natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is apparent from the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 that a meeting between the Netherlands authorities and the Commission’s services took place on 15 September 2000 and that there was an exchange of letters in October, November and December 2000.
Iz odločbe Komisije z dne 25. julija 2001 izhaja, da je bil 15. septembra 2000 sestanek med nizozemskimi organi in službami Komisije in da so si oktobra, novembra in decembra 2000 izmenjali dopise.
According to that decision, the Netherlands authorities withdrew the financial mechanism in respect of the notified measures by letter of 27 June 2001.
V tej odločbi je navedeno, da naj bi nizozemski organi z dopisom z dne 27. junija 2001 umaknili finančni mehanizem prigla�enih ukrepov.
In its decision of 25 July 2001, the Commission concluded that the notified aid relating to the grant of subsidies to cover the costs of the urban heating projects and the Demkolec plant was covered by Article 87(1) EC and that the measure complied with the Communication relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs, which was also adopted on 25 July 2001.
Z odločbo z dne 25. julija 2001 je Komisija ugotovila, da prigla�ena pomoč v zvezi s dodeljevanjem subvencij za kritje stro�kov projektov daljinskega ogrevanja in naprave Demkolec sodi na področje uporabe člena 87(1) ES in da je ukrep združljiv z obvestilom o metodologiji za analizo državnih pomoči, povezanih z nasedlimi stro�ki, ki je bilo tudi sprejeto 25. julija 2001.
On 19 December 1996 Aldel a ‘special large consumer’, acting pursuant to Article 32 of the EW 1989, concluded a contract for the provision of electrical capacity and the supply of electrical energy and ‘load management’ with SEP, Elektriciteits-Productiemaatschappij Oost- en Noord-Nederland NV (a generating undertaking)
Družba Aldel, „poseben velik potro�nik“, je 19. decembra 1996 na podlagi člena 32 EW 1989 z družbama SEP, Elektriciteits – Productiemaatschappij Oost- en Noord- Nederland NV (proizvodno podjetje) in Energie Distributiemaatschappij voor
2008 — CASE C-206/06 and Energie Distributiemaatschappij voor Oost- en Noord-Nederland (a distribution undertaking).
Oost- en Noord- Nederland (distribucijsko podjetje) sklenila pogodbo o dostopu do električne energije, dobavi električne energije ter uravnavanju bremen.
Essent Netwerk is an autonomous legal person, a net operator and a subsidiary of Essent NV, which is wholly controlled by provincial and local authorities.
Družba Essent Netwerk je samostojna pravna oseba, upravljavka omrežij, hčerinska družba družbe Essent NV, ki jo v celoti nadzirajo pokrajinske in lokalne skupnosti. Od 1. avgusta 2000 do 31. decembra 2000 je družbi Aldel dobavila 717.413.761 kilovatnih ur električne energije.
Pursuant to Article 9 of the OEPS, Essent Netwerk sent an invoice to Aldel on 4 April 2001 requesting payment of a sum of NLG 9 862 646.25(EUR 4 475 473.75), inclusive of turnover tax.
Na podlagi člena 9 OEPS je družba Essent Netwerk z računom z dne 4. aprila 2001 od družbe Aldel zahtevala znesek 9.862.646,25 NLG (4.475.473,75 EUR), vključno s prometnim davkom.
Notwithstanding Essent Netwerk’s formal demand for payment, Aldel did not pay the amount claimed.
Družba Aldel kljub zahtevku za plačilo, ki ji ga je poslala družba Essent Netwerk, zahtevanega zneska ni plačala.
In the main proceedings, Essent Netwerk is seeking payment, under Article 9 of the OEPS, of the amounts which it invoiced to Aldel, together with interest and costs.
V postopku v glavni stvari družba Essent Netwerk na podlagi člena 9 OEPS zahteva plačilo zneskov, ki jih je zaračunala družbi Aldel, povečanih za obresti in stro�ke.
Aldel refuses to pay those amounts on the ground that Article 9 of the OEPS is contrary to Articles 25 EC, 87 EC and 90 EC.
Ta zavrača plačilo, ker naj bi bil člen 9 OEPS v nasprotju s členi 25 ES, 87 ES in 90 ES.
Aldel has brought an action for indemnification against the State.
Družba Aldel uveljavlja jamčevalni zahtevek proti državi.
