natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
72 The risk is, therefore, that State measures capable of having a significant effect on the outcome of the liberalisation processes under way in the Member States will de facto escape any form of control based on Community rules relating to State aid and will also escape the strict framework which, by contrast, applies to measures subject to such control, in accordance with the guidelines for analysing aid linked to nonrecoverable costs issued by the Commission. 73
Obstaja torej tveganje, da se državni ukrepi, ki lahko tudi občutno vplivajo na rezultate procesov liberalizacije v državah članicah, dejansko izognejo kakr�nemukoli nadzoru na podlagi določb Skupnosti na področju pomoči in uidejo togi ureditvi, v kateri so ukrepi, podrejeni takemu nadzoru, predmet uporabe smernic za presojo državnih pomoči, povezanih z nasedlimi stro�ki, ki jih je izdala Komisija 73.
It is above all with reference to the principles which the Court established and the solutions it adopted in the above two cases that it is necessary to assess whether the measure laid down for the benefit of SEP by the national legislation at issue met the condition of financing through State resources.
Predvsem na podlagi uveljavljenih načel in razlage Sodi�ča glede gornjih dveh zadev je treba presoditi, ali ukrep, odobren družbi SEP na podlagi zadevne nacionalne zakonodaje, izpolnjuje pogoj financiranja iz državnih sredstev.
In particular, the Kingdom of the Netherlands maintains that — in the light precisely of the Court’s findings in those judgments — the outcome of that assessment must be that it does not.
Nizozemska meni, da lahko taka presoja poda le negativen izid prav glede na ugotovitve Sodi�ča v teh sodbah.
It is primarily for that reason that I consider that the solution which the Court adopted in its judgment in PreussenElektra cannot be extended beyond the specific circumstances of fact which justified its adoption.
Predvsem zato menim, da se razlage Sodi�ča v sodbi PreussenElektra ne sme raz�iriti prek posebnih dejanskih okoli�čin, ki so upravičile sprejetje.
In that connection, I should point out first of all that the Court’s judgment in Preus-senElektra is likely to have a particularly significant impact on the markets during the process of deregulation when, more especially in the case of the market in electricity, the nonrecoverable costs consequent
V zvezi s tem uvodoma opozarjam, da ima lahko odločitev Sodi�ča v zadevi Preus-senElektra posebej pomemben vpliv na trgih v fazi deregulacije, v kateri so nasedli stro�ki nastali zaradi liberalizacije �e posebej visoki, to pa �e posebej velja za trg električne energije. Na teh področjih so pristojnosti nadzora
72 — Citing the judgment in PreussenElektra, cited in footnote 67, for example, the Commission decided not to assess, on the basis of Article 87(1) EC, the imposition of a parafiscal charge (the Competitive Transition Charge) in the United Kingdom, which was levied on final consumers and paid directly to electricity suppliers (decision of 27 February 2002 in Case N 661/99).
72 – Tako je na primer Komisija s sklicevanjem na sodbo PreussenElektra zavrnila presojo na podlagi člena 87(1) ES naložitve davku podobne dajatve v Združenem kraljestvu (Competitive Transition Charge), ki se je pobirala od končnih potro�nikov in plačevala neposredno dobaviteljem električne energije (odločba z dne 27. februarja 2002 v postopku N 661/99).
73 — Commission communication relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs, adopted on 26 July 2001.
73 – Sporočilo Komisije v zvezi z metodo analize državnih pomoči, povezanih z določenimi nasedlimi stro�ki, sprejeto 26. julija 2001.
70 — Paragraph 36.71 — Paragraph 37.
70 – Točka 36.71 – Točka 37.
Based on those elements, it is therefore possible to consider that the scope of the judgment in PreussenElektra is limited to circumstances in which a subsidy granted by the public authorities to specific undertakings is exclusively financed through the imposition of charges affecting private operators and is paid to the beneficiaries by those operators directly.
Na podlagi teh elementov je torej mogoče sodbo PreussenElektra upo�tevati le v primerih, v katerih je pomoč, ki jo dodelijo javne oblasti določenim podjetjem, financirana izključno na podlagi naložitve bremen pravnim osebam zasebnega prava in jo upravičencem neposredno plačajo te pravne osebe.
