natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Advocate General, however, did not follow the argumentation of the French authorities in this case.
Vendar pa generalni pravobranilec v tem primeru ni upošteval argumentov francoskih organov.
Section 2.1.1 of the Commission Communication on Cooperatives.
Oddelek 2.1.1 Sporočila Komisije o zadrugah.
Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd v Commission [2004] ECR II-917.
Zadeva T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd proti Komisijii [2004] Recueil II-917.
Case 30/59 Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen [1961] ECR p. 3, 29-30; Case C-173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraphs 12-13; Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraphs 25 and 35; Case C-251/97 France v Commission [1999] ECR I-6639, paragraphs 41, 46-47 and the Commission’s Decisions in Case C 2/2006 OTE, paragraph 92.
Zadeva 30/59 Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen [1961] Recueil str. 3, 29-30; zadeva C-173/73 Italija proti Komisiji [1974] Recueil 709, točki 12 in 13; zadeva C-241/94 Francija proti Komisiji [1996] Recueil I-4551, točki 25 in 35; zadeva C-251/97 Francija proti Komisiji [1999] Recueil I-6639, točke 41, 46 in 47 ter Odločba Komisije v zadevi C 2/2006 OTE, točka 92.
Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 44; Case C-66/02 Italy v Commission, paragraph 111 and Case C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano [2005] ECR I-11137, paragraph 54.
Zadeva C-372/97 Italija proti Komisiji [2004] ZOdl. I-3679, točka 44; zadeva C-66/02 Italija proti Komisiji, točka 111, in zadeva C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano [2005] ZOdl. I-11137, točka 54.
Case C-66/02 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 115 and 117, and Case C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano, cited above, paragraphs 56 and 58.
Zadeva C-66/02 Italija proti Komisiji, navedeno zgoraj, točki 115 in 117, in zadeva C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano, navedeno zgoraj, točki 56 in 58.
Case T-288/97, Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission [2001] ECR II-1169, paragraph 72.
Zadeva T-288/97, Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia proti Komisiji [2001] Recueil II-1169, točka 72.
Case C-301/96 Germany v Commission [2003] ECR I-9919, paragraphs 66 and 105.
Zadeva C-301/96, Nemčija proti Komisiji [2003] Recueil I-9919, točki 66 in 105.
Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR I-2671.
Zadeva 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji, [1980] Recueil I-2671.
See the Commission’s State Aid Action Plan of 7 June 2005, COM(2005) 107, paragraph 11.
Glej Akcijski načrt Komisije za državno pomoč z dne 7. junija 2005, COM(2005) 107, odstavek 11.
See Commission decision of 24 January 2007 C(2006) 6630, in case N 270/06, paragraph 67.
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 24. januarja 2007 C (2006) 6630 v zadevi N 270/06, točka 67.
Section 2.1.1 of the Commission Communication on cooperatives.
Oddelek 2.1.1 Sporočila Komisije o zadrugah.
Section II-2.3.1 above.
Oddelek II-2.3.1 zgoraj.
This condition is not applicable to other cooperatives, and the Authority has no information as to whether any non-prevalently mutual cooperatives in other sectors are to be covered by the scheme.
Ta pogoj ne velja za druge zadruge, Nadzorni organ pa nima informacij o tem, ali naj bi shema zajemala druge zadruge v drugih sektorjih, ki niso predvsem vzajemne.
According to the notification, cooperatives must be supported due to the public interest in maintaining undertakings based on principles such as democracy, self-help, responsibility, equality, equity and solidarity as an alternative to limited companies.
V skladu s priglasitvijo je treba zadruge podpreti zaradi javnega interesa za ohranjanje podjetij na podlagi načel, kot so demokracija, samopomoč, odgovornost, enakopravnost, pravičnost in solidarnost, kot alternativo družbam z omejeno odgovornostjo.
Nevertheless, the Norwegian authorities consider the restrictions imposed on cooperatives in Norway to be necessary.3.
Kljub temu pa norveški organi menijo, da so omejitve za zadruge na Norveškem nujne.3.
The case law of the EFTA Court and of the Community Courts has established that a specific tax measure intended partially or wholly to exempt undertakings in a particular sector from the charges arising from the normal application of the general system can be justified by the internal logic of the tax system if it is consistent with it [37].Therefore, the Authority must determine whether the differentiation between certain cooperatives and other undertakings is none the less not selective because it arises as a result of the nature or general scheme of the system of charges of which it forms part.
