natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Norwegian Bio Energy Association [12] concurred with the preliminary conclusions of the Authority expressed in the decision opening the formal investigation, that the measure does indeed amount to a State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1), contending specifically that the measure is selective and inconsistent with the nature and general scheme of the tax system.
Norveško združenje za bioenergijo [12] se je strinjalo s predhodnimi ugotovitvami Nadzornega organa, izraženimi v odločbi o začetku formalne preiskave, da gre pri ukrepu dejansko za državno pomoč v skladu s členom 61(1), ob tem pa izrecno navedlo, da je ukrep selektiven in v neskladju z naravo ter splošno shemo davčnega sistema.
The organisation added, more broadly, that it considers there to be a lack of logic in the Norwegian CO2 tax system as a whole, referring to a lack of consistency in terms of the sectors and energy sources taxed (asking, for example, why the transport sector and the processing industry are, in effect, exempt), and of the respective levels of taxation.
Poleg tega združenje na splošno meni, da norveški davčni sistem za CO2 kot celota vsebuje nelogičnosti, in navaja neskladja pri sektorjih in virih energije, ki so obdavčeni (sprašuje se npr., zakaj sta transportni sektor in predelovalna industrija pravzaprav oproščena davka), ter pri posameznih stopnjah obdavčitve.
The Authority also received a letter enclosing the collective comments of three environmental conservation organisations; Friends of the Earth Norway (Norges Naturvernforbund [13]), Nature and Youth (Natur og Ungdom [14]) and the Zero Emission Resource Organisation [15].
Nadzorni organ je prejel tudi dopis, h kateremu so bile priložene skupne pripombe treh okoljevarstvenih organizacij, organizacije Friends of the Earth Norveška (Norges Naturvernforbund [13]), organizacije Narava in mladost (Natur og Ungdom [14]) in organizacije za vire z ničnimi emisijami [15].
These organisations contend that the CO2 tax should be levied on all emissions of CO2 and also argue that the transport sector and the processing industry should be subject to the tax.
Te organizacije navajajo, da bi se moral davek na CO2 zaračunavati za vse emisije CO2, in trdijo, da morata biti obdavčena tudi prometni sektor in predelovalna industrija.
They also propose different levels of taxation to those specified in the legislation.
Prav tako predlagajo drugačne stopnje obdavčitve, kot so določene v zakonodaji.
In two letters sent to the Authority after the opening of the formal investigation, the Norwegian authorities repeated their views that, firstly, the measure is in practice (if not formally) a specific tax on heating buildings as opposed to a general tax on natural gas and LPG from which certain uses are exempt, and secondly, that the measure is not selective as the tax on heating buildings is levied on all sectors and undertakings consuming gas.
Norveški organi so v dveh dopisih, ki so ju poslali Nadzornemu organu po začetku formalne preiskave, ponovno navedli svoja stališča, prvič, da je ukrep v praksi (če ne formalno) poseben davek za ogrevanje zgradb, v nasprotju s splošnim davkom za zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin, katerega so oproščene nekatere uporabe, in drugič, da ukrep ni selektiven, saj se davek za ogrevanje zgradb zaračunava vsem sektorjem in podjetjem, ki uporabljajo plin.
State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA Agreement
Državna pomoč v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’
„Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES, države Efte ali je dodeljena v kakršni koli obliki iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma, kolikor škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami.“
The granting of a tax exemption involves a loss of tax revenues which is equivalent to the granting of state resources (see point 3(3) of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines on Business Taxation).
Odobritev oprostitve davka vključuje izgubo davčnih prihodkov, kar je enakovredno odobritvi državnih sredstev (glej točko 3(3) Smernic Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči v zvezi z obdavčitvijo ustvarjenega dohodka).
Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
Dajanje prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga
Firstly, the aid measure must confer on the beneficiaries advantages that relieve them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
Prvič, ukrep pomoči mora upravičencem nuditi ugodnosti oprostitve dajatev, ki običajno bremenijo njihov proračun.
Taxation is such a charge, and relief from paying such a charge provides an advantage to the beneficiaries.
Obdavčitev je taka dajatev in oprostitev plačila take dajatve upravičencem nudi ugodnost.
Secondly, the aid measure must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Drugič, ukrep pomoči mora biti selektiven, tako da daje prednost „nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga“.
Environmental taxes do not amount to a State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA agreement in so far as they are general measures which do not favour particular firms or sectors of industry.
Pri okoljskih dajatvah ne gre za državno pomoč v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, kolikor so to splošni ukrepi, ki ne dajejo prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali industrijskim sektorjem.
