natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The same applies where the national electricity generating undertakings are required to bear those costs and where, by reason of existing agreements, by the payment of a purchase price for electricity produced in the Member State, by the payment of dividends to the various domestic electricity generating undertakings of which the designated company is the subsidiary or by any other means, the advantage which that price surcharge constitutes could be passed on in its entirety by the designated company to the domestic electricity generating undertakings.
Enako velja, kadar morajo te stro�ke kriti nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije in kadar je zaradi obstoječih pogodb lahko z zakonom določena družba – s plačilom nabavne cene električne energije, proizvedene v državi članici, s plačilom dividend več nacionalnim podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije, katerih hčerinska družba je z zakonom določena družba, ali kakor koli drugače – korist, ki jo pomeni doplačilo, v celoti prenesla na nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije.
Article 90 EC is to be construed as meaning that it precludes such a statutory rule where the revenue from the charge levied on the electricity transmitted is used only in part to pay non-market-compatible costs, that is to say, where the amount levied by the designated company only partly offsets the burden borne by the national electricity transmitted.
Člen 90 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje istemu zakonskemu ukrepu v okoli�činah, v katerih je prihodek od dajatve, obračunane na preneseno električno energijo, le delno namenjen plačilu s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, to je takrat, kadar se z zneskom, ki ga obračuna z zakonom določena družba, pobota samo del bremena, ki ga nosi prenesena domača električna energija.
The second question, relating to the interpretation of Article 87 EC
Drugo vprašanje: razlaga člena 87 ES
It should be noted at the outset that a charge applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products alone, so that the advantages accruing from it offset the burden borne by those products, may constitute, having regard to the use to which the revenue from that charge is put, State aid incompatible
Najprej je treba spomniti na to, da lahko dajatev – ki se uporablja v enakih okoli�činah obračunavanja za domače in za uvožene proizvode, njeni prihodki pa so namenjeni samo v korist domačih proizvodov, tako da se koristi, ki iz njih izhajajo, pobotajo z bremenom, ki ga nosijo ti proizvodi – glede na to, za kaj je namenjen njen prihodek, pomeni državno pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če so izpolnjeni pogoji
A measure carried out by means of a discriminatory taxation and which is liable at the same time to be considered as forming part of an aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC, is governed both by the provisions of Articles 25 EC or 90 EC and by those applicable to State aid (see, to that effect, Case 73/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1533, paragraph 9, and Case 17/81 Pabst & Richarz [1982] ECR 1331, paragraph 22). 60
Za ukrep, ki se izvaja z diskriminatorno obdavčitvijo in ki se ga hkrati lahko �teje za del pomoči v smislu člena 87 ES, se namreč kumulativno uporabljajo določbe členov 25 ES ali 90 ES in določbe o državnih pomočeh (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 21. maja 1980 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, 73/79, Recueil, str.
While Articles 25 EC and 90 EC seek to preserve the free movement of goods and competition between domestic products and imported products, Article 87 EC has the objective, more generally, of preserving competition between undertakings by prohibiting any aid granted by a Member State which satisfies the conditions of the latter article.
Cilj členov 25 ES in 90 ES je ohranitev prostega pretoka blaga in konkurence med domačimi in uvoženimi proizvodi, cilj člena 87 ES pa je, da se s prepovedjo sleherne pomoči, ki jo dodeli država članica in izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 87 ES, na splo�no ohranja konkurenca med podjetji.
According to that provision, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
Na podlagi te določbe je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelil država članica, ali kakr�na koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
It must be ascertained whether the sums paid to SEP under Article 9 of the OEPS comply with that definition.
Treba je preveriti, ali zneski, posredovani družbi SEP v skladu s členom 9 OEPS, ustrezajo temu pojmu.
[2003] ECR I-7747, paragraph 74; and Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P Chronopost and La Poste v Ufex and Others [2008] ECR I-4777, paragraph 125).
1. julija 2008 v združenih zadevah Chronopost in La Poste proti Ufexu in drugim, C-341/06 P in C-342/06 P, ZOdl., str. I-4777, točka 125).
First, there must be intervention by the State or through State resources.