Essent Netwerk has, in turn, brought an action for indemnification against Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV and Saranne BV.
Družba Essent Netwerk pa uveljavlja jamčevalni zahtevek proti družbama Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV in Saranne BV.
In those circumstances, the Rechtbank Groningen (Groningen District Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Rechtbank Groningen prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
Must Articles 25 EC and 90 EC be construed as precluding a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required during a transitional period (31 August 2000 to 31 December 2000) to pay to their net operator a price surcharge on the amounts of electricity transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by the net operator to a company designated by the legislature for the purpose of defraying non-market-compatible costs which have
Ali je treba člena 25 ES in 90 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonskemu ukrepu, na podlagi katerega so domači odjemalci električne energije svojemu upravljavcu omrežja v prehodnem obdobju (od 31. avgusta 2000 do 31. decembra 2000) dolžni plačati vi�jo ceno za količine električne energije, ki so jim bile dobavljene, kadar mora upravljavec omrežja znesek povi�anja prenesti na družbo, ki jo za ta namen določi zakonodajalec, za kritje s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, ki
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS arisen as a result of obligations incurred, or investments made, by that company prior to the liberalisation of the electricity market, and that company:
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI so nastali kot posledica obveznosti ali naložb, ki jih je ta družba sprejela oziroma izvedla pred liberalizacijo trga električne energije, in
— is the joint subsidiary of four domestic generating undertakings;
– je ta družba skupna hčerinska družba �tirih nacionalnih podjetij za proizvodnjo električne energije,
— was solely responsible, in the period in question (2000), for the non-market-compatible costs which arose during that year;
– je ta družba v zadevnem obdobju (2000) edina odgovorna za s trgom nezdružljive stro�ke, ki so nastali v zadevnem letu,
— requires, by general agreement, an amount of NLG 400 million (EUR 181 512 086.40) in order to cover those costs incurred in that year; and
– ta družba za kritje teh stro�kov v zadevnem letu nesporno potrebuje znesek 400 milijonov NLG (181.512.086,40 EUR) in
— so far as the income generated by the price surcharge exceeds the aforementioned amount, is required to forward such surplus to the Minister?
– mora ta družba, če prihodek od tega povi�anja cene presega zgoraj navedeni znesek, presežek prenesti na ministrstvo?
Does the rule mentioned in the first question satisfy the requirements of Article 87(1) EC?’
Ali ureditev, navedena v prvem vpra�anju, izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 87(1) ES?“
The first question, relating to the interpretation of Articles 25 EC and 90 EC
Prvo vprašanje: razlaga členov 25 ES in 90 ES
Any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect.
Dajatev z enakim učinkom je kakr�no koli denarno breme, tudi če je �e tako majhno, ki je enostransko naloženo, ne glede na njegovo poimenovanje oziroma način uporabe, in s katerim je obremenjeno domače ali tuje blago zaradi prehoda meje, če ni carina v pravem pomenu besede.
By contrast, pecuniary charges resulting from a general system of internal taxation applied systematically, in accordance with the same objective criteria, to categories of products irrespective of their origin or des -tination fall within Article 90 EC (See Air Liquide Industries Belgium, paragraphs 51 and 56).
Nasprotno pa sodijo na področje uporabe člena 90 ES denarna bremena, ki so posledica splo�nega sistema notranje obdavčitve, ki sistematično in v skladu z istimi objektivnimi merili obravnavajo kategorije proizvodov, neodvisno od njihovega izvora ali namena (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Air Liquide Industries Belgium, točki 51 in 56).
A charge which is imposed on domestic and imported products according to the same criteria may nevertheless be prohibited by the Treaty if the revenue from such a charge is intended to support activities which specifically benefit the taxed domestic products.
Dajatev, s katero so na podlagi enakih meril obdavčeni domači in uvoženi proizvodi, je lahko s Pogodbo vseeno prepovedana, kadar je prihodek od te dajatve namenjen financiranju dejavnosti, ki posebej koristijo domačim obdavčenim proizvodom.
If the advantages which those products enjoy wholly offset the burden imposed on them, the effects of that charge are apparent only with regard to imported products and that charge constitutes a charge having equivalent effect.
