natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the request of Spain, a non-confidential version of the preliminary assessment letter was sent to Spain on 31 July 2015.
Na njeno zahtevo ji je bila 31. julija 2015 poslana nezaupna različica dopisa s predhodno oceno.
By letter dated 26 January 2016, the Commission informed Spain that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of two of the alleged aid measures.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 26. januarja 2016 Španijo obvestila, da bo v zvezi z dvema od domnevnih ukrepov pomoči začela postopek iz člena 108(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
By the same letter, the Commission concluded that the other three measures complained of do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V istem dopisu je ugotovila, da drugi trije ukrepi iz pritožbe ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Sklep Komisije o začetku postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the two alleged aid measures.
Komisija je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe v zvezi z domnevnima ukrepoma pomoči.
By letter dated 19 April 2016, Spain provided comments on the decision to initiate the procedure.
Španija je pripombe k sklepu o začetku postopka poslala v dopisu z dne 19. aprila 2016.
By letter dated 6 October 2016, the Commission asked Spain to provide additional information that was submitted by Spain by letter dated 28 November 2016.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 6. oktobra 2016 Španijo zaprosila za dodatne informacije, ki jih je ta predložila v dopisu z dne 28. novembra 2016.
The Commission received comments from three interested third parties including Iberpotash, the alleged beneficiary of the aid.
Komisija je prejela pripombe od treh zainteresiranih tretjih oseb, med drugim od družbe Iberpotash, domnevne upravičenke do pomoči.
It forwarded them to Spain, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letters dated 27 July 2016 and 6 April 2017.
Posredovala jih je Španiji in ji dala možnost, da odgovori nanje; njene pripombe je prejela v dopisih z dne 27. julija 2016 in 6. aprila 2017.
RECIPIENT
PREJEMNIK
Iberpotash owns and operates two potash mines in the basin of the river of Llobregat in the Bages region in Catalonia, one in Súria and another in Sallent and Balsareny.
Družba Iberpotash ima v lasti in upravlja dva rudnika kalijevega oksida v povodju reke Llobregat v katalonski regiji Bages, enega v občini Súria ter drugega v občinah Sallent in Balsareny.
Potash is used for the production of fertilisers.
Kalijev oksid se uporablja za proizvodnjo gnojil.
In addition, Iberpotash also produces and sells salt mainly for industrial purposes.
Poleg tega družba Iberpotash proizvaja in prodaja tudi sol, večinoma za industrijske namene.
Iberpotash is a subsidiary of ICL Fertilisers, an Israeli multinational which is the largest producer of fertilisers worldwide.
Iberpotash je hčerinska družba družbe ICL Fertilisers, izraelske multinacionalke, ki je največja proizvajalka gnojil na svetu.
The potash mines operating in the region already as of 1920s had been State owned till 1998.
Rudnika kalijevega oksida, ki sta v regiji obratovala že v 20. letih prejšnjega stoletja, sta bila do leta 1998 v državni lasti.
Iberpotash acquired the potash mines in Suria and Sallent/Balsareny on the basis of a sales and purchase agreement concluded on 21 October 1998 with the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales — SEPI, a public holding of the Spanish State.
Družba Iberpotash je rudnika kalijevega oksida v občinah Suria in Sallent/Balsareny pridobila na podlagi kupoprodajne pogodbe, ki jo je 21. oktobra 1998 sklenila z družbo Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales – SEPI, španskim državnim holdingom.
ALLEGED STATE AID MEASURES
DOMNEVNI UKREPI DRŽAVNE POMOČI
According to the Complainant, the Spanish authorities provided illegal and incompatible State aid to Iberpotash through a number of measures.
Po navedbah pritožnika so španski organi družbi Iberpotash z več ukrepi zagotovili nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
All these alleged aid measures relate to Iberpotash's environmental obligations with respect to its mining sites in the basin of the river of Llobregat and the salt waste heaps created at these sites as a result of decades of operation of the mines.
Vsi ti domnevni ukrepi pomoči se nanašajo na okoljske obveznosti družbe Iberpotash v zvezi z njenima rudarskima območjema v povodju reke Llobregat in jalovišči odpadne soli, ki so na teh območjih nastala zaradi desetletij obratovanja rudnikov.
