukrep iz državnih sredstev“ ne zajema samo ugodnosti, ki jih država dodeli neposredno, temveč tudi „ugodnosti, ki se dodelijo prek javnega ali zasebnega subjekta, ki ga ta država določi ali ustanovi za upravljanje pomoči“.
On the contrary, baseload consumers do cause network costs in particular when they are being newly connected to an existing network given that their connection might necessitate an increase of the capacity of such a network.
V tem smislu člen 107(1) Pogodbe zajema vsa denarna sredstva, ki jih lahko javni organi dejansko uporabijo za podporo podjetjem, ne glede na to, ali ta sredstva spadajo med trajno državno premoženje ali ne.
Likewise, where a network has not yet been built, it would need to be dimensioned so as to satisfy at least the demand of baseload consumers.
Zgolj dejstvo, da se ugodnost ne financira neposredno iz državnega proračuna, ne zadostuje za izključitev, da gre za državna sredstva.
This has also been recognized by German regional courts and the Federal Court of Justice.
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča Evropske unije izhaja, da ni treba v vsakem primeru dokazati obstoja prenosa denarja iz proračuna ali javnega subjekta, da bi se lahko ugodnost, dodeljena enemu ali več podjetjem, štela za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
They have explicitly concluded that the full exemption was contrary to Paragraph 24 of the EnWG 2011 (see recitals 52 and 52 of this Decision).
Zasebna narava sredstev ne preprečuje, da bi se ta štela za državna sredstva v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
It must further be observed that the other category of atypical network users referred to in the first sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV continued to be subject to individual network charges calculated on the basis of their individual load profile during the years 2011 to 2013 (see recital 21 of this Decision).
Na to je bilo opozorjeno tudi v sodbi Francija/Komisija, v kateri je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da je upoštevno merilo za ocenjevanje, ali so sredstva javna, ne glede na njihov prvotni izvor, stopnja posredovanja javnega organa pri opredelitvi zadevnih ukrepov in načini njihovega financiranja.
The full exemption for baseload consumers therefore introduced a discrimination against both other groups of atypical network users that were still subject to individual network charges and all other end users given that the full exemption deviates from the principle of cost causality and proportionality of network charges.
Zgolj to, da se sistem subvencij za nekatere gospodarske subjekte nekega sektorja v celoti ali deloma financira iz prispevkov, ki jih določenim gospodarskim subjektom naložijo javni organi, samo po sebi ne omogoča ugotovitve, da ta sistem ni pomoč, ki jo dodeli država v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
It is noted that before the full exemption introduced from 2011 baseload consumers were subject to individual network charges that had to be determined so as to take into account the reduction of network costs or the mitigation of increases in network costs that were due to baseload consumers.
Podobno dejstvo, da sredstva v nobenem trenutku niso premoženje države, ne izključuje, da lahko sredstva pomenijo državna sredstva, če jih nadzoruje država.
Those individual network charges might however not be lower than 20 % of the published network charges.
Pojem pomoči, dodeljene iz državnih sredstev, je namreč namenjen temu, da se na področje uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe ne vključi le pomoč, ki jo dodeli neposredno država, temveč tudi pomoč javnih ali zasebnih organov, ki jih imenuje ali ustanovi država.
In order to calculate those costs, the BNetzA had defined the physical path methodology (see recital 19).
To razlogovanje je bilo uporabljeno tudi v sodbi Essent.
The Commission considers that this methodology is a reliable methodology to approximate the costs caused by baseload consumers in the period 2011 to 2013 given the characteristics of the electricity system at that time.
V navedeni zadevi je moralo Sodišče oceniti zakon, ki je določal, da morajo operaterji nizozemskega elektroenergetskega omrežja pobirati doplačilo za električno energijo, ki jo porabijo zasebni odjemalci električne energije, in prilive iz tega doplačila prenesti na SEP, skupno odvisno družbo štirih proizvajalcev električne energije, kot nadomestilo tem za tako imenovane „nasedle stroške“.
