natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See similarly Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl [1997] ECR II-1963, and Case T-239/94 EISA [1997] ECR II-1839, paragraph 100.
Glej podobni zadevi T-244/94 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl (1997), Recueil str. II-1963 in T-239/94 EISA (1997), Recueil str. II-1839, točka 100.
For a detailed explanation of the relevant legislative provisions relating to Icelandic harbours, reference is made to the Authority’s Decision No 658/07/COL to open the formal procedure of 12 December 2007.
Podrobna razlaga ustreznih zakonskih določb v zvezi z islandskimi pristanišči je v Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 658/07/COL o sprožitvi formalnega postopka z dne 12. decembra 2007.
The Authority will hereinafter focus on the specific provisions that caused concern and which were the subject of the formal investigation.
V nadaljevanju se bo Nadzorni organ osredotočil na posebne določbe, ki so povzročile zaskrbljenost in so bile predmet formalne preiskave.
In a letter dated 15 February 2008, the Icelandic authorities argued first of all that despite changes to the legislation, interim provisions within the 2003 Act meant that the provisions relating to support from the Fund “may be postponed” and that the legal position set out in the 1994 Harbour Act was to be maintained until the end of 2008.
Islandski organi so v dopisu z dne 15. februarja 2008 najprej podali mnenje, da so kljub spremembam zakonodaje začasne določbe Zakona iz leta 2003 pomenile, da se določbe v zvezi s podporo iz Sklada „lahko odložijo“ in da se pravni položaj iz Zakona o pristaniščih iz leta 1994 ohrani do konca leta 2008.
The Authority was also informed that this interim provision was extended by Act No 145/2007 so that it now applies until the end of 2010.
Nadzorni organ je bil tudi obveščen, da je bila ta začasna določba z Zakonom št. 145/2007 podaljšana in zdaj velja do konca leta 2010.
Furthermore, the notified amendment including ship hoists in the damage compensation scheme in 2007 entered into effect on 29 March 2007.
Poleg tega je priglašena sprememba, ki je leta 2007 v shemo za nadomestilo škode vključila ladijske dvižne naprave, začela veljati 29. marca 2007.
However, in their comments to the Authority’s decision opening the formal investigation, the Icelandic authorities stated that interim provision II of the 2003 Act stipulated that the rules of the Act regarding state aid would not be applicable until the end of 2008.
Vendar pa so islandski organi v svojih pripombah k Odločbi Nadzornega organa o uvedbi formalne preiskave navedli, da začasna določba II Zakona iz leta 2003 določa, da se pravila Zakona v zvezi z državno pomočjo ne bodo uporabljala do konca leta 2008.
By Act 145/2007, the postponement of the application of the state aid provisions was extended until the end of 2010.
Z Zakonom št. 145/2007 se je odložitev začetka uporabe določb za državno pomoč podaljšala do konca leta 2010.
Hence, even though the Act had entered into force, the application of the state aid provisions of the Act was suspended awaiting the final decision of the Authority.
Iz tega sledi, da je, čeprav je Zakon že začel veljati, uporaba določb Zakona za državno pomoč mirovala do končne odločitve Nadzornega organa.
Any support in excess of these thresholds cannot be considered compatible under the Regional Aid Guidelines 2007–2013.
Vsaka podpora, ki presega te prage, se ne more šteti za združljivo v skladu s Smernicami o regionalni pomoči za 2007–2013.
These thresholds are not complied with in this case.
V tem primeru se ti pragi ne upoštevajo.
The measure must be assessed under both the Guidelines for National Regional Aid 2000–2006 and the Guidelines for National Regional Aid 2007–2013.
Ukrep je treba oceniti v skladu s Smernicami o državni regionalni pomoči za 2000–2006 in Smernicami o državni regionalni pomoči za 2007–2013.
The former guidelines did not open up for operating aid for schemes such as the present.
Prejšnje smernice niso omogočale pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za sheme, kot je trenutna.
After emphasizing that the responsibility for granting aid falls primarily upon the government concerned, the Court of Justice clarified the role of the Commission in the following terms: “[i]t is true … that although any aid measure is likely to favour one undertaking in relation to another, the Commission cannot approve aid the grant of which may result in manifest discrimination between public and private sectors. In such a case the grant of aid would involve distortion of competition to an extent contrary to the common interest” [25].