Sodna praksa Sodišča Efte in sodišč Skupnosti je potrdila, da je mogoče posebni davčni ukrep, ki je delno ali v celoti namenjen oprostitvi podjetij v določenem sektorju stroškov, ki izhajajo iz običajne uporabe splošnega sistema, utemeljiti z notranjo logiko davčnega sistema, če je ukrep skladen z njim [37].Zato mora Nadzorni organ ugotoviti, ali razlikovanje med določenimi zadrugami in drugimi podjetji kljub temu ni selektivno, saj izhaja iz narave ali splošne sheme sistema dajatev, katerega del je.
Hence, whether the differentiations derive directly from the basic or guiding principles of that system [38].It follows from case law that 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 [39].
Torej, ali razlikovanja izhajajo neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel sistema [38].Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da mora država EGP, ki je uvedla takšno razlikovanje, dokazati, da je razlikovanje upravičeno z naravo ali splošno shemo zadevnega sistema [39].
Hence, the Authority cannot see that the market investor principle is applicable.
Zato Nadzorni organ ne vidi možnosti uporabe načela tržnega vlagatelja.
The Norwegian authorities have also argued that the scheme does not involve overcompensation and that the aid granted does not exceed the public benefit of safeguarding the cooperatives.
Norveški organi so tudi navedli, da shema ne vključuje prekomernega nadomestila in da dodeljena pomoč ne presega javnega interesa zaščite zadrug.
The Authority received comments from several interested parties [10]. By letter dated 23 May 2008 (Event No 478026), the Authority forwarded these to the Norwegian authorities, which were given the opportunity to react, but decided not to submit further comments.
Nadzorni organ je prejel pripombe več zainteresiranih strani [10] in jih z dopisom z dne 23. maja 2008 (evidenčna št. 478026) posredoval norveškim organom, ki jim je bila dana možnost odgovora, vendar so se odločili, da nadaljnjih pripomb ne bodo predložili.
Hence, the scheme was notified to the Authority.2.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE SCHEME
Zato so shemo priglasili Nadzornemu organu.2.2 CILJ SHEME
No 342/09/COL
št. 342/09/COL
on an exemption from the Norwegian CO2 tax on gas and LPG on the use of gas for purposes other than the heating of buildings (Norway)
o oprostitvi norveškega davka na CO2 za zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin za uporabo plina za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb (Norveška)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to 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 in Protokola 26 Sporazuma,
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] ter zlasti člena 24 Sporazuma,
HAVING REGARD to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 4(4), 6 and 7(5) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [4],
OB UPOŠTEVANJU člena 1(2) dela I in člena 4(4), člena 6 ter člena 7(5) 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], and in particular the Chapters on Aid for Environmental Protection and on the Application of the State Aid Rules to Measures relating to Direct Business Taxation,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU smernic Nadzornega organa o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP [5] ter zlasti poglavij o pomoči za varstvo okolja in uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka,
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Decision 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 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,
PO POZIVU vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami,
By letter dated 9 March 2007 from the Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration and Reform to the European Union (forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 8 March 2007), both received and registered by the Authority on 9 March 2007 (Event No 412984), the Norwegian authorities notified a planned amendment to its CO2 tax on mineral products, pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Z dopisom norveškega Ministrstva za državno upravo in reforme Evropski uniji z dne 9. marca 2007 in v njem posredovanim dopisom Ministrstva za finance z dne 8. marca 2007, ki ju je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral dne 9. marca 2007 (dogodek št. 412984), so norveški organi priglasili načrtovano spremembo davka na CO2 za mineralne izdelke v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču.
The Norwegian authorities intend to amend the CO2 tax in such a manner to include taxation of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas (‘LPG’), on which no CO2 tax is currently levied.
Norveški organi nameravajo davek na CO2 spremeniti na način, da se obdavčita zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin („LPG“), za katera se davek na CO2 trenutno ne zaračunava.
After various exchanges of correspondence [7], by letter dated 23 November 2007, the Authority informed the Norwegian authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 in respect of this provision.
Po več izmenjavah dopisov [7] je Nadzorni organ z dopisom z dne 23. novembra 2007 obvestil norveške organe, da se je odločil sprožiti postopek v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 glede te določbe.
The Authority’s Decision No 597/07/COL to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto [8].
Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 597/07/COL o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in priloženem Dopolnilu EGP [8].
The Authority called on interested parties to submit their comments thereon.The Authority received two comments from interested parties, the first from Norsk Bioenergiforening (the Norwegian Bio Energy Association) on 11 July 2008 (Event No: 485500); and the second from Norges Naturvernforbund, Zero Emission Resource Organisation and Natur og Ungdom on 16 July 2008 (Event No: 486001).
Nadzorni organ je pozval zainteresirane stranke, naj o tem predložijo svoje pripombe.Nadzorni organ je prejel pripombe dveh zainteresiranih strank: 11. julija 2008 od norveškega združenja za bioenergijo Norsk Bioenergiforening (dogodek št.: 485500) in 16. julija 2008 od organizacije za vire z ničnimi emisijami Norges Naturvernforbund ter organizacije Natur og Ungdom (dogodek št.: 486001).
The Norwegian authorities also submitted further comments on 20 December 2007 (Event No: 458478) and on 13 March 2008 (Event No: 512262) and have subsequently also been engaged in informal discussions with the Authority.
Norveški organi so 20. decembra 2007 (dogodek št.: 458478) in 13. marca 2008 (dogodek št.: 512262) prav tako predložili dodatne pripombe in se nato tudi vključili v neformalne pogovore z Nadzornim organom.
The Norwegian state imposes a tax, levied on the use of certain mineral products, on CO2 emissions.
Država Norveška uvaja davek na emisije CO2, ki se zaračuna za uporabo posameznih mineralnih izdelkov.
At present, CO2 taxes in Norway are only levied on the use of mineral oil and petrol.
Trenutno se davki na CO2 na Norveškem zaračunavajo samo za uporabo mineralnega olja in bencina.
It is proposed that this tax be extended to the use of natural gas and LPG, but only when used for the purposes of heating buildings.
Predlagano je, da se ta davek razširi na uporabo zemeljskega plina in utekočinjenega naftnega plina, vendar samo za namene ogrevanja zgradb.
The CO2 tax is levied on the use of the products mentioned in the Norwegian tax chapter.
Davek na CO2 se zaračunava za uporabo izdelkov iz poglavja o norveških davkih.
Both imported and domestic products are subject to the tax.
Davek se zaračunava tako za uvožene kot za domače izdelke.
Section A1 provides for the levy of the tax on mineral oil and petrol.
Oddelek A1 določa davek, ki se zaračunava za mineralno olje in bencin.
It reads as follows [9]:
Oddelek se glasi [9]:
Bensin: kr 0,80 per liter,’;
Bensin: kr 0,80 per liter“;
an English language translation of which is:
slovenski prevod:
‘From 1 January 2007, according to Act of 19 May 1933 No 11 regarding special duties, CO2 tax shall be paid to the Exchequer on the following mineral products at the following rates…
„Od 1. januarja 2007 se v skladu z Aktom št. 11 z dne 19. maja 1933 v zvezi s posebnimi nalogami davek na CO2 plačuje v državno blagajno za naslednje mineralne izdelke v naslednjih vrednostih …
Mineral oil: NOK 0,47 per litre.
mineralno olje: 0,47 NOK na liter.
Petrol: NOK 0,80 per litre.’.
bencin: 0,80 NOK na liter.“.
Section A2 contains exemptions from the tax, depending on the use of the product.
Oddelek A2 vsebuje oprostitve davka glede na uporabo izdelka.
Section A2.1 contains general exemptions for various activities, in particular the use of the mineral oil as a raw material in the production process (Section A2 lit.1.c).
Oddelek A2.1 vsebuje splošne oprostitve za različne dejavnosti, zlasti za uporabo mineralnega olja kot surovine v proizvodnem procesu (točka 1.c oddelka A2).
Section A2.2 and Section A2.3 contain further exemptions relating to the use of mineral oil and petroleum respectively.
Oddelka A2.2 in A2.3 vsebujeta nadaljnje oprostitve v zvezi z uporabo mineralnega olja oz. bencina.
In its budget proposal for 2007, the Norwegian Government proposed an amendment to the relevant chapter of the budget, which was accepted by the Parliament.
Norveška vlada je v predlogu proračuna za leto 2007 predlagala spremembo ustreznega poglavja proračuna, kar je Parlament sprejel.