Conversely, the Court’s ruling does not concern (i) cases in which the subsidy is financed by imposing charges on public undertakings or through funds made available to those undertakings and (ii) cases in which the resources designed to finance the subsidy derive from charges imposed on private persons (parafiscal contributions, for example) and pass through undertakings or organisms which act as intermediaries before being accorded to the beneficiaries.
Nasprotno pa naj se odločitev Sodi�ča ne bi nana�ala na i) primer, v katerem je pomoč financirana na podlagi naložitve bremen javnim podjetjem ali s sredstvi, ki so dana na razpolago takim podjetjem, in ii) primer, v katerem se sredstva, namenjena za financiranje pomoči, ki izvirajo iz bremen, naloženih pravnim osebam zasebnega prava (na primer davku podobne dajatve), prelivajo prek podjetij ali organizacij, ki nastopajo kot posredniki, preden so sredstva dodeljena upravičencem.
One of the factors which the Court considered determinative in reading its findings in PreussenElektra was the private character of the persons required to pay the charges imposed under the Stromeinspei-sungsgesetz (Law on feeding electricity from renewable sources into the public grid).
Torej je eden od elementov, za katerega je Sodi�če v zadevi PreussenElektra menilo, da je najpomembnej�i, zasebna narava zavezancev za dajatve, ki so bile predpisane s Stromeinspeisungsgesetz.
The relevance of that fact emerges clearly both from the operative part of the judgment and from paragraphs 55 and 56 of the judgment, in which the Court, in the light of the information provided by the German Government concerning the composition of the shareholding in the undertakings involved (PreussenElektra and Schleswag), reformulated the question submitted by the Landgericht Kiel (Regional Court, Kiel) as asking essentially whether the charges imposed under the German rules (the obligation to purchase at a fixed price and the allocation of the financial burden arising from that obligation) on private electricity supply undertakings and upstream private network operators constitute State aid.
Pomen te okoli�čine jasno izhaja iz izreka in iz točk 55 in 56 sodbe, v kateri je Sodi�če na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je predložila nem�ka vlada glede sestave delničarjev vpletenih podjetij (PreussenElektra e Schleswag), preoblikovalo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je predložilo Landgericht di Kiel in ki se je v bistvu nana�alo na ugotovitev, ali so dajatve, ki jih nem�ka zakonodaja nalaga (obveznost nakupa po vnaprej določeni ceni in razdelitev bremen) zasebnim podjetjem za dobavo električne energije in zasebnim upravljavcem omrežij, državne pomoči 74.
74Moreover, the mechanism set in place under the Law on feeding electricity from renewable sources through the public grid did not provide for the intervention of intermediaries, acting as collectors and/or administrators of the sums earmarked for subsidy; since the advantage to the beneficiary undertakings consisted in the guarantee of the sale of the energy they produced and the difference between the economic value of that energy and the price, in excess of that value, laid down by law, that advantage was automatically conferred when the supply contracts were concluded and the consideration paid.
Poleg tega ureditev Stromeinspeisungsgesetz ni predvidela posredovanja posrednikov kot prejemnikov in/ali upravljavcev zneskov, namenjenih pomoči; ker pa je bila ugodnost, ki so jo imela podjetja upravičenci, zagotovljena prodaja proizvedene električne energije in razlika med ekonomsko vrednostjo električne energije in ceno, vi�jo od te vrednosti, ki je bila določena z zakonom, je bila navedena ugodnost avtomatično priznana v trenutku sklenitve pogodb o dobavi in plačilu protivrednosti.
In circumstances of that nature, the subsidy in question could be caught by the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, were it to be proved that it was financed through State resources.
V takih primerih bi zadevna subvencija lahko sodila pod pojem pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES, če bi se izkazalo, da je financirana iz državnih sredstev.
Pursuant to the caselaw of the Court of Justice, that situation exists when the resources utilised are directly or indirectly under State control.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča je tak pogoj izpolnjen, kadar so porabljena sredstva neposredno ali posredno podrejena nadzoru države.
In its judgment in France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission 75 and, more recently, in its judgment in
Sodi�če je v sodbi Ladbroke Racing 75in
75 — Case C-83/98 P [2000] ECR I-3271, which confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-67/94 Ladbroke Racing v Commission [1998] ECR II-1.
74 – To preoblikovanje je Sodi�ču omogočilo omejitev obsega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če – in ki se je nana�alo na presojo celotnega sistema ukrepov za podporo proizvodnji električne energije iz obnovljivih virov, ki ga je določala sporna zakonodaja – tako da ga je omejilo le na preučitev obveznosti, naloženih strankam v postopku v glavni svari na podlagi navedene zakonodaje.