These alleged State aid measures include:
Ti domnevni ukrepi državne pomoči vključujejo:
Failure of the Spanish authorities to comply with Article 14 of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Extractive Waste Directive’) which allegedly led to reduced financial guarantees for obtaining the permits to operate Iberpotash's mines (‘Measure 1: reduced level of the financial guarantees’).
neupoštevanje člena 14 Direktive 2006/21/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (v nadaljnjem besedilu: direktiva o rudarskih odpadkih) s strani španskih organov, kar naj bi privedlo do zmanjšanja finančnih garancij za pridobitev dovoljenj za obratovanje rudnikov družbe Iberpotash („ukrep 1: znižana raven finančnih garancij“);
Investments made by the Spanish authorities in order to limit and/or repair the damages allegedly caused by Iberpotash to the environment in breach of the ‘polluter pays’ principle.
naložbe, ki so jih španski organi izvedli za zmanjšanje in/ali odpravo škode za okolje, ki jo je domnevno povzročila družba Iberpotash, s čimer je bilo kršeno načelo „onesnaževalec plača“.
These investments include:
Te naložbe vključujejo:
construction of a new brine collector in function since 2008 (‘Measure 2: new brine collector’),
izgradnjo novega zbiralnika slanice, ki obratuje od leta 2008 („ukrep 2: nov zbiralnik slanice“);
investments in improvement of water treatment facilities in Abrera and Sant Joan Despí at the Llobregat river (‘Measure 3: investments in water treatment facilities’),
naložbe v izboljšanje čistilnih naprav za vodo v krajih Abrera in Sant Joan Despí ob reki Llobregat („ukrep 3: naložbe v čistilne naprave za vodo“);
covering of a salt waste heap on Iberpotash mining site of Vilafruns (‘Measure 4: covering of Vilafruns waste heap’).
prekritje jalovišča odpadne soli na območju rudnika Vilafruns družbe Iberpotash („ukrep 4: prekritje jalovišča Vilafruns“);
Financing of an environmental study concerning the waste heap of Cogulló (‘Measure 5: Cogulló waste heap study’).
financiranje okoljske študije v zvezi z jaloviščem Cogulló („ukrep 5: študija o jalovišču Cogulló“).
The Complainant estimates that the total alleged aid to Iberpotash due to these measures ranges between EUR 260 million and EUR 407 million.
Pritožnik ocenjuje, da skupni znesek domnevne pomoči za družbo Iberpotash zaradi teh ukrepov znaša med 260 in 407 milijonov EUR.
The Complainant also submitted a separate complaint on an alleged breach of EU environmental law.
Pritožnik je vložil tudi ločeno pritožbo zaradi domnevne kršitve okoljske zakonodaje EU.
Based on this complaint, the Commission sent in July 2014 a letter of formal notice to Spain, thus starting the infringement procedure for non-compliance with obligations under the Extractive Waste Directive.
Komisija je na podlagi te pritožbe Španiji julija 2014 poslala uradni opomin in tako začela postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi direktive o rudarskih odpadkih.
In September 2015, an additional letter of formal notice extended the infringement procedure to the non-compliance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Water Framework Directive’).
Septembra 2015 je bil postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev z dodatnim uradnim opominom razširjen na neupoštevanje Direktive 2000/60/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (v nadaljnjem besedilu: okvirna direktiva o vodah).
The infringement procedure is pending.
Postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev še poteka.
On 26 January 2016, the Commission adopted a decision to open formal investigation with respect to measures 1 and 4 (‘the Opening Decision’) in order to address its doubts whether these measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and whether they are compatible with the internal market.
Komisija je 26. januarja 2016 sprejela sklep o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi z ukrepoma 1 in 4 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklep o začetku postopka), da bi obravnavala pomisleke, ki jih je imela v zvezi s tem, ali ta ukrepa pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe in ali sta združljiva z notranjim trgom.
At the same time, the Commission concluded that measures 2, 3 and 5 do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Hkrati je Komisija ugotovila, da ukrepi 2, 3 in 5 ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Since this conclusion has not been disputed, measures 2, 3 and 5 are not the object of the present decision and shall not be further assessed hereinafter.
Ker se ta ugotovitev ni izpodbijala, ukrepi 2, 3 in 5 niso predmet tega sklepa, zato v nadaljevanju ne bodo podrobneje ocenjeni.
DOUBTS CONCERNING MEASURE 1: REDUCED FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
POMISLEKI V ZVEZI Z UKREPOM 1: ZMANJŠANE FINANČNE GARANCIJE
The Commission found in the Opening Decision that it could not exclude that Measure 1 may constitute State aid.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da ne more izključiti, da bi lahko ukrep 1 pomenil državno pomoč.
In particular, it had doubts whether Measure 1 involved transfer of State resources and provided any economic advantage to Iberpotash and it thus invited the Spanish authorities and third parties to provide more evidence in this respect.
