natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the basis of that mechanism, all of the sums levied were to be used to cover the nonrecoverable costs and had to be paid to SEP (or the EGUs) in accordance with Article 9(4) of the OEPS or, in the case of sums in excess of NLG 400 000 000, Article 7 of the OEPS respectively.
Na podlagi takega mehanizma so bili vsi prejeti zneski namenjeni pokritju nasedlih stroškov in bi morali biti plačani družbi SEP (ali PEE) na podlagi člena 9(4) OEPS oziroma na podlagi člena 7 OEPS, če je �lo za zneske, vi�je od 400 milijonov NLG.
Although it is settled caselaw that it is for the national court to make that assessment, I none the less consider it appropriate that the Court should, within the limits of its jurisdiction, provide some guidance on the matter, taking account, in particular, of the arguments submitted by the parties in the national proceedings.
Kljub ustaljeni sodni praksi, v skladu s katero mora o tem presoditi nacionalno sodi�če, menim, da bi Sodi�če v okviru svojih pristojnosti lahko podalo nekatere bistvene usmeritve, upo�tevajoč zlasti trditve, ki so jih podale stranke v nacionalnem postopku.
It is with that in mind that I make the following observations.
Naslednja stali�ča so predstavljena s tega vidika.
Therefore, were it to be proved that the payments for which those articles provide were actually made and that the relevant amounts were actually used, and used in full, to benefit the national electricity producers — in such a way as to produce pecuniary equivalence between the charges and the advantages — it would seem logical to conclude, 39as the Commission does in its observations, that the economic impact of the contested surcharge on national electricity was entirely neutralised.
Če bi se izkazalo, da so bila plačila iz teh določb dejansko izvr�ena in da so bili njihovi zneski dejansko in v celoti porabljeni v korist domačih proizvajalcev električne energije – tako da je obstajala denarna enakovrednost med obveznostmi in korist- mi – bi bilo mogoče logično sklepati 39, kot je to storila Komisija v svojih stali�čih, da so bile ekonomske posledice spornega povi�anja za domačo električno energijo v celoti nevtralizirane.
It is apparent from the national legislation at issue and the order for reference that the sums levied by the net operators pursuant to Article 9(1) of the OEPS had to be paid over by the latter to SEP.
Iz zadevne nacionalne zakonodaje in predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da so morali upravljavci omrežja zneske, ki so jih pobrali na podlagi člena 9(1) OEPS, plačati družbi SEP.
Those sums, along with the sums collected on the basis of Article 9(2), had to be used, subject
Navedeni zneski in zneski, pobrani na podlagi odstavka 2 istega člena, so morali
39 — It seems possible to arrive at that conclusion even in the absence of data concerning the total amount of the sums arising from the application of the contested surcharge or the percentage of electricity imported from other Member States and supplied — either directly or indirectly via SEP — to persons required to pay the surcharge during the period when it was in force.
39 – Do takega sklepa bi lahko pri�li tudi brez podatkov glede skupne vi�ine zneskov, nastalih zaradi zadevnega povi�anja, in glede odstotka električne energije, uvožene iz drugih držav članic in dobavljene – neposredno ali posredno prek družbe SEP – v obdobju veljavnosti navedenega povi�anja zavezancem za plačilo.
38 — See points 34 to 37 above.
38 – Glej zgoraj točke od 34 do 37.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS during the period when the costs in question were allocated. 41
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI dovanjem družbe SEP sodelovali �tirje PEE v obdobju knjiženja zadevnih stro�kov 41.
However, in order to reach that conclusion, the national court will have first of all to determine whether: (i) the sums produced by levying the contested surcharge were in fact destined for a use which gave the national product a specific advantage and (ii) whether ‘the taxed product and the advantaged national product are the same’.
Vendar bi moralo predložitveno sodi�če, da bi lahko pri�lo do takega sklepa, predhodno odločiti, ali: i) so zneski, dobljeni zaradi spornega povi�anja, dejansko namenjeni posebni koristi domačega proizvoda in ii) obstaja „istovetnost med obdavčenim proizvodom in domačim proizvodom, ki se mu daje prednost“.
As regards (i), the national court will have to ascertain whether and to what extent, in the absence of the coverage provided by the revenue from the contested price surcharge or any other form of public intervention, the relevant nonrecoverable costs would have, directly or indirectly, affected the balance sheet of the EGUs.