However, exceptions to a general tax do fall within Article 61(1) if they are aimed at certain firms or sectors, unless those exceptions are justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Vendar pa oprostitve splošnega davka sodijo v področje uporabe člena 61(1), če so namenjene nekaterim podjetjem ali sektorjem, razen če so te oprostitve upravičene z naravo ali splošno shemo davčnega sistema.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the limitation of the tax to the heating of buildings is a general measure which is open to all undertakings and sectors.
Norveški organi menijo, da je omejitev davka za ogrevanje zgradb splošen ukrep, ki je na voljo vsem podjetjem in sektorjem.
All sectors and undertakings using natural gas or LPG to heat buildings are liable to the tax for this use, whereas sectors and undertakings which (also) use natural gas or LPG in the production process or for any other purpose than heating of buildings are not liable to taxation on the gas used for those other purposes.
Vsi sektorji in podjetja, ki uporabljajo zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin za ogrevanje zgradb, morajo za to uporabo plačati davek, medtem ko sektorji in podjetja, ki (prav tako) uporabljajo zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin v proizvodnem procesu ali za katere koli druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb, niso davčni zavezanci za plin, ki se uporablja za te druge namene.
A manufacturer who also uses natural gas or LPG for the heating of, for example, administrative buildings would pay the tax for that use in the same way as any other undertaking, whereas the manufacturer would not be subject to any taxation for the natural gas or LPG used in the production process.
Proizvajalec, ki uporablja zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin tudi za ogrevanje npr. upravnih zgradb, bi plačal davek za to uporabo enako kot katero koli drugo podjetje, medtem ko proizvajalec ne bi plačal nobenega davka za zemeljski plin ali utekočinjeni naftni plin, ki se uporabljata v proizvodnem procesu.
As referred to above, the Norwegian authorities have also submitted that they consider the notified measure not to be an exemption from a CO2 tax on gas for certain sectors, but rather the introduction of a limited tax on the use of gas for the heating of buildings, i.e. the tax (on heating buildings) is a burden for those upon whom the tax is levied rather than an exemption and advantage for the many who consume gas in a way which is not subject to the tax.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so tudi norveški organi predložili svoje mnenje, da priglašeni ukrep ne pomeni oprostitve davka na CO2 za plin za nekatere sektorje, temveč uvedbo omejenega davka na uporabo plina za ogrevanje zgradb, kar pomeni, da je davek (za ogrevanje zgradb) prej obremenitev za tiste, ki se jim davek zaračunava, kot pa oprostitev in ugodnost za mnoge, ki uporabljajo plin za namene, za katere se davek ne zaračunava.
The Norwegian authorities emphasise that 94 % of the gas used in Norway is used for purposes other than heating buildings, in other words only 6 % of the gas consumed will be taxed.
Norveški organi poudarjajo, da se 94 % plina, ki se porabi na Norveškem, porabi za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb, kar z drugimi besedami pomeni, da bo obdavčenih samo 6 % porabljenega plina.
The Authority notes, however, that under Norwegian statute natural gas and LPG have been introduced as new products in Section 1 of the budgetary chapter which provides for a CO2 tax on mineral products, and the relief from taxation for uses other than heating has been incorporated into the section of the budgetary chapter which deals with exemptions from the tax.
Vendar pa Nadzorni organ navaja, da sta bila na podlagi norveškega zakona zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin kot nova izdelka uvedena v oddelek 1 poglavja o proračunu, ki določa davek na CO2 za mineralne izdelke, prav tako pa je bila v oddelek poglavja proračuna, ki obravnava oprostitve davka, vključena oprostitev davka za druge uporabe kot je ogrevanje.
The Authority is also conscious of the judgment of the EFTA Court in the Norwegian electricity tax exemption case [16] where the Kingdom of Norway argued that, notwithstanding legislative provisions which referred to certain sectors (mining and manufacturing) being exempt from the tax on electricity, the reality was that only certain uses of electricity were exempt.
Nadzorni organ je seznanjen tudi s sodbo Sodišča Efte v norveškem primeru oprostitve davka na električno energijo [16], v katerem je Kraljevina Norveška menila, da so bile kljub zakonskim določbam, ki so se pri oprostitvi davka na električno energijo nanašale na nekatere sektorje (rudarstvo in proizvodnjo), dejansko oproščene samo nekatere uporabe električne energije.
The EFTA court noted the established case law which states that it is the effect and not the form of an aid which is decisive and concluded also (at paragraph 79 of its judgment) that:
Sodišče Efte je navedlo ustaljeno sodno prakso, po kateri je odločilen učinek in ne oblika pomoči ter (v odstavku 79 sodbe) sklenilo tudi naslednje:
Furthermore, the Authority is conscious of the principle re-affirmed by the European Court of Justice in its recent judgment in the British Aggregates case [17].
Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ seznanjen z načelom, ki ga je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti ponovno potrdilo v svoji nedavni sodbi v zadevi British Aggregates [17].