Sodišče je poudarilo, da je za dodelitev pomoči najprej odgovorna zadevna vlada, vlogo Komisije pa nato pojasnilo z naslednjim: „drži …, da čeprav je verjetno, da bi vsak ukrep pomoči dal prednost enemu podjetju pred drugimi podjetji, pa Komisija ne more odobriti dodelitve pomoči, ki bi lahko povzročila diskriminacijo med javnim in zasebnim sektorjem. V takem primeru bi dodelitev pomoči povzročila izkrivljanje konkurence v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi“ [25].
Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006 p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006 p. 1 as amended).
Odločba št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004, UL L 139, 25.5.2006, str. 37 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 26, 25.5.2006, str. 1, kakor je bila spremenjena.
See the Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/legaltexts.
Glej spletno stran Nadzornega organa: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/legaltexts/
Pilot vessels. The Authority considers that pilot vessels are a form of navigation aid which is essential for safety purposes in certain harbours.
Pilotna plovila Nadzorni organ meni, da so pilotna plovila oblika plovnega pripomočka, ki je bistven za varnostne namene v nekaterih pristaniščih.
Quay installations. Although quay installations could be said to be of a public character, necessary for the proper functioning of a port serving the public interest, they may also serve commercial purposes.
Pristaniške naprave čeprav se za pristaniške naprave lahko šteje, da so javnega značaja in potrebne za pravilno delovanje pristanišča, ki služi javnim interesom, prav tako lahko služijo komercialnim namenom.
Damage compensation for ship hoist/lift facilities and for quay installations. The Authority remains of the view that ship hoist/lift facilities are assets used for economic activity, through which port operators may facilitate, for example, the repair of ships.
Nadomestilo škode za ladijska dvigala/dvižne naprave in pristaniške naprave Nadzorni organ ostaja pri stališču, da so ladijska dvigala/dvižne naprave sredstva, ki se uporabljajo za gospodarsko dejavnost, s čimer lahko upravljavci pristanišč opravljajo npr. popravila ladij.
No 329/09/COL
št. 329/09/COL
on the Norwegian scheme on support for alternative, renewable heating and electricity savings in private households
o norveškem programu podpore za alternativno ogrevanje iz obnovljivih virov energije ter varčevanje z električno energijo v zasebnih gospodinjstvih
HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice [3], in particular to Article 24 thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča, [3] zlasti člena 24 Sporazuma,
HAVING REGARD to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 4(4), 6 and 7(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [4],
OB UPOŠTEVANJU člena 1(2) dela I ter člena 4(4), člena 6 in člena 7(3) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, [4]
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement [5],
OB UPOŠTEVANJU smernic Nadzornega organa glede izvajanja in razlage členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP [5],
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3 [6],
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 o izvajanju določb iz člena 27 dela II Protokola 3 [6],
HAVING CALLED on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [7] and having regard to their comments,
PO POZIVU vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe na podlagi teh določb, [7] in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
By letter dated 13 October 2006 (Event No 393383) the Norwegian Association of Heat Producers (Varmeprodusentenes Forening) [8], filed a complaint alleging that state aid was granted in connection with the Norwegian scheme for alternative, renewable heating and electricity saving measures in private households [9].
V dopisu z dne 13. oktobra 2006 (ev. št. 393383) je Norveško združenje proizvajalcev toplotne energije (Varmeprodusentenes Forening) [8] vložilo pritožbo, v kateri je zatrjevalo, da je bila v zvezi z norveškim programom podpore za alternativno ogrevanje iz obnovljivih virov energije ter varčevanje z električno energijo v zasebnih gospodinjstvih [9] odobrena državna pomoč.
The Complainant is an independent organisation whose objective is to safeguard the interests of producers of wood burning stoves.
Pritožnik je samostojna organizacija, katere cilj je zaščititi interese proizvajalcev peči na trda goriva.
The Complainant submitted supplementary information by letter dated 19 October 2006 (Event No 395451).
Pritožnik je v pismu z dne 19. oktobra 2006 predložil dodatne informacije (ev. št. 395451).
On 19 December 2007, after various exchanges of correspondence [10], the Authority decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Po več izmenjavah dopisov [10] se je Nadzorni organ 19. decembra 2007 odločil začeti postopek iz člena 1(2) dela I Protokola 3.
The Authority’s Decision No 716/07/COL to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto [11].
Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 716/07/COL o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in v Dodatku EGP k Uradnemu listu [11].