Če se koristi, ki so jih deležni ti proizvodi, v celoti pobotajo z dajatvijo, s katero so obdavčeni, ta dajatev učinkuje samo na uvožene proizvode in je zato dajatev z enakim učinkom.
If, on the other hand, those advantages only partly offset the burden borne by domestic products, the charge in question constitutes discriminatory taxation for the purposes of Article 90, the collection of which is prohibited as regards the proportion used to
Nasprotno pa, če se te koristi le delno pobotajo z bremenom domačih proizvodov, pomeni zadevna dajatev diskriminatorno obdavčitev v smislu člena 90 ES, ki jo je prepovedano pobirati glede deleža, s katerim se je pobotalo breme domačih
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS offset the burden borne by the domestic products (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90 Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest and Others [1992] ECR I-1847, paragraph 27).
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI proizvodov (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 11. marca 1992 v združenih zadevah Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest in drugi, od C-78/90 do C-83/90, Recueil, str. I-1847, točka 27).
In the case in the main proceedings, the price surcharge is imposed on transmitted electricity.
Glede tega je treba spomniti, da je električna energija blago v smislu določb Pogodbe (sodbi z dne 27. aprila 1994 v zadevi Almelo in drugi, C-393/92, Recueil, str. I-1477, točka 28, in z dne 23. oktobra 1997 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-158/94, Recueil, str.
Furthermore, as the chargeable event is the transmission of electricity, the Court has already held that a charge which is imposed not on a product as such, but on a necessary activity in connection with the product may fall within the scope of Ar -ticles 25 EC and 90 EC (see, to that effect, Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten and Gemeindebetriebe Frohnleiten, paragraph 43).
Sicer pa je Sodi�če tudi že presodilo, da kadar je obdavčljivi dogodek prenos električne energije, dajatev, ki se ne obračuna na proizvod, ampak na dejavnost, ki je nujno povezana s proizvodom, lahko izhaja iz členov 25 ES in 90 ES (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten in Gemeindebetriebe Frohnleiten, točka 43).
In any event, it must be pointed out that the price surcharge is calculated on the basis of the number of kWh transmitted and not on the basis of the distance for which the electricity has to be transmitted or according to any other criterion directly connected with transmission and it is therefore imposed on the product itself.
Vsekakor je treba poudariti, da se doplačilo izračuna na podlagi �tevila prenesenih kilovatnih ur in ne na podlagi razdalje prenosa ali na podlagi kak�nega drugega merila, neposredno povezanega s prenosom, in torej zadeva sam proizvod.
That price surcharge on electricity which is transmitted was imposed by Article 9 of the OEPS.
To doplačilo za preneseno električno energijo je bilo določeno s členom 9 OEPS.
In this respect, it is of little importance that that provision facilitates the implementation of an agreement which had been previously concluded by various economic operators, since it is that legislation which provides that electricity consumers are required to pay that surcharge.
Glede tega ni pomembno, da ta določba laj�a izvedbo sporazuma, ki ga je predhodno sklenilo več gospodarskih subjektov, saj je z zakonom določeno, da so to doplačilo dolžni plačati potro�niki električne energije.
The surcharge is a unilaterally imposed charge.
Gre za enostransko naloženo breme.
Likewise, for the purposes of the application of Articles 25 EC and 90 EC, it is of little account that the financial charge is not levied by the State (Case 132/82 Commission v Belgium [1983] ECR 1649, paragraph 8).
Za uporabo členov 25 ES in 90 ES tudi ni pomembno, da finančnega bremena ne obračunava država (sodba z dne 17. maja 1983 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji, 132/82, Recueil, str. 1649, točka 8).
The fact that the price surcharge is levied by the net operators is, therefore, irrelevant.
Dejstvo, da doplačilo obračunavajo upravljavci omrežja, zato ne vpliva na presojo.
It is apparent from those considerations that the surcharge in question is a charge which is imposed on electricity, whether imported or domestic, according to an
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je zadevno doplačilo dajatev, s katero je obdavčena električna energija, uvožena ali domača, na podlagi objektivnega merila, ki je �tevilo
2008 — CASE C-206/06 objective criterion which is the number of kWh transmitted.
2008 – ZADEVA C-206/06 prenesenih kilovatnih ur.
It is therefore with regard to the use to which the revenue from the charge is put that it must be ascertained whether that charge constitutes a charge having equivalent effect or discriminatory internal taxation.
