natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With a view to the imminent market liberalisation, and in order to allow the electricity generating sector to recover those costs, on 21 January 1997, SEP and the EGUs
Družba SEP in PEE so glede na skoraj�njo liberalizacijo in z namenom odobritve povračila navedenih stro�kov sektorju proizvodnje električne energije 21. januarja
5 — In November 1999, EPON was taken over by the Belgian group Electrabel, and EZH was taken over by the German company PreussenElektra.
5 – Novembra 1999 je družbo EPON prevzela belgijska skupina Electrabel, družbo EHZ pa nem�ka družba Preussen Elektra.
Again in 1999, UNA was acquired by the American firm Reliant and, in 2002, ownership of it passed to NUON, controlled by provinces and municipalities.
Prav tako novembra 1999 je družbo UNA kupila družba iz Združenih držav Reliant in leta 2002 je bila prenesena na družbo NUON, podrejeno nadzoru občin in pokrajin.
6 — Pursuant to Article 2 of the 1989 Law on electricity, as the ‘designated company’, SEP, together with the EGUs, was entrusted with a task of general economic interest, consisting in ensuring the national public supply of electricity at the lowest possible cost (see Case C-157/94 Commission v Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699).
6 – V skladu s členom 2 Elektriciteitswet 1989 je bila SEP kot „določena družba“ skupaj s PEE zadolžena za nalogo splo�nega gospodarskega pomena, in sicer zagotavljanje nacionalne javne dobave električne energije z najnižjimi stro�ki (glej zadevo C-157/94)..
It was against that background that, on 21 December 2000, the Overgangswet Elektriciteitsproductiesector (Transitional Law on the electricity generating sector) (‘the OEPS’) was adopted. Article 9 of the OEPS, which has prompted the national court’s questions, provides as follows: agreement on supply for the period 1997 to 2000 (‘the protocol’).
V teh okoli�činah je bil 21. decembra 2000 sprejet Overgangswet Elektriciteitsproductiesector (prehodni zakon o sektorju proizvodnje električne energije, v nadaljevanju: OEPS), ki v členu 9, o katerem spra�uje predložitveno sodi�če, določa: v obdobju od 1997 do 2000 (v nadaljevanju: protokol).
On the basis of that protocol, the distribution companies undertook to make SEP an annual payment of NLG 400 000 000 to cover the nonrecoverable costs, which were allocated on the basis of the amount of energy that SEP had supplied to each undertaking.
Distributerji so se na podlagi tega protokola zavezali, da bodo družbi SEP za vsako leto nakazali znesek 400 milijonov nizozemskih guldnov (NLG) za pokritje nasedlih stro�kov, ki bo razdeljen na podlagi količine električne energije, ki jo je družba SEP dobavila posameznim podjetjem.
Those sums were to be financed by an increase in the tariffs which the distribution companies charged certain categories of consumer (small, medium and large ‘ordinary consumers’).
Ti zneski bi se morali financirati na podlagi povi�anja cen, ki so jih distributerji zaračunavali določenim kategorijam uporabnikov (mali, srednji in veliki „običajni kupci“).
Every customer, not being a protected customer, shall, in addition to what he contractually owes to the net operator for the area in which he is established, pay to that net operator an amount of NLG 0.0117 per kWh, calculated on the basis of the total amount of the electricity which the net operator distributed to the customer’s connection over the period from 1 August 2000 to 31 December 2000.
Vsak kupec, ki ni za�čiten, je upravljavcu omrežja na območju, na katerem ima sedež, poleg zneska na podlagi sporazuma dolžan plačati tudi znesek 0,0117 NLG za kilovatno uro, izračunan na podlagi skupne količine elektrike, ki jo je upravljavec omrežja prenesel svojim uporabnikom v obdobju od 1. avgusta 2000 do 31. decembra 2000.
Under Article 97 of the 1998 Law on electricity, the protocol was to be observed until 1 January 2001, when the process of liberalising the market in electricity in the Netherlands was to have been completed.
Člen 97 Elektriciteitswet 1998 je določal spo�tovanje protokola do 1. januarja 2001, ko bi se moral končati postopek liberalizacije trga električne energije na Nizozemskem.
Every protected customer shall, in addition to what he contractually owes to the licence holder for the area in which he is established, pay to that licence holder an amount of NLG 0.0117 per kWh, calculated on the basis of the total amount of electricity which that licence holder supplied to the customer over the period from 1 August 2000 to 31 December 2000.