The Authority called on interested parties to submit their comments thereon.On 4 February 2008, the Norwegian authorities submitted comments (Event No 463573).
Nadzorni organ je pozval zainteresirane stranke, naj v zvezi z navedeno odločbo predložijo svoje pripombe.Norveški organi so pripombe (ev. št. 463573) predložili 4. februarja 2008.
The Authority also received comments from interested parties, which were forwarded to the Norwegian authorities on 21 May 2008, 26 May 2008 and 14 January 2009 (respectively Event Nos 477954, 477902 and 503830).
Nadzorni organ je prejel tudi pripombe zainteresiranih strank, ki so bile norveškim organom posredovane 21. maja 2008, 26. maja 2008 in 14. januarja 2009 (v tem zaporedju ev. št. 477954, 477902 in 503830).
The Norwegian authorities submitted their observations on these comments by letters dated 25 June 2008, 4 July 2008 and 6 March 2009 (respectively Event Nos 483303, 484722 and 511580).
Norveški organi so predložili svoje ugotovitve glede teh pripomb v dopisih z dne 25. junija 2008, 4. julija 2008 in 6. marca 2009 (v tem zaporedju ev. št. 483303, 484722 in 511580).
By letter dated 2 April 2009, the Complainant supplied further information (Event No 514264), which was forwarded to the Norwegian authorities on 8 April 2009 (Event No 514886).
Z dopisom z dne 2. aprila 2009 je pritožnik predložil dodatne informacije (ev. št. 514264), ki so bile norveškim organom posredovane 8. aprila 2009 (ev. št. 514886).
By letter dated 7 May 2009, the Norwegian authorities presented further comments (Event No 517749).
V dopisu z dne 7. maja 2009 so norveški organi predstavili nadaljnje pripombe (ev. št. 517749).
On 21 April 2009, representatives of the Authority met with representatives from the Norwegian Bio Energy Association [12], an independent association whose objective is to promote rational utilisation of bioenergy in Norway.
Srečanje med predstavniki Nadzornega organa in predstavniki Norveškega združenja za bioenergijo [12], neodvisnega združenja, katerega cilj je spodbujati učinkovito rabo bioenergije na Norveškem, je potekalo 21. aprila 2009.
NOBIO had submitted observations to the Authority’s Decision on 21 May 2008 (Event No 477954).
NOBIO je ugotovitve glede odločbe Nadzornega organa predložil 21. maja 2008 (ev. št. 477954).
THE ALTERNATIVE HEATING SCHEME
PROGRAM ZA ALTERNATIVNO OGREVANJE
The Norwegian authorities have explained that only technologies which are suitable replacements to electricity as a primary source of heating are included under the alternative heating scheme.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da so v programu za alternativno ogrevanje zajete samo tehnologije, ki so primerno nadomestilo električne energije kot osnovnega vira ogrevanja.
The scheme covers pellet stoves and boilers, heat pumps connected to waterborne heating systems and control systems for reducing consumption of electricity.
Program zajema peči in grelnike na pelete, toplotne črpalke v sistemih ogrevanja s toplo vodo in krmiljenje za zmanjšanje porabe električne energije.
As of August 2008 [15], investments in solar heating collectors connected to waterborne heating systems are also included in the scheme.
Od avgusta 2008 [15] so v program vključena tudi vlaganja v sončne kolektorje v sistemih ogrevanja s toplo vodo.
Only households that invest in the relevant heating technologies after submitting an application are eligible for funding.
Do financiranja so upravičena samo gospodinjstva, ki po vložitvi vloge vlagajo v ustrezne tehnologije ogrevanja.
The grants are disbursed ex post, after the recipient has submitted a proof of purchase.
Subvencije se izplačajo naknadno, po prejemnikovi predložitvi dokazila o nakupu.
Private households can apply for a maximum refund of 20 % of documented and eligible costs.
Zasebna gospodinjstva lahko zaprosijo za vračilo največ 20 % dokumentiranih in upravičenih stroškov.
The grants are limited to NOK 4000 for pellet stoves and electronic control systems.
Subvencije so omejene na 4000 NOK za peči na pelete in elektronsko krmiljene sisteme.
For heat pumps, pellet boilers and solar heating collectors the limit is NOK 10000.
Za toplotne črpalke, grelnike na pelete in sončne kolektorje je omejitev 10000 NOK.
The aid scheme is administered by Enova SF, a public company (‘statsforetak’) fully owned by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.
