natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission’s concern against this tax base divergence was that a low tax base might lead to a distortion of competition if it encourages non-Belgian ship-owners to transfer their ships from a Community register to the Belgian register.
Pomislek Komisije glede te razlike v davčni osnovi je bil, da nizka davčna stopnja lahko povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence, če spodbuja nebelgijske lastnike ladij, da svoje ladje prenesejo iz registra Skupnosti v belgijski register.
See Decision No 755/08/COL of 3 December 2008 on the notification of amendments to the Norwegian special tax system for shipping.
Glej Odločbo št. 755/08/COL z dne 3. decembra 2008 o priglasitvi sprememb norveškega posebnega davčnega sistema za ladjarstvo.
Decision No 93/2006 – Poland.
Odločba N 93/2006 – Poljska.
This Act was adopted by Parliament on 17 March 2007 and published in the Official Law Gazette on 30 March 2007.
Ta zakon je bil sprejet v Parlamentu 17. marca 2007 in objavljen v Uradnem listu dne 30. marca 2007.
According to Article 17 of the Tonnage Tax Act, it entered into force on 1 January 2008.
V skladu s členom 17 Zakona o davku na tonažo je začel veljati 1. januarja 2008.
The Tonnage Tax Act needs to be seen in connection with Act 38/2007 um íslenska alþjóðlega skipaskrá on the Icelandic International Ship Register [11] (hereinafter the ‘IIS’) which entered into force on 1 January 2008 [12].2.3. THE TONNAGE TAX
Zakon o davku na tonažo je treba obravnavati skupaj z Zakonom 38/2007 um íslenska alþjóðlega skipaskrá o islandskem mednarodnem ladijskem registru [11] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: IIS), ki je začel veljati 1. januarja 2008 [12].2.3 ZAKON O DAVKU NA TONAŽO
They must consequently be viewed as selective within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement [17].1.3. DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE BETWEEN CONTRACTING PARTIES
Posledično ju je treba obravnavati kot selektivna v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP [17].1.3 IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE IN UČINEK NA TRGOVINO MED POGODBENICAMI
The Icelandic authorities have indicated that the Icelandic Government had submitted a draft bill to the Parliament which was to postpone the entry into force of Act No 38/2007 until 1 January 2009.
Islandski organi so navedli, da je islandska vlada parlamentu predložila osnutek zakona, ki naj bi preložil začetek veljavnosti Zakona št. 38/2007 do 1. januarja 2009.
The bill of law was submitted to Parliament on 28 November 2007 and was discussed on 4 December 2007.
Osnutek zakona je bil predložen parlamentu 28. novembra 2007 in obravnavan 4. decembra 2007.
The bill was however not agreed upon and was consequently never sent to the second reading in Parliament.
Vendar se o osnutku zakonu niso sporazumeli in tako ni bil nikoli poslan parlamentu v drugo obravnavo.
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1],
NADZORNI SVET EFTE JE [1] –
Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994 p. 1. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines.
Smernice o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP in člena 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki jih je Nadzorni organ sprejel in izdal dne 19. januarja 1994, objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije v nadaljnjem besedilu: UL L 231, 3.9.1994, str. 1. in v Dopolnilu EGP št. 32, 3.9.1994, str. 1 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice o državni pomoči).
No 305/09/COL
št. 305/09/COL
on the power sales agreement entered into by Notodden municipality and Becromal Norway AS
o sporazumu o prodaji električne energije med občino Notodden in podjetjem Becromal Norway AS
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], and in particular Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE [1] JE – ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2], zlasti členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma in Protokola 26 k Sporazumu,
Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice [3], and in particular 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(3) of Part I and Articles 4(2), 4(4) and 7(2) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [4],
ob upoštevanju člena 1(3) dela I ter členov 4(2), 4(4) in 7(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču [4],
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [5], and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe na podlagi teh določb [5], in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
The Authority’s Decision No 718/07/COL to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and in the EEA Supplement hereto [6].
Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 718/07/COL o sprožitvi uradnega preiskovalnega postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in v Dodatku EGP [6].
By letter dated 4 February 2008 (Event No 463572), the Norwegian authorities have submitted comments to the opening decision.
Z dopisom z dne 4. februarja 2008 (ev. št. 463572) so norveški organi predložili pripombe k odločbi o sprožitvi postopka.