Glede vpra�anja i) bi moralo predložitveno sodi�če ugotoviti, ali in koliko bi zadevni nasedli stro�ki, ne da bi bilo zagotovljeno njihovo pokritje s prihodkom od spornega povi�anja cen ali katerihkoli drugih javnih sredstev, neposredno ali posredno bremenili proračun PEE.
Furthermore, the possibility cannot be excluded that, in its assessment, the national court will also have to have regard to the protocol, in order to determine the manner in which it provided for a significant transfer of the nonrecoverable costs to the distribution companies (or, at any event, to the bodies required to levy the contested surcharge).
Poleg tega mora predložitveno sodi�če pri svoji presoji upo�tevati tudi protokol, zato da preveri, kako je bil predviden prenos nasedlih stro�kov na distributerje (oziroma na subjekte, zavezane za izterjavo spornega povi�anja) 42.
42In that connection, it should be noted that, according to SEP, Essent had undertaken payment of what it was owed under the protocol for 2000 even before Article 9 of the OEPS had entered into force.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je po navedbah družbe SEP družba Essent zneske, ki jih je bila dolžna na podlagi protokola za leto 2000, plačala, �e preden je začel veljati člen 9 OEPS.
The surcharge for which that article provides seems, therefore, primarily to benefit the distribution sector, 43by enabling the individual companies to recover from consumers what they have already paid to or, at any rate, owe to SEP; it is therefore for the national court to assess whether, if it is impossible to effect recovery in that way, those companies are still required to make the payment stipulated for under the protocol.
Povi�anje, določeno v tem členu, naj bi koristilo predvsem sektorju distribucije 43s tem, da je posameznim družbam omogočilo, da od potro�nikov izterjajo, kar so že plačali oziroma bili dolžni družbi SEP; tako da mora predložitveno sodi�če presoditi, ali imajo ob nezmožnosti take izterjave navedene družbe obveznost plačila, določeno v protokolu.
Given that the national court appears to be assuming that liability for those costs lay exclusively with SEP, 40that assessment essentially involves reviewing the financial mechanisms through which the statutory cooperation between the four EGUs was achieved, through the intermediary of SEP,
Ker se zdi, da predložitveno sodi�če izhaja iz predpostavke, da je za te stro�ke odgovorna izključno družba SEP 40, taka ocena v bistvu nakazuje, da so bili upo�tevani finančni mehanizmi, prek katerih so s posre-
41 — The answers to the Court’s written questions do not seem to contest the fact that, during the reference period, the four EGUs continued to operate on the basis of the 1986 cooperation agreement, which entrusted SEP with the task of selling all of the electricity produced by the EGUs and involved, among other things, a pooling of production costs as well as their allocation among the EGUs according to percentages that reflected each undertaking’s share in SEP’s capital.
41 – Stranke v odgovorih na pisna vpra�anja niso prerekale dejstva, da so �tirje PEE v zadevnem obdobju �e naprej delovali na podlagi sporazuma o sodelovanju iz leta 1986, ki je družbi SEP dodelil nalogo prodaje vse električne energije, ki so jo proizvedli PEE, in med drugim določal združitev stro�kov proizvodnje in njihovo delitev med PEE glede na odstotek, ki je odražal udeležbo vsakega od njih v kapitalu družbe SEP.
It is also apparent that SEP’s active role in the electricity supply sector came to an end when, on 1 January 2001, it was converted into NEA, the sole responsibility of which is to bring to a conclusion the operations set under way before 2001.
Poleg tega izhaja tudi, da družba SEP v sektorju preskrbe z električno energijo s preoblikovanjem 1. januarja 2001 v družbo NEA, katere edina naloga je bila končati dejavnosti, ki so se začele pred letom 2001, ni imela aktivne vloge.
42 — In its answers to the Court’s written questions, Essent states that, under the protocol, the production sector was entitled to ask the distribution sector for the sum of NLG 400 000 000 for 2000, even, presumably, if it was not possible for the distribution companies to recover those sums through transmission or supply charges.
42 – Družba Essent v odgovorih na pisna vpra�anja Sodi�ča poudarja, da naj bi bil na podlagi protokola sektor proizvodnje upravičen od sektorja distribucije zahtevati znesek 400 milijonov NLG za leto 2000, domnevno tudi kadar distributerji ne bi mogli izterjati teh zneskov na podlagi cen prenosa ali dobave.
43 — I should, however, point out that the parties’ answers to the Court’s written questions indicate that, following the merger, Essent became one of the four shareholders in NEA (formerly SEP) and is also active in the production sector.