Program pomoči nadzoruje Enova SF, javno podjetje („statsforetak“) v popolni lasti Ministrstva za nafto in energijo.
NATIONAL LEGAL BASIS FOR THE AID MEASURE
NACIONALNA PRAVNA PODLAGA ZA UKREP POMOČI
The legal basis for the scheme is the State budget.
Pravna podlaga za program je državni proračun.
The scheme was initiated in 2006 by Parliamentary proposition no 82 (2005-2006).
Začetek programa sega v leto 2006 in je povezan s parlamentarnim predlogom št. 82 (2005–2006).
The proposal was adopted by Parliament on 15 September 2006 with a budget of NOK 46 million.
Predlog je parlament sprejel 15. septembra 2006 s proračunom 46 milijonov NOK.
In accordance with Parliamentary proposition no 22 (2006-2007), the scheme's budget was later increased by NOK 25 million to a total of NOK 71 million in the last revision of the state budget for 2006.
V skladu s parlamentarnim predlogom št. 22 (2006–2007) je bil pozneje proračun programa povečan za 25 milijonov NOK, kar je v zadnji reviziji državnega proračuna za leto 2006 skupaj znašalo 71 milijonov NOK.
Enova was not granted additional funding for the scheme for 2007, but as only NOK 2 million were disbursed during 2006, the Parliament decided to transfer the remaining NOK 69 million to the scheme’s 2007 budget.
Podjetju Enova ni bilo odobreno dodatno financiranje programa za leto 2007, ker pa sta bila leta 2006 izplačana samo 2 milijona NOK, se je parlament odločil, da prenese preostalih 69 milijonov NOK v proračun programa za leto 2007.
Thus the total aid scheme budget for 2008 amounted to NOK 60 million.
Tako je celoten proračun programa pomoči za leto 2008 znašal 60 milijonov NOK.
Since its initiation a total of NOK 142 million have been allocated to the scheme over the state budged, of which NOK 72 million had been disbursed by the end of 2008; there is no defined timeframe for the scheme [18].
Od začetka programa je bilo vanj vloženih skupno 142 milijonov NOK iz državnega proračuna, od tega je bilo 72 milijonov NOK izplačanih do konca leta 2008; časovni okvir programa ni določen [18].
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK URADNE PREISKAVE
The Authority opened the formal investigation procedure on the basis that the alternative heating scheme could involve state aid.
Nadzorni organ je začel uradni postopek preiskave,ker bi lahko program za alternativno ogrevanje vključeval državno pomoč.
Although the direct beneficiaries of the scheme are final consumers, the scheme is aimed at promoting the use of specific heating technologies.
Čeprav so neposredni upravičenci programa končni potrošniki, je program namenjen spodbujanju uporabe določenih tehnologij ogrevanja.
Therefore, the Authority questioned whether indirect state aid is granted to producers, importers and/or sellers of the heating technologies covered by the scheme.
Zato je Nadzorni organ zanimalo, ali je posredna državna pomoč dodeljena proizvajalcem, uvoznikom in/ali prodajalcem tehnologij ogrevanja, zajetih v programu.
The Authority had doubts whether the scheme could be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ je dvomil, da je mogoče program obravnavati kot združljiv z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
More specifically, the Authority had doubts as to whether the Environmental Aid Guidelines could be applicable as the indirect aid would not contribute to the reduction of the amount of energy used in the producers and/or importers production cycle.
Natančneje, Nadzorni organ je dvomil, da bi, če bi se Smernice o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja lahko izvajale kot posredna pomoč, to prispevalo k zmanjšanju količine energije, porabljene v proizvodnem ciklusu proizvajalcev in/ali uvoznikov.
Furthermore, the Authority questioned whether the scheme could be considered compatible under Article 61(3)(c) EEA.
Nadalje je Nadzorni organ zanimalo, ali se program lahko šteje kot združljiv na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the only recipients of the alternative heating scheme are private households which are not undertakings within the meaning of the EEA competition rules, and that the measure, for that reason, cannot be considered to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Norveški organi trdijo, da so edini prejemniki programa za alternativno ogrevanje zasebna gospodinjstva, ki niso podjetja v smislu pravil EGP o konkurenci, in da zato ukrep ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities argue that the scheme is not selective as the advantage conferred on the recipient is justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it is part and therefore cannot be considered as state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Poleg tega Norveški organi trdijo, da program ni selektiven, saj je prednost, dodeljena prejemniku, upravičena z naravo ali splošno shemo sistema, katerega del je, in se zato ne more šteti za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Additionally, the Norwegian authorities argue that the scheme does not distort or threaten to distort competition since wood burning stoves and the technologies entitled to support cannot be regarded as substitutable products and thus not within the same relevant product market.