Vsak za�čiten kupec je imetniku dovoljenja na območju, na katerem ima sedež, poleg zneska na podlagi sporazuma dolžan plačati tudi znesek 0,0117 NLG za kilovatno uro, izračunan na podlagi skupne količine elektrike, ki mu jo je imetnik dovoljenja dobavil v obdobju od 1. avgusta 2000 do 31. decembra 2000.
However, for the year 2000, because of the entry into force of new pricing rules which required the distribution companies to invoice separately for the cost of the electricity supplied and for transmission costs, those undertakings were unable to pass on to final consumers the amounts which they were required to pay to SEP, under the protocol, to cover the nonrecoverable costs.
Vendar ta podjetja leta 2000 zaradi začetka veljavnosti novih tarifnih določb, ki so distributerjem nalagale ločeno zaračunavanje zneskov za dobavo in prenos električne energije, niso mogla na končne uporabnike prevaliti zneskov, ki so jih bila na podlagi protokola zavezana plačati družbi SEP za pokritje nasedlih stro�kov.
7 — Essent, however, disputes that the distribution companies were, as such, parties to that protocol.
7 – Vendar družba Essent ugovarja, da bi distributerji kot taki sklenili sporazum.
The proceeds from the amounts payable by customers pursuant to the first or second paragraph shall be paid by the net operators
Upravljavec omrežja ali imetnik dovoljenja prenese zneske, ki jih dolgujejo kupci
Under that mechanism, the government was to set, annually, a supplementary charge payable by all customers, except the net operators, expressed as a percentage of the amount owed for the transmission of electricity and related services.
Ta postopek je predvidel, da vlada za vsako leto za vse kupce, razen za upravljavce omrežja, določi dodatno dajatev, ki je določena v odstotku od plačila za prenos električne energije in s tem povezanih storitev.
Those articles were notified to the Commission for the first time on 20 February 1998, pursuant to Article 24 of Directive 96/92, and, for the second time, on 16 October 1998, for the purposes of Art icles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Komisija je bila z navedenimi členi prvič seznanjena 20. februarja 1998 na podlagi člena 24 Direktive 96/92, drugič pa 16. oktobra 1998 na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES.
By decision of 8 July 1999, the Commission informed the Netherlands Government that the provisions which had been notified to it did not contain measures within the meaning of Article 24 of the abovementioned directive, but did require to be reviewed on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 8. julija 1999 nizozemsko vlado obvestila, da določbe, o katerih je bila obve�čena, niso vsebovale ukrepov v smislu člena 24 navedene direktive, in da bi jih bilo treba obravnavati na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) ES.
Pursuant to Article 25 of the OEPS, the provisions set out above entered into force on 29 December 2000 and were applied retroactively as of 1 August 2000.
V skladu s členom 25 OEPS so zgoraj navedene določbe začele veljati 29. decembra 2000 in so se uporabljale retroaktivno od 1. avgusta 2000.
According to the national court, Article 9 of the OEPS was not notified separately to the Commission.
Kot je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, Komisija o členu 9 OEPS ni bila posebej obve�čena.
However, by letter of 30 August 2000, the Netherlands authorities sent the Commission the full text of the draft OEPS, including Article 9.
Vendar so nizozemski organi z dopisom z dne 30. avgusta 2000 Komisiji posredovali celotno besedilo predloga zakona OEPS, vključno s členom 9.
It is also useful to describe the events linked to the drafting of Articles 6 to 8 of the OEPS, although they are not of direct relevance to the main proceedings.
Spomniti je treba na dogajanja, povezana s pripravo členov od 6 do 8 OEPS, čeprav ti neposredno niso upo�tevni v sporu o glavni stvari.
In the text of the draft OEPS, Articles 6 to 8 laid down the financing mechanism
V besedilu predloga zakona OEPS so ti členi določali postopek financiranja
On 30 August 2000, the Netherlands informed the Commission that some amendments had been made to the provisions at issue.
Nizozemska je 30. avgusta 2000 obvestila Komisijo, da so bile glede zadevnih predpisov sprejete določene spremembe.
On that occasion, as indicated above, the full text of the OEPS containing those amendments was sent to the Commission.
Ob tej priložnosti je bilo, kot je poudarjeno zgoraj, celotno besedilo OEPS z navedenimi spremembami posredovano Komisiji.
Subsequently, Articles 6 to 8 of the OEPS were further amended, and the mechan- ism which they laid down was replaced by a system of financing using public funds (these provisions are now Articles 7 and 8 of the OEPS).
Dalje, členi od 6 do 8 OEPS so bili pozneje spremenjeni, postopek, ki so ga določali, pa je bil nadome�čen s sistemom financiranja iz javnih sredstev (sedanja člena 7 in 8 OEPS).