By letter dated 21 May 2008, the aid recipient, Becromal Norway AS, requested a meeting with the Authority.
Z dopisom z dne 21. maja 2008 je prejemnik pomoči, podjetje Becromal Norway AS, zahteval srečanje z Nadzornim organom.
A meeting was held at the Authority’s premises on 11 June 2008.
Srečanje je bilo organizirano v prostorih Nadzornega organa dne 11. junija 2008.
Description of the investigated measure
Opis preiskovanega ukrepa
Notodden is a municipality in the County of Telemark in south-eastern Norway.
Notodden je občina v okrožju Telemark na jugovzhodu Norveške.
Located where two rivers flow into the lake Heddalsvatnet, the municipality has significant hydropower resources within its limits.
Občina leži ob izlivu dveh rek v jezero Heddalsvatnet in tako znotraj svojih meja razpolaga z znatnimi viri vodne energije.
In that capacity, the municipality is entitled to receive a certain amount of so-called ‘concession power’ from concessionaires for waterfall exploitation every year.
Tako je občina vsako leto upravičena do prejema določene količine „električne energije po znižani ceni“ od koncesionarjev za izkoriščanje slapa.
The system of concession power is laid down in Section 2(12) of the Industrial Licensing Act and Section 12(15) of the Waterfalls Regulation Act [7].
Sistem električne energije po znižani ceni je predpisan s poglavjem 2(12) Zakona o industrijskem licenciranju in s poglavjem 12(15) Zakona o upravljanju s slapovi [7].
According to these provisions, which are identical in wording, counties and municipalities in which a power plant is located are entitled to receive up to 10 per cent of a plant’s yearly production at a price determined by the State.
Na podlagi teh določb, katerih besedila se ujemajo, so okrožja in občine, v katerih se nahaja elektrarna, upravičena do 10 odstotkov letne proizvodnje elektrarne po ceni, ki jo določi država.
With respect to concessions granted prior to 1959, such as the concession in the case at hand, the price is based on the so-called ‘individual costs’ of the plant, unless a lower price is agreed on [8].
Pri koncesijah, podeljenih pred letom 1959, kot je koncesija v zadevnem primeru, se cena oblikuje glede na tako imenovane „posamezne stroške“ elektrarne, razen v primeru dogovora o nižji ceni [8].
Thus, the price of concession power will normally be lower than the market price.Each municipality’s entitlement to concession power is decided on the basis of its ‘general electric power supply needs’.
Znižana cena električne energije je torej običajno nižja od tržne cene.O upravičenosti posamezne občine do električne energije po znižani ceni se odloča na podlagi „splošne potrebe po oskrbi z električno energijo“ zadevne občine.
According to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, this includes electric power for industry, agriculture and households, but not power for power intensive industries and wood conversion [9].
Po besedah Norveškega direktorata za vodne vire in energetiko to vključuje električno energijo za industrijo, kmetijstvo in gospodinjstva, ne pa energijo za energetsko intenzivne industrije in predelavo lesa [9].
From 1988 Notodden municipality had been entitled to approximately 3,9 GWh from the Sagafoss waterfall located in Notodden, which appears to have been raised to 7,114 GWh in 2002 [10].
Od leta 1988 je bila občina Notodden upravičena do približno 3,9 GWh energije, pridobljene iz slapa Sagafoss, ki leži v občini Notodden, leta 2002 pa se je količina domnevno povečala na 7,114 GWh [10].
In addition to the concession power volumes that the municipality was entitled to under the regulations on concession power, Notodden municipality appears to have had its own rights of use of the waterfall Sagafoss in Notodden.
Poleg količine električne energije po znižani ceni, do katere je bila občina upravičena v skladu z uredbami o električni energiji po znižani ceni, je imela občina Notodden očitno lastne pravice do izkoriščanja slapa Sagafoss v občini Notodden.
This right of use was exploited by Tinfos AS and not by the municipality itself.
Pravico do uporabe je uveljavljalo podjetje Tinfos AS in ne občina sama.
In return, the municipality was entitled to additional volumes of electric power from the plant.
V zameno je bila občina upravičena do dodatne količine električne energije iz elektrarne.
The price was set at 13,5 øre/kWh for concession power and the additional volume alike.
Cena za električno energijo po znižani ceni kot tudi za dodatno količino je bila 13,5 øre/kWh.