Ali je ta dajatev dajatev z enakim učinkom ali notranja diskriminatorna obdavčitev, je treba torej ugotoviti glede na to, za kaj je namenjen prihodek od dajatve.
Essent Netwerk submits that neither Article 25 EC nor Article 90 EC is applicable in the case in main proceedings, given that it is consumers who pay the charge.
Družba Essent Netwerk navaja, da se v postopku v glavni stvari ne uporabljata niti člen 25 ES niti člen 90 ES, ker plačajo dajatev potro�niki.
There can therefore be no question of offsetting any burden borne by the domestic electricity generating undertakings.
Zato naj torej ne bi moglo biti vpra�anje pobotanja kakr�nega koli bremena nacionalnih podjetij za proizvodnjo električne energije.
However, it must be pointed out that, for the purposes of the application of Ar -ticles 25 EC and 90 EC, the identity of the person liable for payment of the charge is of little account in so far as the charge relates to the product or to a necessary activity in connection with the product.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da za uporabo členov 25 ES in 90 ES ni pomembno, kdo je dajatev dolžan plačati, ker se ta nana�a na proizvod ali dejavnost, ki je nujno povezana s proizvodom.
As was stated in paragraph 44 of this judgment, that is true of the case in the main proceedings.
Kot je navedeno v točki 44 te sodbe, pa je v postopku v glavni stvari ravno tako.
As regards the identity of the recipients of the revenue from the charge, the possibility cannot be excluded that these are domestic electricity generating undertakings.
Glede prejemnikov prihodka od dajatve pa ni izključeno, da so to nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije.
Although a sum of NLG 400 million was, in respect of 2000, paid to the designated authority, namely SEP, for the purpose of payment of the non-market-compatible costs, SEP was the subsidiary of those generating undertakings and was bound to them by various agreements.
Namreč, čeprav je bil znesek 400 milijonov NLG za leto 2000 plačan z zakonom določenemu organu, to je družbi SEP, za plačilo s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, je bila ta vendarle hčerinska družba navedenih proizvodnih podjetij in je imela do njih obveznosti na podlagi več pogodb.
It is therefore for the national court to ascertain whether the generating undertakings were required to ensure that SEP defrayed those non-market-compatible costs or whether they could have enjoyed an advantage as a result of the charge, for example, because of a selling price incorporating the revenue from that advantage, by the grant of dividends or by any other means.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora torej preveriti, ali so bila proizvodna podjetja dolžna zagotoviti, da bo družba SEP plačala te s trgom nezdružljive stro�ke, oziroma ali so bila lahko deležna koristi iz dajatve, na primer zaradi prodajne cene, ki vsebuje prihodek te koristi, zaradi podelitve dividend ali kakor koli drugače.
As regards the amount in excess of NLG 400 million, since the use to which it was to be put was governed by Article 7 of the OEPS and that article did not enter into force, it appears that that sum was not used to defray non-market-compatible costs and could not, therefore, have constituted an advantage benefiting the domestic product.
Glede zneska, ki presega 400 milijonov NLG – ker je to, za kaj je namenjen, določal člen 7 OEPS in ker ta člen ni začel veljati –, kaže, da ni bil uporabljen za plačilo s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov in da zato ni mogel koristiti domačemu proizvodu.
It is however for the national court to ascertain whether that is indeed the case.
Nacionalno sodi�če pa mora preveriti, ali to drži.
On the basis of the outcome of the checks carried out, in particular as regards the relationship between SEP and the generating undertakings, it will be possible for the national court to ascertain whether there is no offsetting to the advantage of the domestic generating undertakings, in which case the charge would constitute nondiscriminatory internal taxation for the purposes of Article 90 EC.
Glede na rezultate preverjanj, ki so se nana�ala zlasti na razmerja med družbo SEP in proizvodnimi podjetji, bo imelo nacionalno sodi�če možnost ugotoviti, ali je nastalo pobotanje v korist domačih proizvajalcev, in če pobotanja ni bilo, bi dajatev pomenila nediskriminatorno notranjo obdavčitev v smislu člena 90 ES.
If the revenue from the charge were partially to offset the burden borne by the domestic product, that would constitute discriminatory internal taxation for the purposes of Article 90 EC, while if it were wholly to offset it, that would be a charge having equivalent effect prohibited by Article 25 EC.