By decision of 25 July 2001, the Commission authorised the new measures pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC.
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 25. julija 2001 odobrila nove ukrepe v smislu člena 87(3)(c) ES.
8 — Namely SEP.
8 – Gre za družbo SEP.
II — Facts and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
II – Dejansko stanje in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
When Aldel refused to pay the sums corresponding to that surcharge, Essent brought an action before the Rechtbank Groningen. Aldel has claimed in those proceedings that Article 9 of the OEPS is incompatible with Community law. 11
Ker je družba Aldel zavrnila plačilo zneskov, ki so se nana�ali na navedeno povi�anje, je družba Essent vložila tožbo pri Rechtbank Groeningen, pred katerim je družba Aldel zatrjevala, da člen 9 OEPS ni skladen s pravom Skupnosti. 11
In order to resolve the dispute, the national court considered it necessary to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Družba SEP, eden od PEE (Epon) in distributer Edon 9so decembra 1996 na
In December 1996, availing themselves of the option of concluding individual supply contracts with large industrial customers, which had been accorded to the company designated under Article 32 of the 1989 Law on electricity, namely SEP, one of the EGUs (EPON) and the distribution company Edon 9concluded with Aldel, the defendant in the main proceedings, a ‘contract for the provision of electrical capacity and the supply of electrical energy and load management’.
Predložitveno sodi�če je menilo, da je treba za re�itev spora Sodi�ču predložiti naslednji vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje: podlagi pravice do sklenitve posebnih pogodb o dobavi z velikimi industrijskimi kupci, ki jo določeni družbi priznava člen 32 Elektriciteitswet 1989, z družbo Aldel, toženo stranko v obravnavani zadevi, sklenili „pogodbo o dostopu do električne energije, o dobavi električne energije ter uravnavanju obremenitev“.
That contract stipulated an all-in price for the different services provided, which was exclusive of nonrecoverable costs.
S to pogodbo je bila za različne ponujene storitve določena enotna cena, ki ni vključevala nasedlih stro�kov.
From 1 January 2000, electricity was transmitted to Aldel, in its capacity as local net operator, 10 by Essent, the applicant in the main proceedings, which had been formed as a result of splitting up the activities of the distribution company Edon.
Družbi Aldel od 1. januarja 2000 prenos električne energije kot upravljavec lokalnega omrežja 10zagotavlja družba Essent, tožeča stranka v obravnavani zadevi, ki je nastala zaradi razdelitve dejavnosti družbe za distribucijo Edon.
Essent is not a party to the supply contract mentioned above.
Družba Essent ni sklenila zgoraj navedene pogodbe o dobavi.
Both Essent and Aldel are established in the Netherlands.
Družbi Essent in Aldel imata sedež na Nizozemskem.
During the period between 1 August and 31 December 2000, Essent transported 717 413 761 kWh of electricity to Aldel’s connection.
Družba Essent je uporabnici družbi Aldel v obdobju od 1. avgusta do 31. decembra 2000 dobavila 717.413761 kilovatnih ur elektrike.
For the services provided to Aldel during that period, Essent invoiced a total amount inclusive of the surcharge under Article 9 of the OEPS.
Družba Essent je družbi Aldel za dobavljene storitve v navedenem obdobju izdala račun v skupnem znesku, vključno s povi�anjem iz člena 9 OEPS.
— is the joint subsidiary of four domestic generating undertakings;
je ta družba skupna hčerinska družba �tirih nacionalnih podjetij proizvajalcev električne energije,
9 — NEA, Elektrabel Groep BV and Edon Groep BV became successors to SEP, EPON and Edon, respectively, in the contract.
9 – Družbe NEA, Elektrabel Groep BV in Edon Groep BV so vstopile v pogodbeno razmerje namesto družb SEP, Epon in Edon.
11 — In the context of the main proceedings, third-party notices were served on SEP and Saranne BV by Essent, and on the State by Aldel.
11 – V okviru postopka v glavni stvari je družba Essent pozvala družbi SEP in Saranne, naj se udeležita postopka, družba Aldel pa je pozvala državo.
The Court asked Essent, Aldel, NEA, the Netherlands Government and the Commission to answer a number of written questions before the hearing.
Sodi�če je družbe Essent, Aldel, NEA, nizozemsko vlado in Komisijo pozvalo, da pred obravnavo odgovorijo na določena pisna vpra�anja.