Natančneje, imela je pomisleke v zvezi s tem, ali ukrep 1 vključuje prenos državnih sredstev in zagotavlja gospodarsko prednost družbi Iberpotash, zato je španske organe in tretje osebe pozvala, naj v zvezi s tem zagotovijo več dokazov.
To the extent Measure 1 constituted State aid, the Commission had doubts that it could be found compatible.
Če bi ukrep 1 pomenil državno pomoč, je Komisija dvomila, da bi ga bilo mogoče razglasiti za združljivega.
DOUBTS CONCERNING MEASURE 4: COVERING OF VILAFRUNS WASTE HEAP
POMISLEKI V ZVEZI Z UKREPOM 4: PREKRITJE JALOVIŠČA VILAFRUNS
The Commission found in the Opening Decision that public financing of the covering of Vilafruns waste heap is likely to constitute State aid.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da javno financiranje prekritja jalovišča Vilafruns najverjetneje pomeni državno pomoč.
In particular, it considered that Measure 4 was likely to provide a selective economic advantage to Iberpotash by ensuring better prevention against pollution at the waste facility owned by Iberpotash and thus ensuring compliance with its environmental obligations.
Natančneje, menila je, da je bila z ukrepom 4 družbi Iberpotash najverjetneje dodeljena selektivna gospodarska prednost, ker je zagotovil boljše preprečevanje onesnaženja v objektu za ravnanje z odpadki, ki je bil v lasti navedene družbe, in s tem zagotovil izpolnitev njenih okoljskih obveznosti.
The Commission thus invited the Spanish authorities and third parties to comment on these preliminary conclusions.
Komisija je tako španske organe in tretje osebe pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe v zvezi s temi predhodnimi ugotovitvami.
Further, the Commission considered that since the investment costs were fully financed by the public authorities and Iberpotash covers only subsequent maintenance costs, the aid intensity of Measure 4 is well above the intensities for aid for undertakings which go beyond Community standards or increase the level of environmental protection in the absence of these standards under Section 3.1.1 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (2008/C 82/01) (‘the 2008 Environmental Guidelines’).
Ker so poleg tega stroške naložbe v celoti financirali javni organi, družba Iberpotash pa krije samo stroške naknadnega vzdrževanja, je Komisija menila, da je intenzivnost pomoči ukrepa 4 precej večja od intenzivnosti pomoči za podjetja, ki presegajo standarde Skupnosti ali ki povečujejo stopnjo varstva okolja v odsotnosti teh standardov v skladu z oddelkom 3.1.1 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja (2008/C 82/01) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: okoljske smernice iz leta 2008).
Therefore, the Commission expressed doubts on the compatibility of such aid and invited the Spanish authorities and third parties to comment on this preliminary finding.
Komisija je zato dvomila o združljivosti take pomoči ter španske organe in tretje osebe pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe v zvezi s to predhodno ugotovitvijo.
COMMENTS FROM IBERPOTASH
PRIPOMBE DRUŽBE IBERPOTASH
Iberpotash, for the most part, aligns its comments with the ones submitted by Spain on both measures under investigation.
Družba Iberpotash se v svojih pripombah večinoma pridružuje pripombam, ki jih je Španija predložila v zvezi z obema preiskovanima ukrepoma.
Iberpotash notes, in addition, that Measure 1 does not involve State resources because there has been no transfer of resources by Spain to Iberpotash up to date.
Družba Iberpotash poleg tega opozarja, da ukrep 1 ne vključuje državnih sredstev, ker Španija doslej še ni prenesla sredstev na družbo Iberpotash.
Besides, the risk of this happening is very low, since Iberpotash does not face economic difficulties and will be able to bear the costs of environmental restoration should the amount of the guarantee prove to be insufficient.
Poleg tega je tveganje, da bi se to zgodilo, majhno, saj se družba Iberpotash ne spopada z gospodarskimi težavami in bo lahko krila stroške obnove okolja, če bi se znesek garancije izkazal za nezadostnega.
Iberpotash expresses the same concerns as Spain with regards to the selectivity of the measures and whether they confer an economic advantage or distort competition between member States.
Družba Iberpotash izraža enake pomisleke kot Španija glede selektivnosti ukrepov in glede tega, ali zagotavljajo gospodarsko prednost ali pa izkrivljajo konkurenco med državami članicami.
Iberpotash repeats that Measure 4 is compatible with the 2008 Environmental Guidelines and that the applicable aid intensity for the restoration of contaminated sites is 100 %.
Družba Iberpotash ponavlja, da je ukrep 4 združljiv z okoljskimi smernicami iz leta 2008 in da veljavna intenzivnost pomoči za sanacijo onesnaženih območij znaša 100 %.