Indeed, this methodology determines the network charges based on the costs that can be attributed to the baseload consumer, that is to say the capital costs and fixed operating costs related to the part of the network that connects the baseload consumer to the nearest baseload power plant that can de facto cover its entire demand.
To doplačilo so morali operaterji omrežja prenesti na družbo SEP, ki je morala zbirati prilive in jih do določenega zneska, opredeljenega v zakonu, porabiti za kritje nasedlih stroškov.
While it is true that this method leads – as one interested party has criticized — to differentiated network charges depending to the location of the baseload consumer on the network, this is precisely the point of individual network charges, namely to verify the costs caused to the network by each baseload consumer individually.
Sodišče je v zvezi s tem ugotovilo, da je bila družba SEP z zakonom imenovana za upravljanje državnih sredstev.
If a baseload consumer is further away from a baseload power plant, it also means that he will be using a much large portion of the network to have the electricity transported from the power plant that is able to de facto cover its demand.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je nizozemski sistem vključeval državna sredstva.
Also the fact that the physical path is calculated by reference to a power plant covering the entire demand of the baseload consumer is justified.
Na podlagi te sodne prakse je mogoče ugotoviti, da subvencije, financirane prek davku podobnih dajatev ali prispevkov, ki jih naloži država ter ki se upravljajo in dodeljujejo v skladu z določbami zakonodaje, pomenijo prenos državnih sredstev, tudi če jih ne izvajajo javni organi, temveč zasebni subjekti, ki jih imenuje država in ki so ločeni od javnih organov.
If the power plant were to cover only part of the demand of the baseload consumer, it would imply that he is using again several parts of the network in order to cover his demand and is thus also responsible for higher network costs.
To je Sodišče potrdilo v zadevi Vent de Colère!, v kateri je zlasti ugotovilo, da to, da zbrana sredstva niso bila posredovana organu Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, temveč so jih zadržala podjetja, zavezana nabavljati električno energijo iz obnovljivih virov po zagotovljenih odkupnih cenah, ne zadostuje za izključitev ukrepa iz državnih sredstev.
As to the fact that the physical path methodology would not accept hydropower plants as baseload power plants, it is noted that the 2010 guidance paper of of the BNetzA referred to under recital 19 above accepts hydro power plants as baseload power plants.
Sodišče je prenos državnih sredstev izključilo samo v zelo posebnih okoliščinah: na primer, Sodišče je menilo, da odločba, s katero nacionalni organ na vse organizacije v določeni panogi razširi sporazum, ki uvaja pobiranje prispevka v medpanožni organizaciji, ki jo ta nacionalni organ priznava, s čimer ta prispevek postane obvezen, da se omogoči izvajanje nekaterih promocijskih dejavnosti in dejavnosti odnosov z javnostmi, ne pomeni državne pomoči.
In addition, the physical path methodology also takes into account network losses and any network services that the baseload consumer has been using, if any.
Sodišče je v zvezi s tem ugotovilo, da ukrep ni bil financiran iz državnih sredstev, ker o tem, kako bodo porabljena sredstva, ki izhajajo iz dajatve, ni odločala država, temveč medpanožna organizacija.
The adequacy of the physical path methodology to determine the network costs caused by baseload consumers has notably been confirmed by the Federal Court of Justice in 2016.
Ta sredstva so bila v celoti namenjena uresničevanju ciljev, ki jih je določila ta organizacija.
The Commission considers thus that a different treatment of atypical users (i.e. non-peak consumers and baseload consumers) compared to the other network users is an integral part of the reference system and expressed in its structure, as long as it is based on the concept of individual network costs attributable to a given network user.
Zato sredstva niso bila stalno pod javnim nadzorom in niso bila na voljo državnim organom.
The full exemption in force between 2011 and 2013 however deviates from the determination of individual network charges applicable to atypical users given that the full exemption does not rest on an individual determination of the costs caused by the caseload consumer.
