natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘For each period referred to in Article 11(1) and (2), each Member State shall develop [an NAP] stating the total quantity of allowances that it intends to allocate for that period and how it proposes to allocate them.
„Za vsako obdobje iz člena 11(1) in (2) vsaka država članica pripravi [NNR], v katerem navede skupno količino pravic, ki jih namerava dodeliti za to obdobje, in kako jih namerava dodeliti.
The [NAP] shall be based on objective and transparent criteria, including those listed in Annex III, taking due account of comments from the public. …’
[NNR] temelji na objektivnih in preglednih merilih, vključno s tistimi iz Priloge III, ob ustreznem upo�tevanju pripomb javnosti […]“
The second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87 requires the Member States to publish and notify an NAP to the Commission of the European Communities and to the other Member States for each allocation period.
Člen 9(1), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2003/87 določa, da so države članice obvezane, da za vsako obdobje dodeljevanja objavijo [NNR], ter o njem obvestijo Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti in druge države članice.
Article 9(3) of the directive provides as follows:
V členu 9(3) navedene direktive je določeno:
‘Within three months of notification of [an NAP] by a Member State under paragraph 1, the Commission may reject that [NAP], or any aspect thereof, on the basis that it is incompatible with the criteria listed in Annex III or with Article 10.
„V treh mesecih od obvestila države članice o [NNR] v skladu z odstavkom 1 lahko Komisija ta [NNR] ali kateri koli njegov del zavrne, na podlagi njegove nezdružljivosti z merili iz Priloge III ali s členom 10.
The Member State shall only take a decision under Article 11(1) or (2) if proposed amendments are accepted by the Commission.
Država članica sprejme odločitev po členu 11(1) ali (2) le, če predlagane spremembe sprejme Komisija.
Reasons shall be given for any rejection decision by the Commission.’
Komisija obrazloži vsako odločitev o zavrnitvi.“
Under Article 10 of Directive 2003/87, the Member States must allocate at least 95% of the allowances for the first allocation period free of charge.
V skladu s členom 10 Direktive 2003/87 morajo države članice za prvo obdobje dodelitve vsaj 95 % pravic dodeliti brezplačno.
Article 11 of Directive 2003/87 concerning the allocation and issue of allowances provides:
V členu 11 Direktive 2003/87 o dodelitvi in izdaji pravic je določeno:
For the three-year period beginning 1 January 2005, each Member State shall decide upon the total quantity of allowances it will allocate for that period and the allocation of those allowances to the operator of each installation.
Za triletno obdobje od 1. januarja 2005 vsaka država članica odloči o skupni količini pravic, ki jih bo dodelila za to obdobje, in dodelitvi teh pravic upravljavcu posamezne naprave.
This decision shall be taken at least three months before the beginning of the period and be based on its [NAP] developed pursuant to Article 9 and in accordance with Article 10, taking due account of comments from the public.
To odločitev sprejme vsaj tri mesece pred začetkom obdobja na podlagi svojega [NNR], pripravljenega na podlagi člena 9 in v skladu s členom 10, ob ustreznem upo�tevanju pripomb javnosti.
For the fiveyear period beginning 1 January 2008, and for each subsequent fiveyear period, each Member State shall decide upon the total quantity of allowances it will allocate for that period and initiate the process for the allocation of those allowances to the operator of each installation.
Za petletno obdobje od 1. januarja 2008 in vsako nadaljnje petletno obdobje vsaka država članica odloči o skupni količini pravic, ki jih bo dodelila za to obdobje, in začne postopek dodeljevanja teh pravic upravljavcu posamezne naprave.
This decision shall be taken at least 12 months before the beginning of the relevant period and be based on the Member State’s [NAP] developed pursuant to Article 9 and in accordance with Article 10, taking due account of comments from the public.
To odločitev sprejme vsaj 12 mesecev pred začetkom zadevnega obdobja na podlagi svojega [NNR], pripravljenega na podlagi člena 9 in v skladu s členom 10, ob ustreznem upo�tevanju pripomb javnosti.
Decisions taken pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 shall be in accordance with the requirements of the [EC] Treaty, in particular Articles 87 and 88 thereof.
Odločbe, sprejete na podlagi odstavka 1 ali 2, morajo biti v skladu z zahtevami Pogodbe[ES], zlasti členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe.