— requires, by general agreement, an amount of NLG 400 000 000 (EUR 181 512 086.40) in order to cover those costs incurred in that year; and
IV – Pravna analiza ta družba za kritje teh stro�kov v zadevnem letu nesporno potrebuje znesek v vi�ini 400 milijonov NLG (181.512086,40 EUR) in
A — The first question referred
A – Prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
— 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 zbrani prihodek od tega povi�anja cene presega zgoraj navedeni znesek, presežek prenesti na ministra?
(2) 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?“
By the first question referred, the national court is asking the Court of Justice whether Articles 25 EC and 90 EC preclude the application of a price surcharge, such as that provided for by Article 9 of the OEPS.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem spra�uje Sodi�če, ali člena 25 ES in 90 ES nasprotujeta uporabi povi�anja cene, ki ga določa člen 9 OEPS.
Essent, Aldel, NEA (formerly SEP), the Netherlands Government and the Commission lodged written observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and made oral submissions at the hearing on 10 May 2007.
Družbe Essent, Aldel, NEA (prej SEP), nizozemska vlada in Komisija so predstavile stali�ča v smislu člena 23 Statuta Sodi�ča ter ustna stali�ča na obravnavi 10. maja 2007.
As a preliminary point, it must be noted that the relevance of that question for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings is not clear from the order for reference.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da iz predložitvene odločbe očitno ne izhaja pomembnost tega vpra�anja za odločitev v sporu o glavni stvari.
The information which the Court has been given does not indicate whether, or to what extent, the electricity transmitted to Aldel during the period between 1 August and 31 December 2000 was imported from other Member States.
Iz podatkov, predloženih Sodi�ču, namreč ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali in v kolik�ni meri je bila električna energija, dobavljena družbi Aldel v obdobju od 1. avgusta do 31. decembra 2000, uvožena iz drugih držav članic.
It must be pointed out that any finding that the price surcharge at issue is unlawful on the ground of incompatibility with Article 25 EC or 90 EC would relate exclusively to the sums levied on imported electricity.
Zato je treba poudariti, da bi se morebitna ugotovitev nezakonitosti spornega povi�anja cene zaradi neskladnosti s členo - ma 25 ES in 90 ES nana�ala le na zneske, prejete za uvoženo električno energijo.
In other words, a finding of that nature would allow Aldel to challenge the imposition of the charges on that product exclusively, and only in so far as those charges are incompatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty.
Povedano drugače, na podlagi navedene ureditve bi lahko družba Aldel nasprotovala izključno izterjavi stro�kov, ki bremenijo tak proizvod, in le če bi bila ugotovljena njihova neskladnost z določbami Pogodbe.
Since that is not the case here, I propose that the Court should consider the first question referred, even though the relevance of the Court’s answer will depend on the outcome of further assessments, which it will be for the national court to make.
Ker v obravnavani zadevi ne gre za tak primer, Sodi�ču predlagam, da preuči prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, čeprav bo uporabnost odgovora odvisna od kasnej�ih ugotovitev, do katerih mora priti nacionalno sodi�če.
It follows that should the energy transmitted to Aldel’s connection prove to be exclusively of national origin, the Court’s answer to the first question would be irrele -vant to the outcome of Essent’s action in the main proceedings. 12
Če je bila električna energija, dobavljena v uporabo družbi Aldel, izključno domačega izvora, odgovor Sodi�ča na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ne bi imel nikakr�nega pomena za sprejetje ali zavrnitev zahtev družbe Essent do družbe Aldel v sporu o glavni stvari. 12
However, according to settled caselaw, under the procedure established by Article 234 EC providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the national court to determine both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment in the proceedings before it and the relevance of
Vendar mora nacionalno sodi�če v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso v okviru postopka sodelovanja med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem iz člena 234 ES presoditi nujnost predhodne odločbe za odločitev o sporu, o katerem odločajo, in primernosti vpra�anj, ki jih predložijo Sodi�ču, to pa
Within the system of the Treaty, Ar -ticles 25 EC and 90 EC which prohibit, respectively, customs duties and taxes having equivalent effect and discriminatory internal taxation, complement each other in pursuing the objective of prohibiting any national fiscal measure that is capable of discriminating against products originating in or destined
V sistemu Pogodbe člena 25 ES in 90 ES, ki urejata prepoved carin in dajatev z enakim učinkom ter prepoved diskriminatornih notranjih davkov, dodatno zasledujeta cilj nasprotovanja kakr�nemukoli nacionalnemu davčnemu mehanizmu, namenjenemu diskriminaciji proizvodov, ki prihajajo iz drugih držav članic ali so tja namenjeni, tako
12 — Under the 1998 Law on electricity, SEP, as the designated company, had a monopoly over the import of electricity for public use, with a voltage above 500 V (see Case C-393/92 Almelo and Others [1994] ECR I-1477).