That a body is public in nature does not, however, mean that the resources available to it have automatically to be categorised as ‘State’ resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Javnopravna narava organizacije pa ne pomeni, da je treba sredstva, s katerimi razpolaga, avtomatično �teti kot „državna“ v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
As we have seen above, 79categorisation of that nature may be precluded if the body served ‘merely as a vehicle for the levying and allocating of resources collected’ and its intervention did not tend to ‘create an advantage which would constitute an additional burden for the State’.
Kot je prikazano zgoraj 79, je namreč navedena opredelitev lahko izključena v primeru, kadar je taka organizacija „le instrument za pobiranje in razdeljevanje pobranih sredstev“ in njeno posredovanje ni usmerjeno „k ustvarjanju prednosti, ki je dodatno breme za državo“.
France v Commission, 76the Court explicitly confirmed that the concept of State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC ‘covers all the financial means by which the public sector may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector’.
nedavno v sodbi Stardust 76 izrecno potrdilo, da pojem državnih sredstev v smislu člena 87(1) ES „sestavljajo vsa finančna sredstva, ki jih javni sektor dejansko lahko uporabi za pomoč podjetjem, ne glede na dejstvo, da so ta sredstva stalno ali nestalno v lasti navedenega sektorja“.
Consequently, ‘even though the sums involved in the measure [in question] are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State aid’. 77
Zato, „čeprav zneski, ki ustrezajo zadevnemu ukrepu, niso stalno v lasti državne blagajne, dejstvo, da ostajajo stalno pod javnim nadzorom in torej na voljo pristojnim nacionalnim organom, zadostuje, da se jih opredeli kot državna sredstva“ 77.
Furthermore, for a measure put into effect by a public undertaking to be able to be deemed to be aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, it must, in any event, be attributable to the State, in the sense that it is the result of an action by the public authorities. 80
Poleg tega mora biti ukrep, ki ga izvr�i javno podjetje, da se ga lahko �teje za pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES tak, da ga je mogoče pripisati državi v smislu, da je rezultat dejanja javnih oblasti 80.
As regards more specifically the situation, set out in point 101 under (i) above, of a measure benefiting from the aid through the imposition of charges on public undertakings or, at any rate, the use of funds originating from such undertakings, the Court stated in the judgment in Stardust that such funds must be regarded as State resources where the State is capable, ‘by exercising its dominant influence over such undertakings, of directing the use of their resources in order, as occasion arises, to finance specific [interventions] in favour of other undertakings’.
Glede primera, navedenega zgoraj v točki 101 pod i), v katerem se ukrep financira prek naložitve dajatve javnim podjetjem ali z uporabo sredstev takih podjetij, je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Stardust pojasnilo, da je treba navedena sredstva �teti za državna, kadar lahko država „prek izvr�evanja prevladujočega vpliva na ta podjetja usmerja uporabo sredstev teh podjetij za financiranje, če je potrebno, posebnih pomoči v korist drugih podjetij“ 78.
78It is not necessary, for that purpose, to show that there has been a transfer from the State to those undertakings of specific contributions to finance the aid measure.
V ta namen ni treba dokazati dejanskega prenosa posebnih sredstev za financiranje ukrepa pomoči od države na ta podjetja.
With regard, however, to the situation described in point 101 above under (ii), in which the resources needed to finance the aid derive from charges imposed on private persons and are allocated to the beneficiaries via undertakings or bodies acting as intermediaries, it must first be said that it is settled caselaw that there is no need to draw any distinction according to whether the aid is granted directly by the State or by public or private bodies designated or appointed by that State. 81
Glede primera, navedenega v točki 101 zgoraj pod ii), v katerem sredstva za financiranje pomoči izhajajo iz obremenitev pravnih oseb zasebnega prava in se upravičencem do pomoči dodelijo prek posredni�kih podjetij ali organizacij, je treba predvsem opozoriti, da iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da ni treba razlikovati med primeri, v katerih pomoč odobri neposredno država, in primeri, v katerih jo odobri pravna oseba javnega ali zasebnega prava, ki jo je določila ali ustanovila država 81.
See also the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs.
Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa.
79 — Point 95.
79 – Točka 95.