When deciding upon allocation, Member States shall take into account the need to provide access to allowances for new entrants.
Pri odločanju o dodelitvi države članice upo�tevajo, da je treba zagotoviti dostop do pravic za nove udeležence.
The 5th and 10th criteria in that annex state as follows:
Merili �tevilka 5 in �tevilka 10 navedene priloge se glasita:
The [NAP] shall not discriminate between companies or sectors in such a way as to unduly favour certain undertakings or activities in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty, in particular Articles 87 and 88 thereof.
[NNR] ne razlikuje med družbami ali sektorji, tako da bi neupravičeno dajal prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali dejavnostim, v skladu z zahtevami Pogodbe, zlasti členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe.
The plan shall contain a list of the installations covered by this Directive with the quantities of allowances intended to be allocated to each.’
Načrt vsebuje seznam naprav, zajetih v tej direktivi, skupaj s količinami pravic, namenjenih za dodelitev vsaki od njih.“
According to Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/87, the allowances shall be valid only for emissions during the period for which they are issued.
V skladu s členom 13(1) Direktive 2003/87 pravice veljajo za emisije v obdobju, za katero so izdane.
According to the order under appeal, the appellant operates a glass manufacturing plant at Porz.
Iz izpodbijanega sklepa izhaja, da tožeča stranka upravlja napravo za proizvodnjo stekla v Porzu.
By a decision of 16 December 2004 of the Umweltbundesamt (Federal
Z odločbo z dne 16. decembra 2004, ki jo je sprejel Umweltbundesamt
Environment Agency), it was allocated emission allowances for the first allocation period, in respect of a part of that installation which was put into operation during 2003 and 2004, on the basis of the German NAP (‘German NAP I’) and of Paragraph 8 of the Law on the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period 2005 to 2007 (Zuteilungsgesetz 2007) of 26 August 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, p.
(zvezni urad za okolje), so ji bile za prvo obdobje dodelitve na podlagi nem�kega NNR (v nadaljevanju: nem�ki NNR I) in člena 8 zakona o dodelitvi pravic do emisije za del te naprave, ki je začela obratovati v letih 2003 in 2004, dodeljene pravice do emisije za obdobje od leta 2005 do leta 2007 (Zuteilungsgesetz 2007) z dne 26. avgusta 2004 (BGBI. 2004 I, str.
2211; ‘the ZuG 2007’).
2211, v nadaljevanju: ZuG 2007).
Under the second sentence of Paragraph 8(1) of the ZuG 2007, the installation concerned is exempt from a compliance factor during a period of 12 years from the year of its coming into operation.
Na podlagi drugega stavka člena 8(1) ZuG 2007 je zadevna naprava opro�čena uporabe izpolnitvenega faktorja za 12 let od leta začetka obratovanja.
Under Paragraph 2 of the ZuG 2007, unless otherwise specified, the relevant provisions of that law are applicable only to the first allocation period.
V skladu s členom 2 ZuG 2007, razen če veljajo posebna nasprotna pravila, se ustrezne določbe navedenega zakona uporabljajo le v prvem obdobju dodelitve.
1578; ‘the TEHG’) provides, inter alia, that the NAP adopted for each allocation period is the basis for a law on allocation pursuant to which the allocation is carried out.
1578, v nadaljevanju: TEHG) predvsem določeno, da je sprejeti NNR za vsako obdobje dodelitve temelj zakona o dodelitvi in da se dodelitev izvaja na podlagi tega zakona.
Under Paragraph 9(1) of the TEHG, every operator of an installation has the right to obtain emission allowances under the conditions laid down in the law on allocation.
Na podlagi člena 9(1) TEHG ima vsak upravljavec naprave pravico do pridobitve pravic do emisije skladno s pogoji, ki so določeni z zakonom o dodelitvi.
Pursuant to Paragraph 9(2), the allocation is effected on the basis of the activity carried out during the particular allocation period.
Na podlagi drugega odstavka te določbe je izvajanje dodelitve odvisno od dejavnosti, ki poteka v določenem obdobju dodelitve.
Finally, Paragraph 10(1) of the TEHG provides that each allocation requires a written application to be made to the competent authorities.