Če bi se prihodek od dajatve delno pobotal z bremenom domačega proizvoda, bi bila to diskriminatorna notranja obdavčitev v smislu člena 90 ES, pri popolnem pobotanju pa bi bila to dajatev z enakim učinkom, ki je prepovedana s členom 25 ES.
According to SEP and the Netherlands Government, the revenue from the price surcharge does not, in any event, favour the domestic generation of electricity since it serves to cover non-market-compatible costs, namely investments made in the past, and has no effect on the price of domestic electricity.
Po navedbah družbe SEP in nizozemske vlade naj prihodek od doplačila vsekakor ne bi dajal prednosti domači proizvodnji električne energije, ker naj bi bil namenjen kritju s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, to je preteklih naložb, in naj ne bi imel nobenega vpliva na ceno domače električne energije.
However, that argument cannot be upheld.
Te trditve vendarle ni mogoče sprejeti.
In so far as the domestic electricity generating undertakings are required to bear those non-market-compatible costs, those costs are part of the expenses taken into consideration in establishing the overall purchase price of electricity and, depending on the selling price established by the generating undertakings, the profit which those undertakings make.
Namreč, ker so nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije dolžna nositi te s trgom nezdružljive stro�ke, so ti del bremen, ki se upo�tevajo pri ugotavljanju skupne lastne cene električne energije in na podlagi prodajne cene, ki jo določijo proizvodna podjetja, pri ugotavljanju dobička teh proizvodnih podjetij.
It follows that the use of the revenue from the charge to pay costs which, even in relation to past investments, must be borne by domestic producers improves their competitive situation to the detriment of producers from other Member States.
Iz tega izhaja, da bi namenitev prihodka od dajatve za plačilo stro�kov, ki bi jih, tudi če se nana�ajo na pretekle naložbe, morali nositi nacionalni proizvajalci, izbolj�ala njihov konkurenčni položaj v �kodo proizvajalcev iz drugih držav članic.
As the Advocate General correctly pointed out at points 24 and 25 of his Opinion, the surcharge levied on the electricity transmitted can be declared to be contrary to Articles 25 EC and 90 EC only in so far as it was levied on imported electricity.
Kot je generalni pravobranilec pravilno opozoril v točkah 24 in 25 sklepnih predlogov, je mogoče ugotoviti, da je doplačilo, obračunano na preneseno električno energijo, v nasprotju s členom 25 ES ali 90 ES, samo če je bilo pobrano na uvoženo električno energijo.
It is therefore important, in accordance with the rules relating to the burden of proof applicable in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, that it be determined to what extent the charge levied on Aldel relates to the transmission of electricity from other Member States.
Pomembno je torej, da se v skladu s pravili o dokaznem bremenu, ki se uporabljajo v takem sporu, kot je spor o glavni stvari, dokaže, v kak�nem obsegu se dajatev, ki se zahteva od družbe Aldel, nana�a na prenos električne energije, ki izvira iz drugih držav članic.
Having regard to all of those considerations, the answer to the first question must be that Article 25 EC is to be construed as precluding a statutory rule under which
Glede na vse navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 25 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonskemu ukrepu, na podlagi katerega morajo domači
2008 — CASE C-206/06 domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to their net operator a price surcharge on the amounts of domestic and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company designated by the legislature, with that company being the joint subsidiary of the four domestic generating undertakings and having previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and imported, and where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to pay non-market-compatible costs for which that company is personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity transmitted.
2008 – ZADEVA C-206/06 odjemalci električne energije svojemu upravljavcu omrežja plačati doplačilo za količine električne energije, proizvedene v državi članici in uvožene, ki so bile prenesene v korist teh odjemalcev, kadar mora navedeni upravljavec ta doplačilo prenesti na družbo, ki jo je za ta namen določil zakonodajalec, in je bila ta družba, ki je �tirim podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije skupna hčerinska družba, prej upravljavka stro�kov celotne proizvedene in uvožene električne energije, in kadar mora biti to doplačilo v celoti namenjeno za plačilo s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, ki jih je osebno dolžna plačati ta družba, kar povzroči, da se zneski, ki jih ta družba obračuna, v celoti pobotajo z bremenom, ki ga nosi domača prenesena električna energija.