The Court (setting aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in this respect) confirmed that in assessing the applicability of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, no account can be taken of the purpose or objective of a particular measure, and the only test when assessing selectivity is the extent to which the measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others which are in a comparable legal and factual situation.
Sodišče je (z razveljavitvijo sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje v zvezi s tem) potrdilo, da pri ocenjevanju možnosti uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES ni mogoče upoštevati namena ali cilja določenega ukrepa in da je edino merilo pri ocenjevanju selektivnosti obseg, v kakršnem ukrep predstavlja prednost za nekatera podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju.
In his opinion on the case [18], Advocate General Mengozzi also questioned the focus the Court of First Instance had had on the formal aspect of the measure in question, stating that: ‘In terms of the impact on competition … there is no great difference between, on the one hand, the imposition of a general tax with an exemption for certain beneficiaries, and, on the other hand, the imposition of a tax on certain taxable persons to the exclusion of others who are in a comparable position.’ [19]
Generalni pravobranilec Mengozzi se je v svojem mnenju o tej zadevi [18] prav tako spraševal o poudarku, ki ga je Sodišče prve stopnje dalo formalnemu vidiku zadevnega ukrepa, in navedel naslednje: „Z vidika vpliva na konkurenco … pa ni velike razlike med, po eni strani, naložitvijo splošnega davka z oprostitvijo v korist določenih upravičencev in, po drugi strani, naložitvijo dajatve določenim davkoplačevalcem ob izključitvi drugih, ki so v primerljivem položaju.“ [19].
In assessing whether the measure is selective or amounts to a general measure as argued by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority must identify the system of reference, i.e. it must compare the position of undertakings who receive the benefit of the exemption, with that of any other undertakings which are in the same legal and factual situation who do not receive the benefit [20].
Pri ocenjevanju, ali je ukrep selektiven ali pomeni splošni ukrep, kot menijo norveški organi, mora Nadzorni organ določiti referenčni sistem, tj. primerjati položaj podjetij, ki uživajo ugodnost oprostitve, s položajem vseh drugih podjetij, ki so v enakem pravnem in dejanskem položaju ter ne uživajo ugodnosti [20].
The Authority identifies the system of reference, therefore, as all sectors and undertakings subject to the CO2 tax, meaning those who consume or produce mineral oil, petroleum, LPG or natural gas.
Zato Nadzorni organ določi referenčni sistem in vse sektorje ter podjetja, ki se jim zaračunava davek na CO2, kar pomeni tiste, ki uporabljajo ali proizvajajo mineralno olje, bencin, utekočinjeni naftni plin ali zemeljski plin.
Given that the exemption applies only to the use of LPG and natural gas (and further only to certain uses of LPG and natural gas), the Authority considers the measure to be selective as it favours only certain undertakings and the production of certain goods.
Glede na to, da velja oprostitev samo za uporabo utekočinjenega naftnega plina in zemeljskega plina (in nadalje samo za nekatere uporabe utekočinjenega naftnega plina in zemeljskega plina), Nadzorni organ meni, da je ukrep selektiven, saj daje prednost samo nekaterim podjetjem in proizvodnji nekaterega blaga.
The Authority also notes in this context that the Court of Justice, in its Adria Wien Pipeline GmbH ruling [21], found that at an energy tax exemption (applicable only to undertakings primarily engaged in the production of goods) was selective, noting that ‘neither the large number of eligible undertakings nor the diversity and size of the sectors to which those undertakings belong provide any grounds for concluding that a State initiative constitutes a general measure of economic policy’.
Nadzorni organ s tem v zvezi tudi navaja, da je Sodišče v svoji odločitvi v zadevi Adria Wien Pipeline GmbH [21] menilo, da je bila oprostitev davka na energijo (ki velja samo za podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo predvsem s proizvodnjo blaga) selektivna, ter dodaja, da „niti veliko število upravičenih podjetij niti raznolikost in velikost sektorjev, v katera ta podjetja spadajo, niso razlogi za sklepanje, da pobuda države predstavlja splošen ukrep gospodarske politike“.
On the basis that the measure is selective, the Authority must, therefore, assess whether this selectivity is justified by the nature or general scheme of the taxation system.
Na podlagi tega, da je ukrep selektiven, mora Nadzorni organ zato oceniti, ali je ta selektivnost upravičena z naravo ali splošno shemo davčnega sistema.
In order to do so the Authority must first of all assess the objective of the tax in question and subsequently decide whether the exemption is consistent with that logic.
V ta namen mora Nadzorni organ najprej oceniti cilj zadevnega davka in nato odločiti, ali je oprostitev skladna s to logiko.
The objective of the CO2 tax is to reduce carbon emissions.