43 – Vendar je treba poudariti, da iz odgovorov strank na pisna vpra�anja Sodi�ča izhaja, da je družba Essent po združitvi postala eden izmed �tirih delničarjev družbe NEA (prej SEP) in opravlja dejavnosti tudi na področju proizvodnje.
40 — However, both the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 and the introductory report to the text of the OEPS indicate that the obligations arising under the urban heating contracts rested with the undertakings which held the contracts.
40 – Iz odločbe Komisije z dne 25. julija 2001 in uvodnih pojasnil OEPS vendarle izhaja, da naj bi obveznosti iz pogodb v zvezi z daljinskim ogrevanjem imelo podjetje, ki jih je prevzelo.
But the answers to the Court’s written questions appear to suggest that, until the end of 2000, liability for all of the nonrecoverable costs lay with SEP.
Iz odgovorov na pisna vpra�anja Sodi�ča pa izhaja, da je bila za vse nasedle stro�ke do konca leta 2000 odgovorna družba SEP.
As of 1 January 2001, liability for the obligations arising from the urban heating contracts is said to have been transferred to the EGUs, on the basis of specific percentages, while liability for the costs generated by Demkolec continued to lie with SEP (via NV Demkolec, a 100% subsidiary of SEP), the owner of the plant, until the date on which it was transferred to NUON.
Od 1. januarja 2001 naj bi bila odgovornost za obveznosti iz pogodb za daljinsko ogrevanje prenesena na PEE na podlagi določenih odstotkov, medtem ko naj bi odgovornost za stro�ke Demkolec ostala na strani družbe SEP (prek NV Demkolec, hčerinske družbe v stoodstotni lasti družbe SEP), lastnice glavne družbe do datuma njenega prenosa na družbo NUON.
Were an analysis of that nature — and, judging from the parties’ answers to the Court’s written questions, it is not likely to be a straightforward analysis — to reveal that, during the period between 1 August and 31 December 2000, the EGUs were, directly or through their financial participation in SEP, primarily or subsidiarily liable for the nonrecoverable costs at issue, the requirement concerning the existence of a specific advantage for national production for the purposes of applying the criterion of offsetting could be deemed to have been met.
Če bi iz tega preizkusa, ki se glede na odgovore strank na pisna vpra�anja Sodi�ča ne zdi lahek, izhajalo, da so bili PEE v obdobju od 1. avgusta do 31. decembra 2000 neposredno ali prek njihove finančne udeležbe v družbi SEP primarno ali podredno odgovorni za zadevne nasedle stro�ke, bi bilo mogoče �teti, da je pogoj za obstoj posebne koristi za uporabo merila nadomestila izpolnjen.
It does not, however, seem to me that the mere circumstance that the payments provided for by Articles 9(4) and 7 of the OEPS were made for the benefit of SEP and not the EGUs has the effect of precluding at the outset — as the Netherlands Government and SEP maintain — the existence of an advantage of that nature, if, at any event, it were possible to ascertain that the sums paid were used in fact and in full to cover the costs affecting the EGUs, either directly or indirectly.
Po drugi strani menim, da sama okoli�čina, da so bila plačila, določena v členih 9(4) in 7 OEPS, izvedena v korist družbe SEP in ne PEE, ne more takoj izključiti obstoja tak�ne koristi, kot trdita nizozemska vlada in družba SEP, če bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti, da so bili plačani zneski dejansko in v celoti porabljeni za pokritje stro�kov, ki neposredno ali posredno bremenijo PEE.
That argument does not appear to be entirely without foundation.
Taka teza se zdi deloma utemeljena.
The Netherlands Government also disputes the existence of an advantage benefiting domestic production, on the ground that the payments to SEP, for which Article 9(4) of the OEPS provides, did not lead to a reduction in the cost of domestically produced electricity.
Nizozemska vlada poleg tega prereka obstoj koristi za domači proizvod, ker plačila, ki jih v korist SEP določata člena 9(4) OEPS, niso privedla do znižanja cene električne energije domačih proizvajalcev.
In that connection, it is sufficient to point out that, according to the caselaw, it is not necessary that the revenue from the tax should be used to cover production costs, since the pecuniary charges resulting for the domestic product from the application of that tax may certainly be offset through, for
V zvezi s tem zadostuje opozoriti, da sodna praksa ne zahteva, da se prihodek od dajatve uporabi za pokritje stro�kov proizvodnje, saj so lahko denarne obveznosti, ki bremenijo domači proizvod, na podlagi take dajatve nadome�čene s financiranjem na primer promocijske ali raziskovalne dejav-
It is indeed the case that the imposition of a price surcharge or a price supplement which is passed on to the final consumer may, in a system that is open to competition, result in a financial burden on the product that is directly or indirectly affected, because it will affect its market cost.