COMMENTS FROM THE FIRST INTERESTED PARTY (COMPLAINANT)
PRIPOMBE PRVE ZAINTERESIRANE STRANI (PRITOŽNIKA)
The first interested party, who wishes that its identity be kept confidential, supports the opening of the formal investigation procedure and supports the Commission's arguments in the Opening Decision for both Measures.
Prva zainteresirana stran, ki želi ohraniti zaupnost svoje identitete, podpira začetek formalnega postopka preiskave in pritrjuje trditvam, ki jih je Komisija v sklepu o začetku postopka navedla v zvezi z obema ukrepoma.
The first interested party adds that the setting of an insufficient guarantee entails a real burden for the public authorities, who bear the cost of Iberpotash's environmental obligations.
Prva zainteresirana stran še dodaja, da določitev nezadostne garancije dejansko bremeni javne organe, ki krijejo stroške okoljskih obveznosti družbe Iberpotash.
It also notes that Iberpotash gained an economic advantage because Iberpotash used the financial resources it saved in order to finance its own economic activities.
Navaja tudi, da je družba Iberpotash pridobila gospodarsko prednost, ker je prihranjena finančna sredstva porabila za financiranje svojih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
The first interested party agrees with the Commission that the aid is incompatible because it constitutes operating aid.
Prva zainteresirana stran se strinja s Komisijo, da je pomoč nezdružljiva, ker pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
As regards Measure 2, the first interested party draws the Commission's attention to a decision of the Barcelona Provincial Court of 22 February 2016 that confirmed the liability of Iberpotash to restore the lands damaged by its activities.
Kar zadeva ukrep 2, prva zainteresirana stran Komisijo opozarja na odločitev pokrajinskega sodišča v Barceloni z dne 22. februarja 2016, ki je potrdilo odgovornost družbe Iberpotash za sanacijo zemljišč, uničenih zaradi njenih dejavnosti.
It also adds that the covering of the salt tip is not a ‘pilot’ project because no documents related to the public financing of this measure describe the project as such, and because the method used is a well-known one that has been used by other mining companies for at least 15 years for similar tips.
Dodaja še, da prekritje jalovišča soli ni „pilotni“ projekt, ker projekt kot tak ni opisan v nobenem dokumentu, ki se nanaša na javno financiranje tega ukrepa, in ker je uporabljena metoda dobro poznana in jo druge rudarske družbe že vsaj 15 let uporabljajo za podobna jalovišča.
COMMENTS FROM THE SECOND INTERESTED PARTY
PRIPOMBE DRUGE ZAINTERESIRANE STRANI
The second interested party, who also wishes that its identity be kept confidential, supports the Opening Decision of the Commission.
Druga zainteresirana stran, ki prav tako želi ohraniti zaupnost svoje identitete, podpira sklep Komisije o začetku postopka.
As regards Measure 1, it notes in addition that the question whether the guarantee amount complies with applicable EU or Spanish legislation is irrelevant, because the aid consists in the State's assuming the financial risk of restoring the affected facilities; the quantification of such risk is exclusively a question of fact, not of law.
V zvezi z ukrepom 1 še navaja, da je vprašanje, ali je znesek garancije v skladu z veljavno evropsko ali špansko zakonodajo, brezpredmetno, ker je pomoč že to, da je država prevzela finančno tveganje za sanacijo prizadetih objektov; količinska opredelitev takega tveganja je izključno dejansko vprašanje in ne pravno.
Furthermore, the second interested party questions Iberpotash's availability to pay for the environmental restoration when the obligation arises, because Iberpotash's only Spanish assets are its mining facilities, which will be closed and therefore be of low value after 2035.
Poleg tega druga zainteresirana stran dvomi, da bo družba Iberpotash pripravljena plačati okoljsko sanacijo, ko bo ta obveznost nastala, ker sta njeno edino premoženje v Španiji njena rudnika, ki bosta zaprta in tako po letu 2035 ne bosta veliko vredna.
The second interested party also notes that the setting of a sufficient guarantee amount would entail an annual cost of at least EUR 2806000 for Iberpotash, which is hardly an insignificant amount.
Druga zainteresirana stran tudi opozarja, da bi določitev zadostnega zneska garancije za družbo Iberpotash pomenila letni strošek v višini vsaj 2806000 EUR, kar ni ravno zanemarljiv znesek.
It adds that the setting of the guarantees at the current amount also results in Iberpotash avoiding the collateralisation of its financial reserves.