After 31 March 2006, the municipality has only been entitled to buy the volume constituting the concession power, and the prices established for the municipality’s purchase of such power has been applicable since then.
Po 31. marcu 2006 je bila občina upravičena le do nakupa količine električne energije po znižani ceni, cene, določene za nakup te energije s strani občine, pa veljajo od takrat dalje.
The relevant legal basis for the municipalities’ right to concession power, referred to above, expressly states that municipalities may dispose of the concession power as they see fit, irrespective of the fact that the amount to which they are entitled is calculated on the basis of their ‘general electric power supply needs’.
V ustrezni pravni podlagi za zgoraj omenjeno pravico občin do električne energije po znižani ceni je izrecno navedeno, da lahko občine z električno energijo po znižani ceni razpolagajo po lastni presoji kljub dejstvu, da se količina, do katere so upravičene, izračuna na podlagi njihove „splošne potrebe po oskrbi z električno energijo“.
Thus, there is nothing to prevent municipalities from selling this power to power intensive industries, or any other industry, established within the municipality.
Tako ni ovir, ki bi občinam preprečile prodajo električne energije energetsko intenzivnim industrijam ali kateri koli industriji s sedežem v občini.
Against this background, on 10 May 2002, the municipality entered into an agreement [12] with the aluminium foil producer Becromal concerning the resale of the power volumes to which it was entitled under the agreement with Tinfos.
Na podlagi tega je občina 10. maja 2002 sklenila sporazum [12] s proizvajalcem aluminijaste folije Becromal glede nadaljnje prodaje količine električne energije, do katere je bila upravičena po sporazumu s podjetjem Tinfos.
The agreement takes retroactive effect and, therefore, also governs the power volumes sold to Becromal from 14 May 2001 until the date of signature of the contract.
Sporazum se uporablja z učinkom za nazaj in zato ureja tudi količine električne energije, prodane podjetju Becromal od 14. maja 2001 do datuma podpisa pogodbe.
From July to December 2006, the municipality paid 11,235 øre/kWh and sold the power to Becromal at 15,21 øre/kWh.
Od julija do decembra 2006 je občina električno energijo kupovala po 11,235 øre/kWh in jo prodajala podjetju Becromal po ceni 15,21 øre/kWh.
From January through March 2007, the municipality paid 10,425 øre/kWh and sold at 14,20 øre/kWh [14].By letter dated 4 March 2007 [15], Becromal requested a prolongation of the power purchase agreement.
Od januarja do marca 2007 je občina električno energijo kupovala po 10,425 øre/kWh in jo prodajala po 14,20 øre/kWh [14].V dopisu z dne 4. marca 2007 [15] je podjetje Becromal zaprosilo za podaljšanje pogodbe o nakupu električne energije.
It also asked whether higher volumes could be included in the contract.
Hkrati je tudi zaprosilo, če bi lahko v pogodbo vključili večje količine električne energije.
The municipality replied, by letter dated 4 July, that in light of Becromal’s letter, it considered that an agreement had been reached concerning power volumes for 2007. Hence, it would come back soon with a draft agreement.
Občina je v dopisu z dne 4. julija odgovorila, da glede na dopis podjetja Becromal šteje sporazum za sklenjen, kar zadeva količine električne energije za leto 2007, in da bo torej kmalu pripravila osnutek sporazuma.
In respect of the period from 2008 to 2010, it upheld its previous position that the contract must be on market terms [16].
V zvezi z obdobjem od leta 2008 do 2010 je odstopila od svoje dotedanje zahteve, da mora biti pogodba v skladu s tržnimi pogoji [16].
The municipality has later confirmed that no formal agreement has yet been entered into.
Občina je pozneje potrdila, da ni sklenila še nobenega sporazuma.
Nor have negotiations been held with respect to the period after 1 January 2008 [17].
Niti se ni pogajala za obdobje po 1. januarju 2008 [17].
The Norwegian authorities have submitted their comments by forwarding a letter from Notodden municipality.
Norveški organi so pripombe predložili s posredovanjem dopisa občine Notodden.
The municipality argues, primarily, that the market price for long-term over-the-counter (OTC) contracts at Nord Pool was in fact roughly similar to the price agreed between the municipality of Notodden and Becromal.
Občina je predvsem trdila, da je bila tržna cena za dolgoročne OTC pogodbe Nord Poola dejansko približno enaka ceni, o kateri sta se dogovorila občina Notodden in podjetje Becromal.