Res je namreč, da se lahko povi�anje cene ali pribitek cene, zaračunane končnemu uporabniku, v odprtem sistemu konkurence kaže kot breme za proizvod, ki je neposredno ali posredno obremenjen, ker vpliva na njegovo tržno ceno.
It is, none the less, open to question whether that burden can be taken into consideration in assessing whether there is offsetting within the meaning of the abovementioned caselaw, since, as we have seen, that assessment is based on a comparison of expenditure and advantages in exclusively pecuniary terms.
Vendar se lahko postavi vpra�anje, ali se taka obveznost lahko upo�teva pri presoji ali obstaja nadomestilo v smislu zgoraj navedene sodne prakse, ker taka presoja, kot je bilo navedeno, temelji na primerjavi med izdatkom in koristmi v izključno denarnem smislu.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS the producer and the importer, is passed on, as a result of an increase in the selling price of the affected product, do not seem to me to differ greatly from an economic perspective, since, in both situations, the financial burdens resulting from the tax are borne by persons other than the producer or importer.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI cene obremenjene dobrine naloži dajatev, ki se izterja od proizvajalca in uvoznika, z ekonomskega vidika bistveno ne razlikujeta, ker morajo denarno obveznost v obeh primerih poravnati subjekti, ki niso proizvajalci ali uvozniki.
None the less, in the latter circumstance, the caselaw acknowledges that offsetting may be possible. 44
Vendar v drugem primeru sodna praksa priznava, da je nadomestilo mogoče 44.
Furthermore, given that the contested surcharge is levied at the expense of the consumer, is incorporated into the transmission cost rather than the electricity price and is applied according to methods which are not discriminatory, it seems legitimate to question whether it is, in fact, possible to consider that the imported product is affected by any kind of financial burden or that the movement of the product is in some way affected, or indeed that, as a result of the application of the surcharge, that product suffers a real competitive disadvantage, distinct from any disadvantage deriving from the use of the revenue from the surcharge to finance measures to benefit domestic products (which may, if relevant, be challenged on the basis of the Treaty provisions on State aids).
Glede na dejstvo, da je sporno povi�anje cene naloženo uporabniku in vključeno v ceno prenosa in ne v ceno električne energije ter se uporablja na nediskriminatoren način, je mogoče konkretno trditi, da je uvoženi proizvod obremenjen z določeno denarno obveznostjo oziroma da je pretok takega proizvoda kakorkoli oviran ali celo, da navedeno povi�anje konkretno �koduje njegovi konkurenčnosti, kar se razlikuje od položaja, ko je konkurenčnost proizvoda ogrožena zaradi tega, ker je prihodek od povi�anja namenjen nacionalnim proizvajalcem (prepovedano na podlagi določb Pogodbe na področju državnih pomoči).
If, on completion of its analysis, the national court concludes that the revenue from the contested surcharge was actually intended to finance costs directly or indir -ectly affecting domestic electricity and that this allowed the producers of the latter to offset financial burdens which they had actually borne as a result of that surcharge, it will have to assess whether those burdens were offset in full, as the wording of Article 9 of the OEPS would seem to indicate, or merely in part.
Če bo predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da je bil prihodek od povi�anja dejansko namenjen financiranju stro�kov, ki neposredno ali posredno bremenijo domačo električno energijo, in da je to nacionalnim proizvajalcem omogočilo, da pokrijejo obveznosti, ki so jih dejansko imeli zaradi navedenega povi�anja, mora presoditi, ali je bilo nadomestilo izvedeno v celoti, kot se zdi, da določa člen 9 OEPS, ali le delno.
In the former case, the contested surcharge could be categorised as a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC, and in the latter as discriminatory internal taxation under Article 90 EC.
V prvem primeru bi bilo zadevno povi�anje opredeljeno kot dajatev z enakim učinkom v smislu člena 25 ES, v drugem pa kot diskriminatorni notranji davek na podlagi člena 90 ES.
However, the argument of Essent and the Netherlands Government does not appear to pass the test laid down in the caselaw, which requires not that the persons obliged to pay the tax and the persons benefiting from the activities financed from the revenue generated by that tax should be the same, but simply that the affected (domestic) product and the advantaged product should be the same, so as to exclude any possibility of offsetting, if the revenue from the levy is used to benefit a productive activity other than the activity on which the burden falls.