Dodaja še, da določitev garancij na trenutni znesek pomeni tudi, da se je družba Iberpotash izognila zavarovanju svojih finančnih rezerv.
With regard to Measure 2, the second interested party observes that the Supreme Court judgment of 14 May 2009 along with Council Directive 75/442/EEC and the applicable Spanish law provides that Iberpotash is solely responsible for covering the Vilafruns tip from the very moment that mining rights were transferred to it, regardless whether the site is active or not.
Kar zadeva ukrep 2, druga zainteresirana stran opozarja, da je glede na sodbo vrhovnega sodišča z dne 14. maja 2009, pa tudi Direktivo Sveta 75/442/EGS in veljavno špansko zakonodajo družba Iberpotash, vse odkar so bile rudarske pravice prenesene nanjo, edina odgovorna za prekritje jalovišča Vilafruns ne glede na to, ali rudnik obratuje ali ne.
As regards Measure 4, the second interested party argues that covering of Vilafruns waste heap is a responsibility of Iberpotash and that Iberpotash thus received a selective advantage due to public financing of the covering.
Kar zadeva ukrep 4, druga zainteresirana stran trdi, da je za prekritje jalovišča Vilafruns odgovorna družba Iberpotash in da je ta zaradi javnega financiranja prekritja tako pridobila selektivno prednost.
Further, the second interested party disagrees with qualification of the covering as a pilot project of a new technique of restoration.
Poleg tega se druga zainteresirana stran ne strinja z opredelitvijo prekritja kot pilotnega projekta nove metode sanacije.
It argues that covering salt waste heaps with geomembranes is an old technique used already for a long time e.g. by Alsatian and German potash companies.
Trdi, da je prekritje jalovišč odpadne soli z geomembranami stara metoda, ki se uporablja že dolgo, na primer med alzaškimi in nemškimi proizvajalci kalijevega oksida.
Finally, the second interested party argues that the question whether Iberpotash is the sole potash producer in Spain is irrelevant, because the relevant potash market is global.
Nazadnje, druga zainteresirana stran trdi, da je vprašanje, ali je družba Iberpotash edina proizvajalka kalijevega oksida v Španiji, brezpredmetno, ker je pomemben svetovni trg kalijevega oksida.
An effect on trade is unquestionable because, geographically, Iberpotash competes with French salt producers, as apparent by the proximity (less than 100 km away) of the Suria and Sallent sites to the French border.
O učinku na trgovino ni dvoma, saj v geografskem smislu družba Iberpotash konkurira francoskim proizvajalcem soli, kar je očitno zaradi bližine (manj kot 100 km stran) rudnikov Suria in Sallent francoski meji.
Both the first and the second interested party provided comments also with respect to other three measures analysed in the Opening Decision (measures relating to (i) new brine collector, (ii) investments in water treatment facilities, and (iii) Cogulló waste heap study).
Prva in druga zainteresirana stran sta predložili tudi pripombe v zvezi z drugimi tremi ukrepi, analiziranimi v sklepu o začetku postopka (ukrepi, ki se nanašajo na (i) nov zbiralnik slanice, (ii) naložbe v čistilne naprave za vodo in (iii) študijo o jalovišču Cogulló).
However, as noted in recital 15, the Commission has already concluded in the Opening Decision that these measures do not constitute State aid and are thus not the object of the formal investigation procedure.
Kot pa je opozorjeno v uvodni izjavi 15, je Komisija že v sklepu o začetku postopka ugotovila, da ti ukrepi ne pomenijo državne pomoči in torej niso predmet formalnega postopka preiskave.
The comments of the third parties provided exclusively with respect to these measures not covered by the formal investigation are thus considered irrelevant for the purpose of this decision.
Pripombe tretjih oseb, predložene izključno v zvezi s temi ukrepi, ki niso zajeti s formalno preiskavo, se zato za namene tega sklepa štejejo za brezpredmetne.
COMMENTS ON THE OPENING DECISION
PRIPOMBE K SKLEPU O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
As regards Measure 1, Spain is of the view that the amount of the guarantee has always been appropriate and set in accordance to the applicable Spanish and Union legislation.
Kar zadeva ukrep 1, Španija meni, da je bil znesek garancije vedno ustrezen in določen v skladu z veljavno špansko zakonodajo in zakonodajo Unije.
More particularly, Spain argues that the possible infringements of Extractive Waste Directive do not include setting the guarantee amount too low, therefore there cannot have been an infringement of the Directive.
Natančneje, Španija trdi, da morebitne kršitve direktive o rudarskih odpadkih ne vključujejo določitve prenizkega zneska garancije, zato Direktiva ni mogla biti kršena.