Poleg tega norveški organi zatrjujejo, da program ne izkrivlja ali ogroža konkurence, saj peči na trdo gorivo in tehnologij, upravičenih do podpore, ni mogoče obravnavati kot nadomestljivih proizvodov in torej ne na istem upoštevnem proizvodnem trgu.
The Norwegian authorities consider the relevant market to be ‘those technologies which can replace electric heating and provide the same level of heating comfort as electric heating during day and night, or in a more technical language, base load heating systems’ [19].
Norveški organi štejejo za upoštevni trg „tiste tehnologije, ki lahko nadomestijo ogrevanje na elektriko in nudijo enako raven udobja ogrevanja kot električno ogrevanje čez dan in ponoči, ali tehnično povedano, sisteme ogrevanja pri osnovni obremenitvi“ [19].
In contrast, wood burning stoves should, according to the authorities, be classified as a supplementary heat source used in addition to the base load source.
Nasprotno bi morale biti peči na trdo gorivo, po besedah organov, opredeljene kot dodaten vir ogrevanja, ki se uporablja poleg vira ogrevanja pri osnovni obremenitvi.
Wood burning stoves should therefore be characterised as so called ‘peak load’ heating systems.
Peči na trdo gorivo bi morale biti tako opredeljene kot tako imenovani sistemi ogrevanja z „največjo obremenitvijo“.
Finally, in case the Authority were to find that the scheme constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, the Norwegian authorities argue that the scheme is justifiable under both Article 61(2)(a) and 61(3)(c) EEA on the basis of its respectively social and environmental objectives.
Če bi torej Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da program predstavlja državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, bi norveški organi dokazovali, da je program na podlagi njegovih socialnih in okoljskih ciljev upravičen tako po členu 61(2)(a) kot tudi po členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority has received comments from two third parties: the Norwegian Association of Heat Producers, which is the Complainant, and NOBIO.
Nadzorni organ je prejel pripombe dveh tretjih oseb: Norveškega združenja proizvajalcev toplotne energije, torej pritožnika, in Norveškega združenja za bioenergijo NOBIO.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the alternative heating scheme constitutes illegal state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Pritožnik meni, da program za alternativno ogrevanje predstavlja nezakonito državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
It alleges that the support to private households must be regarded as constituting an indirect advantage for the producers and/or the importers of the heating technologies covered by the scheme.
Zatrjuje, da je treba podporo zasebnim gospodinjstvom obravnavati kot posredno prednost za proizvajalce in/ali uvoznike tehnologij ogrevanja, zajetih v programu.
More specifically, according to the information supplied by the Complainant, the sales of pellet stoves have increased with the introduction of the scheme.
Natančneje, z uvedbo programa se je po podatkih, ki jih je posredoval pritožnik, povečala prodaja peči na pelete.
The Complainant argues that the introduction of the support scheme has given the producers importers and retailers of pellet stoves the opportunity to increase sales and profits.
Pritožnik trdi, da je uvedba programa podpore dala proizvajalcem, uvoznikom in prodajalcem peči na pelete na drobno možnost, da povečajo prodajo in dobiček.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition because wood burning stoves, which are similar to pellet stoves, are not covered by the scheme.
Nadalje pritožnik trdi, da program izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco, ker peči na trdo gorivo, ki so podobne pečem na pelete, niso vključene v program.
Finally, the Complainant considers that neither Article 61(2)(a) nor 61(3)(c) EEA can justify the aid scheme in its current form.
Pritožnik tudi meni, da niti člen 61(2)(a) niti člen 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP ne moreta upravičiti programa pomoči v njegovi trenutni obliki.
COMMENTS FROM NOBIO
PRIPOMBE ZDRUŽENJA NOBIO
NOBIO supports the views of the Norwegian authorities and holds that the scheme only entails a direct financial support to private households, and not to undertakings, and that the scheme consequently does not involve state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Združenje NOBIO podpira mnenje norveških organov in meni, da program predvideva neposredno finančno podporo samo zasebnim gospodinjstvom in ne podjetjem ter da posledično ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.