Cilj davka na CO2 je zmanjšanje emisij ogljika.
In this case each of the mineral products (mineral oil, petroleum, natural gas and LPG) is covered by the same legal provision introducing taxation for environmental purposes.
V tem primeru vse mineralne izdelke (mineralno olje, bencin, zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin) obravnava ista pravna določba, ki uvaja obdavčitev za okoljske namene.
It is not apparent to the Authority how the environmental logic of pricing the effects of carbon emissions can be reconciled within a system that excludes sectors that consume natural gas or LPG from taxation, when these sectors could be able to reduce CO2 emissions by either curtailing the use of gas or switching to more environmentally friendly products.
Nadzornemu organu ni jasno, kako bi lahko bila okoljska logika ocenjevanja učinkov emisij ogljika usklajena znotraj sistema, ki iz obdavčitve izključuje sektorje, ki uporabljajo zemeljski plin ali utekočinjeni naftni plin, če bi ti sektorji lahko zmanjšali emisije CO2 z manjšo porabo plina ali preusmeritvijo na okolju prijaznejše izdelke.
It is for the EEA State which has introduced such a differentiation to show that it is justified by the nature or general scheme of the system in question [22].
Država EGP, ki je uvedla tako diferenciacijo, mora dokazati, da je ta upravičena z naravo ali splošno shemo zadevnega davčnega sistema [22].
The Norwegian authorities have not contended that the exemption falls within the nature or general scheme of the tax and as no such justification has been adduced (or is apparent), the Authority concludes that the measure is not justified by the nature and general scheme of the CO2 tax system.
Norveški organi niso navedli, da oprostitev spada v naravo ali splošno shemo davka, in ker ni bila navedena nobena taka utemeljitev (ali ni razvidna), Nadzorni organ sklepa, da ukrep ni upravičen z naravo ali splošno shemo davčnega sistema za CO2.
The Authority determines, therefore, that the measure in question is selective in that it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and cannot be justified according to the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da je zadevni ukrep selektiven, saj daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga, in ne more biti upravičen glede na naravo ali splošno shemo davčnega sistema.
The aid measure must threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Ukrep pomoči mora pomeniti grožnjo za izkrivljanje konkurence in škoditi trgovini med pogodbenicami.
Reductions in levels of taxation payable by undertakings strengthen their financial position in comparison with their competitors.
Zaradi znižanja stopenj obdavčitve, po katerih podjetja plačujejo davek, se v primerjavi z njihovimi konkurenti krepi njihov finančni položaj.
The aid scheme applies to all sectors, with potential beneficiaries active on a large number of markets in which there is trade within the EEA.
Shema pomoči velja za vse sektorje, potencialni upravičenci pa delujejo na številnih trgih, kjer poteka trgovina znotraj EGP.
Two of the beneficiaries are, for example, Hydro and StatoilHydro, companies which both operate internationally.
Dva upravičenca sta npr. podjetji Hydro in StatoilHydro, ki poslujeta mednarodno.
The tax exemption must, therefore, be considered to have an effect on trade between the Contracting Parties and have the potential to distort competition [23].2.
Zato mora za oprostitev davka veljati, da vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami in bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco [23].2.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
V skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 je „treba Nadzorni organ Efte o kakršnih koli načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči obvestiti dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži svoje pripombe […]. Zadevna država članica ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev.“
By submitting the notification of the tax exemption from the CO2 taxation on gas by letter dated 9 March 2007 from the Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration and Reform, the Norwegian authorities have complied with the notification requirement.
Z dopisom z dne 9. marca 2007 norveškega ministrstva za državno upravo in reforme so norveški organi priglasili oprostitev davka na CO2 za plin in tako izpolnili obveznost priglasitve.
The Norwegian authorities have also confirmed that the tax and the tax exemptions are yet to be implemented.
Norveški organi so tudi potrdili, da davek in oprostitve davka še niso uvedene.
The Authority can therefore conclude that the Norwegian authorities have respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Nadzorni organ lahko zato sklene, da so norveški organi izpolnili svoje obveznosti v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču.
Support measures caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are generally incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement unless they qualify for a derogation under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
Podporni ukrepi iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP so na splošno nezdružljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, razen če izpolnjujejo pogoje za odstopanje iz člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
Article 61(3)(c) EEA provides that State aid may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement where it facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Člen 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP določa, da se državna pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, kadar spodbuja razvoj posameznih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali posameznih gospodarskih območij in ne škoduje trgovinskim pogojem v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
Since the decision to open a formal investigation into the measure, the Authority has adopted new Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [24] under Article 61(3)(c).
Od odločitve o začetku formalne preiskave glede ukrepa je Nadzorni organ sprejel nove smernice o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja [24] v skladu s členom 61(3)(c).