80 — The Court explained the criteria for determining attribution in its judgment in Stardust, cited in footnote 76.
80 – Sodi�če je v sodbi Stardust, navedeni v opombi 76, izrecno navedlo merila, na podlagi katerih je treba sprejeti tako odgovornost.
77 — Paragraph 50 of the judgment in France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission, cited in footnote 75, and paragraph 37 of the judgment in Stardust, cited in footnote 76.
77 – Točka 50 zgoraj navedene sodbe v zadevi Francija proti Ladbrocke Racing in Komisiji in točka 37 zgoraj navedene sodbe Stardust.
That principle had earlier been established by the Court of First Instance in Case T-358/94 Air France v Commission [1996] ECR II-2109, paragraph 67.
To načelo je pred tem potrdilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Air France proti Komisiji (T-358/94, Recueil, str. II-2109, točka 67).
81 — See PreussenElektra, cited in footnote 67, paragraph 58, and the caselaw cited therein.
81 – Glej v opombi 67 navedeno sodbo PreussenElektra, točka 58, in tam navedeno sodno prakso.
78 — Paragraph 38.
78 – Točka 38.
It is then necessary to refer more specifically to the caselaw concerning aid measures financed through parafiscal charges or compulsory contributions.
Dalje je treba posebej opozoriti na sodno prakso v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi, ki se financirajo iz davkom podobnih dajatev ali obveznih prispevkov.
According to that caselaw, the funds which are financed through compulsory contributions imposed by State legislation and are managed and apportioned in accordance with the provisions of that legislation must be regarded as State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, even if they are administered by institutions distinct from the public authorities.
Na podlagi te sodne prakse „se sredstva, ki so pridobljena prek obveznih prispevkov, ki jih predpisuje zakon, in s katerimi se upravlja in se jih razdeljuje […] v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo […], �tejejo za ‚državna sredstva‘ v smislu člena 87(1) ES, tudi če z njimi upravljajo pravne osebe, ki niso državni organi“ 82.
82 by the State — even if that intermediary is merely responsible for collecting a charge or exercising accounting checks — is regarded as capable of interrupting the direct flow of the funds from the persons liable for the charge to the beneficiaries, so that it is possible to identify a point at which, indirectly at least, those funds are under State control, even though the State is not free to allocate them, and thus acquire the character of State resources.
izterjavo ali revizijo, prekine neposredni tok sredstev iz sfere zavezancev v sfero upravičencev in je mogoče določiti trenutek, v katerem so taka sredstva vsaj posredno pod nadzorom države, čeprav so namenska, in tako pridobijo značilnosti javnih sredstev.
In particular, an interpretation of that nature seems to me to be possible in two sets of circumstances at least, namely where the intermediary is a public body and where the compulsory contributions imposed on undertakings or individuals are paid into a fund, whether public or private, created or conceived by the State for the purpose of distributing the aid in accordance with the law, regardless of the degree of autonomy that that fund enjoys in administering and allocating the sums collected.
Taka razlaga se mi zdi mogoča vsaj v dveh primerih, in sicer kadar je posrednik pravna oseba javnega prava in kadar so obvezni prispevki, ki jih plačajo podjetja ali posamezniki, preneseni v javni ali zasebni sklad, ki ga je ustanovila ali določila država z namenom odobritve pomoči v skladu z zakonom, neodvisno od stopnje samostojnosti takega sklada pri upravljanju in razdeljevanju prejetih zneskov.
It is certainly possible to object that that caselaw has been impliedly superseded by the judgment in PreussenElektra, at least in circumstances where the role of the intermediary is merely to collect the contribution or is, in any event, restricted to exercising purely accounting checks over the funds collected and, therefore, precludes the exercise of any margin of discretion over the use and destination of the funds.
Seveda je mogoče ugovarjati, da je ta sodna praksa na podlagi sodbe Preusse-nElektra posredno zastarela, vsaj v primeru, v katerem je vloga posrednika izključno prejemanje dajatve oziroma je omejena le na revizijo pobranih sredstev in torej izključuje kakr�nokoli diskrecijsko pravico pri uporabi in razdeljevanju sredstev.
In point of fact, objectively speaking, that situation is hard to distinguish, in economic terms, from a situation in which the sums earmarked for financing the support measure are transferred directly from the persons required to pay the contribution to the undertakings that benefit from the measure. 83
Tak položaj je namreč z ekonomskega vidika težko objektivno razlikovati od položaja, v katerem zneske, namenjene financiranju ukrepa pomoči, plačajo zavezanci za plačilo prispevka neposredno podjetjem, upravičencem do pomoči 83.