The proposal was contained in legislative proposal St.prp. nr. 1 (2006–2007), II A and B reads:
Predlog je bil vključen v zakonodajni predlogi St.prp. št. 1 (2006–2007), II A in B pa se glasita:
As of 1 July 2007 the following amendments shall apply:
Od 1. julija 2007 veljajo naslednje spremembe:
In Section 1, first paragraph, new letters c and d shall read:
V prvem odstavku oddelka 1 se novi točki (c) in (d) glasita:
Gas: NOK 0,47 per standard cubic metre
plin: 0,47 NOK na standardni kubični meter
LPG: NOK 0,60 per kilogram
utekočinjeni naftni plin: 0,60 NOK na kilogram
Section 2, first paragraph, new number 4 shall read:
V prvem odstavku oddelka 2 se nova točka 4 glasi:
Gas used for purposes other than heating of houses and commercial buildings.’
Plin, ki se uporablja za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje hiš in poslovnih zgradb.“
By adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to Section 1 (under heading A), the scope of the CO2 tax is extended to include natural gas and LPG.
Z dodanima novima odstavkoma (c) in (d) v oddelku 1 (razdelka A) se obseg davka na CO2 razširi, tako da se obdavčita tudi zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin.
The new provision referred to under heading B introduces an exemption for natural gas and LPG used for all purposes other than the heating of houses and commercial buildings.
Nova določba iz razdelka B uvaja oprostitev za zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin, ki se uporabljata za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje hiš in poslovnih zgradb.
The Norwegian authorities contend that the purpose of amending the tax is to encourage more use of green alternatives to natural gas and LPG in heating buildings.
Norveški organi navajajo, da je namen spremembe davka spodbuditi večjo uporabo zelenih alternativ zemeljskega plina in utekočinjenega naftnega plina pri ogrevanju zgradb.
They state that it is only for a technical reason that the CO2 tax on natural gas and LPG has been adopted as a general tax as opposed to a specific one for that purpose; the reason being that the authorities’ scope for control is increased when a general tax is introduced.
Po njihovih trditvah je bil davek na CO2 za zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin sprejet kot splošni davek samo iz tehničnih razlogov, saj je v nasprotju s posebnim davkom za navedeni namen obseg nadzora organov večji, če je uveden splošni davek.
The Norwegian authorities state that only when a measure is adopted as a general tax are all producers of taxable goods obliged to register with the authorities as being liable for the tax and obliged to keep accounts of their sales.
Norveški organi trdijo, da se morajo vsi proizvajalci obdavčljivega blaga registrirati pri organih kot davčni zavezanci in voditi evidenco prodaje samo, če je ukrep sprejet kot splošni davek.
According to the Norwegian authorities, had the tax been adopted as a more limited tax on heating buildings, no registration and no keeping of accounts would have been necessary for traders which sell the natural gas or LPG for purposes other than heating buildings.
Po navedbah norveških organov se v primeru, če bi bil sprejet bolj omejen davek na ogrevanje zgradb, trgovcem, ki prodajajo zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb, ne bi bilo treba registrirati in voditi evidenc.
The objective of the tax
Cilj davka
The objective of the CO2 tax is to reduce carbon emissions — according to the Norwegian authorities the purpose is to: ‘set a price on the environmental damage caused by the use of the taxed products and encourage the use of less environmentally harmful products. The tax is applied to ensure a more efficient use of resources and thus lead to positive environmental benefits. The tax is broad and general.’
Cilj davka na CO2 je zmanjšanje emisij ogljika – po navedbah norveških organov je namen: „oceniti okoljsko škodo, nastalo zaradi uporabe obdavčenih izdelkov, in spodbuditi uporabo izdelkov, ki so za okolje manj škodljivi. Uporaba davka zagotavlja učinkovitejšo uporabo virov in tako prinaša koristi za okolje. Davek je širok in splošen.“
The expansion of the CO2 tax to include natural gas and LPG has been passed by the Norwegian Stortinget (Parliament).
Norveški parlament (Stortinget) je sprejel razširitev davka na CO2, tako da vključuje tudi zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin.
The Government’s proposal was put forward in St.prp. nr. 1 (2006–2007) Skatte-, avgifts- og tollvedtak and was adopted by the Parliament on 28 November 2006.
Predlog vlade je bil predložen v dokumentu St.prp. št. 1 (2006–2007) Skatte-, avgifts- og tollvedtak, parlament pa ga je sprejel 28. novembra 2006.