Nazadnje, v členu 10(1) TEHG je določeno, da se za vsako dodelitev vloži pisna zahteva pri pristojnih organih.
On 4 July 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany notified its NAP for the second allocation period (‘German NAP II’) to the Commission, in accordance with Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je 4. julija 2006 Komisiji priglasila NNR za drugo obdobje dodelitve (v nadaljevanju: nem�ki NNR II) v skladu s členom 9(1) Direktive 2003/87.
Like the German NAP I, the German NAP II contains, in chapter 6.1, the general allocation rules for existing installations (‘Bestandsanlagen’) which entered into operation before 31 December 2002.
Nem�ki NNR II po zgledu nem�kega NNR I v poglavju 6.1 vsebuje pravilo splo�ne dodelitve, veljavno za obstoječe naprave („Bestandsanlagen“), ki so začele obratovati pred 31. decembrom 2002.
With regard to installations in the industrial sector, the applicable compliance factor is 98.75%.
Pri napravah v industrijskem sektorju se upo�teva izpolnitveni faktor 0,9875.
Moreover, chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II states, under the heading ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’, that, pursuant to that provision of the ZuG, no compliance factor is to be applied, in the calculation of the number of emission allowances for installations which were put into operation between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2004, for a period of 12 years from the date of putting into operation.
Poleg tega je v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II pod naslovom „Dodelitve na podlagi člena 8 ZuG 2007“ določeno, da se na podlagi te zadnje določbe pri izračunu �tevila pravic do emisije za naprave, ki so začele obratovati med 1. januarjem 2003 in 31. decembrom 2004, v 12 letih od začetka obratovanja ne upo�teva noben izpolnitveni faktor.
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the German NAP II in part.
Komisija je s sporno odločbo delno zavrnila nem�ki NNR II.
In Article 1(2) of the decision, the Commission found that the allocation rules described in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II, inter alia under the heading ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’, were incompatible with criterion 5 in Annex III to Directive 2003/87, in so far as they resulted in an unjustified advantage for the installations concerned over otherwise comparable existing installations to which the general allocation methodologies applied.
Komisija je v členu 1(2) te odločbe ugotovila, da so pravila dodelitve, opisana v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II, predvsem pod naslovom „Dodelitve na podlagi člena 8 ZuG 2007“, nezdružljiva z merilom �tevilka 5 iz Priloge III k Direktivi 2003/87, ker neupravičeno dajejo prednost zadevnim napravam glede na druge primerljive že obstoječe naprave, za katere se uporablja splo�na metoda dodelitve.
The Commission considered the allocation of emission allowances free of charge for certain activities by application of a less stringent and therefore more advantageous compliance factor to be a selective economic advantage for certain undertakings, which could distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States and which therefore was capable of constituting State aid contrary to Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Komisija je namreč menila, da brezplačna dodelitev pravic do emisije za nekatere dejavnosti z milej�im in s tem ugodnej�im izpolnitvenim faktorjem pomeni selektivno gospodarsko prednost za nekatera podjetja, ki bi lahko izkrivljala ali pretila z izkrivljanjem konkurence in bi lahko ovirala trgovanje med državami članicami, kar bi posledično lahko pomenilo državno pomoč v nasprotju s členoma 87 ES in 88 ES.
The Commission conceded only that, during a given allocation period, the allocation of emission allowances to existing installations could be carried out in accordance with methods different from those applicable to ‘new entrants’ within the meaning of Article 3(h) of Directive 2003/87, who were thus recognised under that directive as constituting a distinct category.
Komisija je dopustila samo, da se v danem obdobju dodelitve dodelitev pravic do emisije že obstoječim napravam lahko izvede po metodah, drugačnih od tistih, ki se uporabljajo za „nove udeležence“ v smislu člena 3(h) Direktive 2003/87, ki bi se s to direktivo tako priznale kot posebna kategorija.
The justification for such unequal treatment, however, became obsolete during the following allocation period, when the initial ‘new entrant’ turned into an existing installation for which data comparable to those for existing installations was available.
Utemeljitev tak�ne neenake obravnave bi vsekakor zastarala v naslednjem obdobju dodelitve, ko bi se začetni „novi udeleženec“ spremenil v že obstoječo napravo, za katero bi bili na voljo podatki, primerljivi s podatki že obstoječih naprav.