However, I consider that this objection may be overcome, if the intervention of an intermediary which has been designated
Vendar menim, da je tak ugovor mogoče zavrniti, če lahko delovanje posrednika, ki ga je določila država, tudi če je zadolžen le za
82 — Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 16; see also Steinike & Weinlig, cited in footnote 45. 83 — See, to that effect, the Commission’s decision of 31 October 200 in procedure N/6/A/2001.
Glej tudi v opombi 45 zgoraj navedeno sodbo Steinike & Weinlig. 83 – V tem smislu glej odločbo Komisije z dne 31. oktobra 2001 v zadevi N/6/A/2001.
It does not seem to me that the judgment in Pearle and Others may be regarded as an obstacle to that approach.
Menim, da zgoraj navedena sodba Pearle ne more biti ovira glede pravkar navedenega.
As we have seen, on that occasion, the Court held that State resources were not involved in the case of funds deriving from compulsory contributions paid to a trade association by its own members, the levying of which was possible on the basis of the legal regime applicable to that association and was designed to fund a joint advertising campaign for the benefit of members themselves.
Kot se je izkazalo, Sodi�če v tem primeru za sredstva, pridobljena iz obveznih prispevkov, ki so jih poklicni organizaciji plačali njeni člani in katerih naložitev je bila mogoča na podlagi zakonske ureditve, veljavne za navedeno organizacijo, namenjeni pa so bili financiranju kolektivne ogla�evalske akcije v korist istih članov, ni priznalo, da so državna.
Among the various factors cited by the Court to justify that conclusion (the fact that the funds were not available to the association in question, the latter’s role being limited to levying the contributions, the award of an advantage without an additional burden for the State or the public body concerned), the fact that the initiative to promote the advertising campaign in question and the proposal for allocating the relevant financial burden came
Med �tevilnimi elementi, ki jih je Sodi�če uporabilo pri obrazložitvi takega sklepa (nerazpoložljivost sredstev v organizaciji, njena vloga, omejena le na pobiranje prispevkov, dodelitev ugodnosti brez obveznosti za državo ali vpleteno javno organizacijo), se mi zdi okoli�čina, da je pobuda za zadevno ogla�evalsko akcijo in predlog glede postopka razdelitve bremen pri�la od zadevnega poslovnega sektorja in ne javnih
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS from the commercial sector involved and not from the public authorities seems to me to be determinative in the scheme of the Court’s reasoning, since it is apt to exclude any imputation of the contested measure to the State. 84
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI organov, glede na sistematiko razlogovanja Sodi�ča odločilnega pomena, ker zaradi nje zadevnega ukrepa ni mogoče pripisati državi 84.
It should first be pointed out that, in response to a written question from the Court, Essent explained that, during the reference period, that is to say between 1 August and 31 December 2000, it was a whollyowned subsidiary of Essent NV, the shares in which were, in turn, owned as to 100% by municipalities and provinces, and was thus entirely in public hands.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da je družba Essent v odgovoru na pisno vpra�anje Sodi�ča pojasnila, da je v zadevnem obdobju, to je med 1. avgustom in 31. decembrom 2000, njen kapital stoodstotno nadzirala družba Essent NV, katere kapital je bil v stoodstotni lasti občin in pokrajin, torej v celoti v javni lasti.
It follows that, as the Commission correctly argued in its observations, during that period Essent was a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Direct- ive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings. 85
Iz tega izhaja, kot je v svojih stali�čih pravilno navedla Komisija, da je bila družba Essent v navedenem obdobju javno podjetje v smislu člena 2(1)(b) Direktive Komisije z dne 25. junija 1980 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji 85.
In the light of the foregoing, it is necessary to consider whether the payments to SEP which were made in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 9(1) and (4) of the OEPS entail the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Glede na do sedaj navedeno se je treba vpra�ati, ali plačila v korist družbe SEP, izvr�ena na podlagi člena 9(1) in (4) OEPS vključujejo uporabo „državnih sredstev“ v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
Pursuant to the Court’s caselaw, the resources available to Essent 86 must, there- fore, in principle be regarded as public resources.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča je treba sredstva družbe Essent 86načeloma �teti za državna sredstva.