In addition to the Parliamentary provision, it is intended that there will be an amendment of the Regulation on Excise Duties (Forskrift om endring av Forskrift om særavgifter).
Poleg parlamentarne odločbe je predvidena sprememba Uredbe o trošarinah (Forskrift om endring av Forskrift om særavgifter).
New Section 3-6-5 of the Regulation sets out the exemption from the CO2 tax for natural gas and LPG used for purposes other than heating buildings.
Nov oddelek 3-6-5 Uredbe določa oprostitev davka na CO2 za zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin, ki se uporabljata za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb.
Section 3-6-5(1) states that natural gas and LPG which is used for purposes other than the heating of buildings, commercial buildings and other dwellings is tax exempted.
Oddelek 3-6-5(1) določa, da sta zemeljski plin in utekočinjeni naftni plin, ki se uporabljata za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb, poslovnih zgradb in drugih stanovanj, oproščena davka.
The exemption does not cover any direct or indirect heating [11].
Oprostitev ne zajema kakršnega koli neposrednega ali posrednega ogrevanja [11].
Gas which is used in units lower than 20 kg is exempted from the tax under Section 3-6-5(2) of the Regulation.
Plin, ki se uporablja v enotah, manjših od 20 kg, je oproščen davka iz oddelka 3-6-5(2) Uredbe.
The Norwegian authorities state that 94 % of the consumption of natural gas and LPG is for purposes other than the heating of buildings.
Norveški organi navajajo, da se 94 % zemeljskega plina in utekočinjenega naftnega plina porabi za druge namene, kot je ogrevanje zgradb.
Only a small percentage of domestic (Norwegian) consumption is related to the heating of buildings because the main consumption of natural gas is for industrial purposes, of which the manufacturing sector forms the dominant part.
Samo majhen odstotek domače porabe (na Norveškem) je povezan z ogrevanjem zgradb, saj se zemeljski plin v glavnem uporablja za industrijske namene, pri čemer prevladuje proizvodni sektor.
According to Statistics Norway, approximately 80 % of the net domestic consumption of gas is related to manufacturing, mining and quarrying.
Po podatkih norveškega statističnega urada je približno 80 % neto domače porabe plina povezanih s proizvodnjo, rudarstvom in kamnolomi.
The Norwegian authorities further state that half of the consumption of gas in the manufacturing sector is undertaken by StatoilHydro’s methanol production plant at Tjeldbergodden.
Poleg tega norveški organi navajajo, da polovico plina v proizvodnem sektorju porabi industrijski obrat metanola podjetja StatoilHydro v kompleksu Tjeldbergodden.
Another large consumer is Hydro, which uses gas in the production of aluminium.
Drug velik potrošnik je Hydro, ki plin uporablja v proizvodnji aluminija.
The Norwegian authorities have not informed the Authority of a specific duration or budget for the tax exemption.
Norveški organi Nadzornega organa niso obvestili o trajanju ali proračunu za oprostitev davka.
The Authority expressed doubts that the exemption constituted a general measure as had been asserted by the Norwegian authorities.
Nadzorni organ je izrazil dvome o tem, da je oprostitev predstavljala splošnen ukrep, kot so to trdili norveški organi.
The Authority was concerned that the measure favoured (at least indirectly) certain sectors of the economy to the detriment of others.
Nadzorni organ je izrazil zaskrbljenost, da je ukrep (vsaj posredno) koristil nekaterim gospodarskim sektorjem na škodo drugih.
On the basis that the exemption applied only to certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, it was considered that the exemption relieved undertakings from charges that they would normally have to bear in a manner such as to distort competition and effect trade within the EEA.
Na podlagi tega, da je oprostitev veljala samo za nekatera podjetja ali proizvodnjo nekaterega blaga, je bilo podano mnenje, da so bila podjetja oproščena dajatev, ki bi jih običajno morala plačati, in sicer na način, ki izkrivlja konkurenco in škodi trgovini znotraj EGP.
On the assumption that the exemption did amount to State aid within the meaning or Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the Authority expressed doubts that a total tax exemption could be considered compatible with either Article 61(2) or 61(3) of the Agreement.
Ob predpostavki, da je šlo pri oprostitvi za državno pomoč v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvom, da bi bila lahko popolna oprostitev davka skladna s členom 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma.
The Authority received two comments from third parties.
Nadzorni organ je od tretjih strank prejel dve pripombi.