In fact, according to the table ‘Prices of electric energy traded in the wholesale market and concession power — 1994-2005’ downloaded from the homepage of Statistics Norway [18], the average price for contracts of 1 to 5 years’ duration in 2001 was 13,6 øre/kWh, whilst the price agreed between Notodden and Becromal was 13,5 øre/kWh.
Dejansko je bila povprečna cena glede na tabelo „Tržne cene električne energije na trgu na debelo in električne energije po znižani ceni 1994–2005“, naloženo z domače strani urada Statistics Norway [18], za 1- do 5-letne pogodbe v letu 2001 13,6 øre/kWh, medtem ko je bila cena po dogovoru med občino Notodden in podjetjem Becromal 13,5 øre/kWh.
The municipality recognises that contract price and that appearing in the table from Statistics Norway are both significantly lower than the Nord Pool spot price.
Občina se zaveda, da sta tako pogodbena cena kot tudi cena iz tabele urada Statistics Norway bistveno nižji od promptne cene Nord Poola.
In that respect, it points out that the difference between the price to Becromal and the market price in the range of NOK 17,5 million, mentioned in a letter from the municipality to the company and referred to in the opening decision, actually refers to the difference between the agreed price and the spot price.
V zvezi s tem poudarja, da se razlika med ceno za podjetje Becromal in tržno ceno v višini 17,5 milijona NOK, ki je bila omenjena v dopisu občine podjetju in obravnavana v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, dejansko nanaša na razliko med dogovorjeno in promptno ceno.
With regard to the relevant benchmark price, the municipality argues that the contract price should be compared to the price for OTC contracts and not to the spot price.
Glede ustrezne normirane cene občina trdi, da je treba pogodbeno ceno primerjati s ceno za OTC pogodbe in ne s promptno ceno.
Although the municipality could have sold the power volumes purchased under this agreement on the spot market, thereby potentially obtaining a higher price, it is argued that this would expose the municipality to significant financial risk.
Resda bi lahko občina prodala količine električne energije, kupljene po tem sporazumu na promptnem trgu, in s tem morebiti dosegla višjo ceno, vendar pa bi bila zaradi tega izpostavljena velikemu finančnemu tveganju.
The Norwegian authorities describe the contract with Becromal as a back-to-back contract, designed to secure the municipality against financial loss.
Norveški organi opisujejo pogodbo s podjetjem Becromal kot vzajemno pogodbo, saj je sestavljena tako, da varuje občino pred finančno izgubo.
State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA and the Authority’s doubts in the opening decision
Državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) EGP in dvomi Nadzornega organa iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka
State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA Agreement is defined as follows:
Državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP je opredeljena, kot sledi:
It follows from this provision that, for State aid within the meaning of the EEA to be present, the aid must be granted through State resources; it must confer a selective economic advantage upon the recipient(s); the beneficiary must be an undertaking within the meaning of the EEA Agreement and the aid measure must be capable of distorting competition and affecting trade between the contracting parties.
Iz te določbe sledi, da mora biti za obstoj državne pomoči v smislu EGP le-ta dodeljena iz državnih sredstev; prejemniku(-om) mora zagotavljati selektivno gospodarsko prednost; upravičenec mora biti podjetje v smislu Sporazuma EGP, ukrepi pomoči pa morajo biti zmožni izkrivljanja konkurence in vplivanja na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
In the opening decision, the Authority considered that the contract between Notodden municipality and Becromal would confer a selective advantage on Becromal, and, thus, involve aid, if the price agreed between the parties did not correspond to the market price.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Nadzorni organ predvideval, da bo pogodba med občino Notodden in podjetjem Becromal slednjemu zagotavljala selektivno prednost in s tem vključevala pomoč, če med pogodbenicami dogovorjena cena ne bi ustrezala tržni ceni.
The Authority held that the facts of the case indicated that the contract price might have been lower than the market price.
Nadzorni organ je menil, da dejstva primera kažejo na to, da je bila pogodbena cena morda nižja od tržne cene.
Firstly, the Authority pointed out that the price in the municipality’s power sales contract with Becromal reflected its own purchase price under the contract with Tinfos.
Nadzorni organ je v prvi vrsti poudaril, da cena v pogodbi o prodaji električne energije med občino in podjetjem Becromal odraža lastno nakupno ceno iz pogodbe s podjetjem Tinfos.