12 – V skladu z Elektriciteitswet 1998 je imela družba SEP kot določena družba monopol nad uvozom električne energije, namenjene javni uporabi, z napetostjo, vi�jo od 500 V (glej sodbo z dne 27. aprila 1994 v zadevi Almelo, C-393/92, Recueil, str. I-1477).
A private user such as Aldel was, therefore, entitled to import electricity for its own use simply on the basis of that law.
Zasebni uporabnik, kot je bila družba Aldel, je bil zato že na podlagi tega zakona upravičen uvaža - ti električno energijo za svojo uporabo.
Furthermore, 1 January 2000 saw the completion of the first stage in liberalising the Netherlands electricity market in implementation of Directive 96/92, with the opening-up of the large-consumer market segment.
Poleg tega je bila 1. januarja 2000 končana prva faza liberalizacije nizozemskega trga električne energije na podlagi Direktive 96/92 z odpiranjem trga delu, ki vključuje velike potro�nike.
The question whether, during the period when the contested surcharge applied, that option actually translated into a working possibility for Aldel to import electricity depends both on the contractual relations linking it at the time to the national generating undertakings and on the conduct on the market of the latter and SEP (see, in that respect, Decision 91/50).
Vpra�anje, ali je med uporabo spornega povi�anja ta pravica ustrezala dejanski možnosti družbe Aldel, da uvaža elektriko, je odvisno od pogodbenih razmerij, ki so jo takrat povezovala z nacionalnimi proizvajalci kot tudi od ravnanj le-teh in družbe SEP na trgu (v zvezi s tem glej Odločbo Komisije 91/50/EGS, navedeno v opombi 4).
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS for other Member States by impeding their free movement within the Community in normal conditions of competition.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI da je oviran prosti pretok znotraj Skupnosti v običajnih pogojih konkurence.
Although recognising that they are, essentially, complementary provisions, 14the its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State, is not discriminatory or protective in effect and if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect.
�e tako majhna in se naloži enostransko, ne glede na njeno poimenovanje oziroma način uporabe, in s katero je obremenjeno domače ali tuje blago zaradi prehoda meje, tudi če ni plačana v korist države, nima diskriminatornega ali za�čitni�kega učinka in zadevni proizvod ni konkurenčen domačemu proizvodu 17.
17According to the Court, a charge of that nature, which is imposed specifically upon an imported product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, has, by altering its price, the same restrictive effect on the movement of products as a customs duty. 18
Po mnenju Sodi�ča ima taka dajatev, ki bremeni predvsem uvožen proizvod in ne istovrsten domači proizvod in izkrivlja ceno, isti restriktiven učinek na prosti pretok blaga kot carina 18.
Court’s caselaw has maintained a formal distinction between the two prohibitions laid down by the Treaty, on several occasions making clear that Articles 25 EC and 90 EC may not be applied cumulatively; 15consequently, the legality of a national taxation system which falls within the scope of Article 25 EC may not, at the same time, be assessed on the basis of Article 90 EC. 16
Sodi�ča vztrajala na formalnem razlikovanju med njima, in je večkrat določila, da členov 25 ES in 90 ES ni mogoče uporabiti hkrati 15in zato zakonitosti nacionalnega davčnega mehanizma, ki spada na področje uporabe prvega, ni mogoče hkrati presojati na podlagi drugega 16.
However, pecuniary charges under a general system of internal taxation applying systematically to domestic and imported products according to the same criteria are covered by Article 90 EC. 19
Dajatve, ki sodijo v splo�ni sistem notranjih davkov in ki dosledno bremenijo domače in uvožene proizvode, pa po drugi strani na podlagi istih meril sodijo na področje uporabe člena 90 ES 19.
According to the caselaw, the distinction between taxes having equivalent effect and internal taxes lies in the fact that the former affect only imported or exported products, but not similar or competing national products, whereas the latter affect both categories.
Razmejitev med dajatvami z enakim učinkom in notranjimi davki je sodna praksa določila zato, ker se prve plačujejo le za uvožene ali izvožene proizvode in ne za domače istovrstne ali konkurenčne proizvode, drugi pa bremenijo oboje.
According to the definition established by the Court’s caselaw, any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever
Na podlagi opredelitve sodne prakse Sodi�ča dajatev z enakim učinkom v smislu člena 25 ES, ki je kakr�nakoli denarna dajatev,