In Article 2(2) of the contested decision, the Commission declared that it would not raise objections to the German NAP II, if, while avoiding any discrimination, the Federal Republic of Germany introduced and notified to it the following amendments:
Komisija je v členu 2(2) sporne odločbe izjavila, da ne bo ugovarjala nem�kemu NNR II, če bo Zvezna republika Nemčija ob izogibanju razlikovanju uvedla in ji uradno sporočila naslednje spremembe:
The order under appeal
Izpodbijani sklep
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 7 February 2007, the appellant brought an action for annulment of the contested decision.
Tožeča stranka je z vlogo, ki je bila 7. februarja 2007 vložena v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, vložila tožbo za razveljavitev sporne odločbe.
By separate document lodged the same day, the appellant applied for the case to be dealt with under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
Tožeča stranka je z ločenim aktom, vloženim istega dne, tudi zahtevala obravnavo po hitrem postopku na podlagi člena 76a Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
By letter of 23 February 2007, the Commission opposed dealing with the case under an expedited procedure.
Z dopisom z dne 23. februarja 2007 je Komisija ugovarjala obravnavi zadeve po hitrem postopku.
By decision of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2007, the application for an expedited procedure was allowed.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zahtevi po hitrem postopku ugodilo s sklepom z dne 7. ju nija 2007.
By its application, the appellant requested the Court of First Instance to:
Tožeča stranka je z vlogo Sodi�ču prve stopnje predlagala, naj:
— annul Article 1(2) of the contested decision to the extent that it declares the allocation guarantees from the first allocation period, referred to in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007’ and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’, to be incompatible with Directive 2003/87;
– razglasi ničnost člena 1(2) sporne odločbe, ker jamstva za dodelitev pravic iz prvega obdobja trgovanja, kot so opisana v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR pod naslovoma „Dodatne nove naprave v skladu s členom 11 ZuG 2007“ in „Dodelitve na podlagi člena 8 ZuG 2007“, razgla�a za nezdružljiva z Direktivo 2003/87/ES;
— annul Article 2(2) of the contested decision to the extent that it imposes obligations (‘Vorgaben’) on the Federal Republic of Germany relating to the application of the allocation guarantees from the first allocation period referred to in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007’ and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’, and to the extent that it requires the application of the same compliance factor as for otherwise comparable existing installations;
– razglasi ničnost člena 2(2) sporne odločbe, ker ta določba Zvezni republiki Nemčiji nalaga obveznosti („Vorgaben“) za uporabo jamstev za dodelitev pravic iz prvega obdobja trgovanja, opisanih v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II pod naslovoma „Dodatne nove naprave v skladu s členom 11 ZuG 2007“ in „Dodelitve na podlagi člena 8 ZuG 2007“ in ker ta določba zapoveduje uporabo izpolnitvenega faktorja, ki velja za druge primerljive že obstoječe naprave;
By the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible, holding that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland (among others), which was not an addressee of the contested decision, was not individually concerned by that decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Z izpodbijanim sklepom je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrglo njeno tožbo kot nedopustno, ker je menilo, zlasti glede tožeče stranke, ki ni naslovnik sporne odločbe, da je ta odločba v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES ne zadeva posamično.
In support of that conclusion, the Court of First Instance found, in paragraph 59 of the order under appeal, that the contested decision constituted an act of general application since it applied to objectively determined situations and entailed legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract.
V podporo tej ugotovitvi je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 59 izpodbijanega sklepa ugotovilo predvsem, da je sporna odločba splo�ni akt, ker se nana�a na objektivno določene položaje in ima pravne učinke za skupine oseb, ki so določene splo�no in abstraktno.
Articles 1(2) and 2(2) of the contested decision concerned all the operators of the installations covered, in a general and abstract manner, by the rules laid down in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II which were active in the economic sectors subject to the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading under Annex I to Directive 2003/87.
Člen 1(2) in člen 2(2) sporne odločbe naj bi se namreč nana�ala na vse upravljavce naprav, ki so na splo�no in abstraktno zajeti v pravilih v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II in so dejavni v gospodarskih sektorjih, ki so vključeni v sistem trgovanja s pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov na podlagi Priloge I k Direktivi 2003/87.