As this price, in turn, was partly based on the price for concession power and partly reflected compensation to the municipality for Tinfos’ exploitation of the municipality’s right of use to the waterfall, it was likely to be considerably lower than the market price.
Ker je ta cena deloma temeljila na ceni električne energije po znižani ceni, deloma pa odražala nadomestilo podjetja Tinfos občini za uveljavljanje pravice občine do izkoriščanja slapa, je verjetno, da je bila znatno nižja od tržne cene.
The Authority pointed out that the price seemed low compared to other contracts entered into around the same time.
Nadzorni organ je poudaril, da se zdi cena v primerjavi z ostalimi pogodbami, sklenjenimi v enakem obdobju, nizka.
Finally, it referred to the municipality’s own statement that the contract might have saved Becromal NOK 17,5 million compared to the market price.
Poleg tega se je skliceval na izjavo občine, da bi podjetje Becromal s pogodbo lahko prihranilo 17,5 milijona NOK v primerjavi s tržno ceno.
The presence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA
Obstoj prednosti v smislu člena 61(1) EGP
In order for this condition to be fulfilled, the measures must confer on Becromal advantages that relieve it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.
Da bi bil ta pogoj izpolnjen, morajo ukrepi podjetju Becromal zagotavljati prednosti, ki podjetje razbremenijo stroškov, ki sicer običajno izhajajo iz njegovega proračuna.
This would be the case when a public entity does not fix an energy tariff in the manner of an ordinary economic agent but uses it to confer a pecuniary advantage on energy consumers [19].
To se zgodi, če javni subjekt ne določi tarife za energijo kot običajen gospodarski subjekt, temveč jo uporablja za dodelitev finančnih ugodnosti porabnikom energije [19].
In the case at hand, an advantage would be present if the power price in the contract between Becromal and Notodden municipality is lower than the market price.
V obravnavanem primeru bi prednost obstajala, če bi bila cena električne energije v pogodbi med podjetjem Becromal in občino Notodden nižja od tržne cene.
As a preliminary comment, the Authority notes that the cost-based price mechanism in the agreement, as referred to above, gives rise to a presumption that an economic advantage is present.
V uvodni opombi Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je na podlagi zgoraj omenjenega, na stroških osnovanega cenovnega mehanizma iz sporazuma mogoče sklepati o obstoju gospodarske prednosti.
The prices of concession power which the municipalities are entitled to buy, on the basis of the legislation referred to above, would in the majority of cases be significantly lower than the market price.
Cene električne energije po znižani ceni, do katere so občine upravičene na podlagi zgoraj omenjene zakonodaje, bi bile v večini primerov znatno nižje od tržne cene.
However, for a finding that an economic advantage is present, it is not sufficient to rely on that presumption alone.
Vendar pa za ugotovitev o obstoju gospodarske prednosti ni dovolj zanašati se le na domnevo.
It must be demonstrated that the price was in fact lower than the market price for a similar contract as the one between Notodden and Becromal.
Treba je dokazati, da je bila v pogodbi, podobni tisti med občino Notodden in podjetjem Becromal, cena dejansko nižja od tržne cene.
In order to establish the market price, the Authority must assess which price would have been acceptable to a private investor in a market economy.
Za določitev tržne cene mora Nadzorni organ oceniti, katera cena bi bila sprejemljiva za zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
In the opening decision, the Authority referred to a difference of NOK 17,5 million between the price paid and the market price.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka se je Nadzorni organ skliceval na razliko 17,5 milijona NOK med plačano in tržno ceno.
In their comments to the Authority’s opening decision, the Norwegian authorities have clarified that this was the difference between the spot market price and the contract price.
Norveški organi so v svojih pripombah glede odločitve o sprožitvi postopka pojasnili, da je bila to razlika med promptno tržno ceno in pogodbeno ceno.
However, as the contract in question is a bilateral contract of five years’ duration, the contract price cannot necessarily be compared to the spot market prices, as those prices reflect the sale of electricity on the power exchange Nord Pool.
Vendar ker je zadevna pogodba dvostranska pogodba s petletnim obdobjem trajanja, pogodbene cene ni mogoče primerjati s promptnimi tržnimi cenami, saj te cene odražajo prodajo elektrike na borzi z električno energijo Nord Pool.