Vendar teza družbe Essent in nizozemske vlade ni v skladu s sodno prakso, ki ne zahteva istovetnosti med subjekti, zavezanimi za plačilo dajatve, in subjekti, ki imajo korist od dejavnosti, ki so financirane s prihodkom od te dajatve, ampak le istovetnost med obremenjenim proizvodom (domačim) in proizvodom, ki se mu daje prednost, tako da nadomestilo ni mogoče, kadar so prihodki uporabljeni za proizvodno dejavnost, različno od tiste, ki je obremenjena.
Where the products are the same, it therefore seems immaterial whether the levy at issue is imposed on the production (and import) or on the consumption of a product.
Kadar je taka istovetnost proizvodov podana, naj ne bi bilo bistveno, ali zadevna dajatev bremeni proizvodnjo (in uvoz) ali porabo dobrine.
If, conversely, the national court concludes that there has been no offsetting, then neither of those articles will apply, given that the contested surcharge applies, without distinction, to the domestic and the imported product, in accordance with nondiscriminatory procedures.
Če pa bo predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da ni bilo nadomestila, ne bo uporabljen nobeden od obeh členov, ker je bilo sporno povi�anje uporabljeno enako za domači in uvoženi proizvod.
Moreover, the situation in which the consumer is liable for a tax and that in which the consumer is in fact the person to whom the tax, collected at the expense of
Po drugi strani pa se mi zdi, da se položaja, v katerem je uporabnik zavezanec za dajatev in v katerem je uporabnik zavezanec, kateremu se prek povi�anja prodajne
44 — See Interzuccheri, cited in footnote 23, paragraph 15.
44 – Glej v opombi 23 navedeno sodbo Interzuccheri, točka 15.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-206/06
MENGOZZIJA – ZADEVA C-206/06 vprašanje za predhodno
(c) Conclusion in relation to the first question referred
B – Drugo odločanje c) Predlogi glede prvega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje
On the basis of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling:
Na podlagi vseh zgornjih ugotovitev predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovori:
By its second question, the national court asks whether the arrangements put into place by Article 9(1) of the OEPS constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Nacionalno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje spra�uje, ali ureditev, ki jo določa člen 9(1) OEPS pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
In that connection, it is necessary to point out that a national court may be required to interpret the concept of aid under Article 87(1) EC, as a result of the direct effect which the caselaw has conferred on the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da naci -onalno sodi�če lahko razloži pojem pomoči iz člena 87(1) ES na podlagi neposrednega učinka, ki ga sodna praksa priznava členu 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES 45.
45It is settled caselaw that it is for the national courts to uphold the rights of individuals in the event of a possible breach by the authorities of the prohibition on putting aid into effect which that provision lays down. 46
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso morajo nacionalna sodi�ča varovati pravice zainteresiranih oseb v primeru morebitne kr�itve prepovedi izvedbe pomoči nacionalnih organov, ki je urejena s to določbo 46.
A price surcharge, such as the surcharge at issue in the main proceedings, which is imposed, without discrimination and subject to the same conditions, on the transmission of both national and imported electricity, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty, prohibited by Article 25 EC, where the revenue from that surcharge is intended to finance activities for the benefit of the domestic product alone, and the resulting advantages offset in full the financial burden on that product. If the advantages offset the financial burden on that product in part only, then that surcharge constitutes discriminatory internal taxation, which is prohibited under Article 90 EC.
„Povi�anje cene, kot je to v postopku v glavni stvari, naloženo brez razlike in pod enakimi pogoji za prenos domače in uvožene električne energije, pomeni dajatev, ki ima enak učinek kot carina in je v skladu s čle nom 25 ES prepovedana, kadar je njen prihodek namenjen financiranju dejavnosti, od katerih ima korist le domači proizvod, in ugodnosti, ki iz tega izhajajo, v celoti nadomestijo obveznost, ki bremeni navedeni proizvod; kadar pa te ugodnosti le delno nadomestijo obveznost, ki bremeni domači proizvod, navedeno povi�anje pomeni diskriminatorni notranji davek, ki je prepovedan na podlagi člena 90 ES.
With regard to the measures which may or must be taken to ensure this legal protection, the Court has stated that ‘where such
Glede ukrepov, ki se jih lahko upo�teva oziroma jih je treba upo�tevati, da se zagotovi ta sodna za�čita, je Sodi�če navedlo, da „mora
It is for the national court to make the assessments necessary to determine how the charge at issue is to be legally categorised.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora za namene pravne opredelitve zadevne dajatve opraviti potrebne preizkuse.