Accordingly, having regard to those provisions and subject to the existence of characteristics which were peculiar to them, those operators were affected in the same manner and placed in an identical situation.
Zato naj bi bili po teh določbah in s pridržkom obstoja njihovih posebnih značilnosti ti upravljavci prizadeti enako in postavljeni v enak položaj.
The Court of First Instance then pointed out that, in accordance with settled caselaw, natural or legal persons other than the person to whom a measure is addressed can claim that the measure is of individual concern to them, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, only if it affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee (see Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at p.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato spomnilo, da naj bi v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso akt fizično ali pravno osebo, ki ni naslovnik tega akta, v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES posamično zadeval le, če jo zadeva zaradi nekaterih njenih značilnosti ali dejanskega stanja, ki jo opredeljuje glede na vse druge subjekte, in jo torej individualizira podobno kot samega naslovnika akta (sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 15. julija 1963 v zadevi Plaumann proti Komisiji, 25/62, Recueil, str. 197, 223; z dne 18. maja 1994 v zadevi Codorniu proti Svetu, C-309/89, Recueil, str. I-1853, točka 20; z dne 25. julija 2002 v zadevi Unión de Pequeños Agricultores proti Svetu, C-50/00 P, Recueil, str. I-6677, točka 36, in z dne 1. aprila 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Jégo-Quéré, C-263/02 P, Recueil, str.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance explained that the sole fact that a measure of general application may have practical effects which differ as between the various persons to whom it applies is not such as to differentiate them from all the other operators concerned, where that measure is applied on the basis of an objectively determined situation.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje opozorilo, da zgolj okoli�čina, da bi splo�ni akt lahko imel različne konkretne učinke za različne pravne subjekte, za katere se uporablja, teh ne označuje v primerjavi z vsemi drugimi zadevnimi osebami, ker se ta akt uporablja na temelju objektivno določenega položaja.
In paragraph 61 of the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the applicants in those proceedings, far from being individually distinguished by attributes peculiar to them, were affected in the same way as all the other operators of installations subject to the same national and Community legislation who were in the same situation.
Vendar je v točki 61 izpodbijanega sklepa Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo, da so bile v tem primeru tožeče stranke, ne da bi bile individualizirane po svojih značilnostih, enako prizadete kot vsi drugi upravljavci naprav, ki so v enakem položaju in morajo upo�tevati iste nacionalne predpise in predpise Skupnosti.
It was therefore only because of their objective status as operators covered by the rules in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II and active in the sectors falling within Annex I to Directive 2003/87 that the applicants could claim to be affected by the contested decision.
Zato bi tožeče stranke lahko trdile, da jih sporna odločba zadeva posamično le zaradi svojega objektivnega statusa upravljavcev, na katere se nana�ajo pravila v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II, in dejavnosti v sektorjih, ki jih pokriva Priloga I k Direktivi 2003/87.
In addition, in the same paragraph of the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that none of the arguments submitted by the applicants was capable of calling that finding into question.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v isti točki izpodbijanega sklepa presodilo, da noben argument tožečih strank te presoje ne prereka.
It held in particular, in paragraph 65 of the order under appeal, that the argument could not be accepted that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland was part of a closed class of persons because it belonged to a group of operators who had applied for and obtained emission allowances during the period 2003 to 2004 under Article 8(1) of the ZuG 2007.
V točki 65 izpodbijanega sklepa je zlasti menilo, da ni mogoče sprejeti argumenta, da je Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland del zaprtega krog oseb, ker pripada skupini upravljavcev, ki je zahtevala in pridobila pravice do emisije v letih 2003 in 2004 na podlagi člena 8(1) ZuG 2007.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance held, first, that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland had not provided any clarifications or produced any proof as to the composition of that supposed closed class of operators.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej ugotovilo, da Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland ni navedel dodatnih pojasnil niti ni predložil dokazov o sestavi tega domnevnega zaprtega kroga upravljavcev.
Thus it had failed to place on the case-file any list of operators who had benefited from the application of Article 8(1) of the ZuG 2007 similar to that produced by the other two applicants.
Tako ni vložil v spis nobenega seznama podjetij, za katere se uporablja člen 8(1) ZuG 2007, kot sta to storili drugi tožeči stranki.