V sodbi PreussenElektra je Sodišče ugotovilo, da zakon o dovajanju električne energije (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz) v različici, ki se je uporabljala leta 1998, ni vključeval javnega ali zasebnega subjekta, ustanovljenega ali določenega za upravljanje pomoči.
Although both non-peak consumers and baseload consumers are in light of the objective of the network charge system, in a comparable factual and legal situation (they are atypical users for which the published network charges would between 2011-2013 not have led to cost-reflective network charges) they were treated differently.
Ta ugotovitev je temeljila na ugotovitvi, da je bil s Stromeinspeisungsgesetz vzpostavljen mehanizem, ki je bil omejen na to, da je neposredno zavezoval podjetja za oskrbo z električno energijo in operaterje elektroenergetskega omrežja višje v distribucijski verigi, da nabavljajo električno energijo iz obnovljivih virov po fiksnih cenah, ne da bi kateri koli subjekt upravljal tok plačil.
In addition, the full exemption also deviates from the reference system in that it does not require the baseload consumer to pay at least 20 % of the published network charges as required for other atypical users, namely the non-peak consumers.
Za položaj v okviru Stromeinspeisungsgesetz je bila značilna množica dvostranskih razmerij med proizvajalci električne energije iz obnovljivih virov in dobavitelji električne energije.
This difference in treatment corresponds to a discrimination given that there is no reason why baseload consumers should be exempted from that requirement.
Država ni vzpostavila nobene dodatne dajatve, da bi dobaviteljem električne energije zagotovila nadomestilo za finančno breme zaradi obveznosti dobave.
In particular, there is no reason why individual network charges for non-peak consumers should be subject to a safety net while baseload consumers would not, knowing that also baseload consumers – like non-peak consumers benefit from being connected to the network.
Zato ni bil nihče določen za upravljanje take dodatne dajatve in zadevnih finančnih tokov.
Also, the individual network charges calculated by using the physical path methodology will imply a certain approximation.
Nasprotno pa je Sodišče v zadevi Vent de Colère! navedlo, da je francoski sistem podpore drugačen od položaja, preučenega v zadevi PreussenElektra, in sicer z dveh vidikov: v zadevi PreussenElektra ustrezna država članica zadevnih zasebnih podjetij ni pooblastila za upravljanje državnih sredstev, temveč so imela podjetja obveznost odkupa z lastnimi finančnimi sredstvi.
No justification in the nature and logic of the network charge system
Poleg tega v zadevi PreussenElektra ni bilo mehanizma, ki bi ga uvedla in urejala država članica, ki bi bil namenjen nadomestitvi dodatnih stroškov, ki izvirajo iz te obveznosti odkupa, in s katerim bi država tem zasebnim operaterjem zagotavljala kritje navedenih dodatnih stroškov v celoti.
The concept of aid does not encompass measures creating different treatment of undertakings in relation to charges where that difference is attributable to the nature and general scheme of the system of charges in question.
Sodišče je nedavno potrdilo ta različen pristop k ocenjevanju državnih virov.
The burden of proof for that latter part of the test is on the Member State.
V zadevi ENEA S.A. je Sodišče presodilo, da nacionalni ukrep, ki zasebnim in javnim podjetjem nalaga obveznost odkupa električne energije iz soproizvodnje, ne pomeni posredovanja države ali posredovanja iz državnih sredstev, kadar se dodatni stroški, ki izhajajo iz te obveznosti odkupa, ne morejo v celoti prenesti na končne uporabnike in niso financirani iz obveznega prispevka, ki ga predpiše država, ali mehanizma popolnega nadomestila.
It is observed that Germany has not put forward any element showing that the full exemption would be justified by the nature and general scheme of the network charge system in Germany.
Glede na ta načela je treba za preučitev, ali financiranje popolne oprostitve, kot izhaja iz drugega stavka člena 19(2) StromNEV 2011, vključuje državna sredstva, razlikovati med financiranjem popolne oprostitve v letu 2011 in financiranjem te oprostitve v letih 2012 in 2013, tj. po uvedbi dodatne dajatve iz člena 19.