Prvič, to mora biti pomoč države ali kakr�na koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev.
Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between Member States.
Drugič, ta pomoč mora biti taka, da lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Third, it must confer an advantage on the recipient.
Tretjič, njenemu prejemniku mora dajati prednost.
Fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition (see, inter alia, Case C-451/03 Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti [2006] ECR I-2941, paragraph 56, and Chronopost and La Poste v Ufex and Others, paragraph 126).
Četrtič, izkrivljati mora konkurenco ali groziti, da jo bo izkrivljala (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, C-451/03, ZOdl., str. I-2941, točka 56, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Chronopost in La Poste proti Ufexu in drugim, točka 126).
As regards the first condition, it is necessary to ascertain whether the amounts paid to SEP constitute intervention by the State or through State resources.
Glede prvega pogoja je treba preveriti, ali so zneski, ki so bili plačani družbi SEP, pomoč države ali kakr�na koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev.
Article 9 of the OEPS provides for the payment to the designated company, namely SEP, of NLG 400 million and for the payment of the excess of the charge received to the Minister, who must set that amount aside for the purpose of defraying the costs referred to in Article 7 of the OEPS — which will not, however, enter into force — namely the non-market-compatible costs associated with urban heating and the Demkolec coal gas plant.
Člen 9 OEPS določa, da se z zakonom določeni družbi, to je družbi SEP, dodeli znesek 400 milijonov NLG, presežek obračunane dajatve pa se plača ministrstvu, ki mora prejeti znesek nameniti financiranju stro�kov, navedenih v členu 7 OEPS – ki pa ni začel veljati –, to je s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov daljinskega ogrevanja in uplinjevalne naprave Demkolec.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that those amounts have their origin in the price surcharge imposed by the State on purchasers of electricity under Article 9 of the OEPS, a surcharge with regard to which it has been established, in paragraph 47 of this judgment, that it constitutes a charge.
Glede tega je treba spomniti na to, da ti zneski izhajajo iz doplačila, ki ga je odjemalcem električne energije naložila država na podlagi člena 9 OEPS, glede katerega je bilo v točki 47 te sodbe ugotovljeno, da gre za dajatev.
Those amounts thus have their origin in a State resource.
Ti zneski izhajajo torej iz državnih sredstev.
Under Article 9(1) and (2) of the OEPS, the charge has to be paid to the net operator or to the licence holder, who must, as provided by Article 9(4) of the OEPS, pay the proceeds from the amounts payable to SEP before 1 July 2001.
V skladu s členom 9(1) in (2) OEPS se dajatev plača upravljavcu omrežja ali imetniku dovoljenja, ki morata, kot določa člen 9(4) OEPS, prihodek od zneskov, dolgovanih pred 1. julijem 2001, prenesti na družbo SEP.
Under Article 9(5) of the OEPS, SEP is to retain a sum amounting to not more than NLG 400 million and to pay the excess to the Minister.
Na podlagi člena 9(5) OEPS družba SEP zadrži znesek, ki ne presega 400 milijonov NLG, presežek pa prenese na ministrstvo.
In the case in the main proceedings, the company which is the net operator is Essent Netwerk.
V zadevi v glavni stvari je upravljavka omrežja družba Essent Netwerk.
As is apparent from the answer given by that company to a question asked
Kot izhaja iz odgovora te družbe na vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo Sodi�če, je ta družba hčerinska
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS by the Court, Essent Netwerk is a 100% a subsidiary of Essent NV, 74% of whose shareholders are Netherlands provinces and 26% of which are municipalities of that Member State.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI družba v stoodstotni lasti družbe Essent NV, katere delničarke so nizozemske pokrajine (74 % kapitala) in občine te države članice (26 % kapitala).
As for SEP, whose capital is held in its entirety by the electricity generating undertakings, it was at that time an undertaking which had been given the task by statute of operating an economic service of general interest.
Družba SEP, katere kapital v celoti pripada podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije, je bila nekoč podjetje, ki je bilo z zakonom zadolženo za upravljanje gospodarske službe v splo�nem interesu.
It is apparent from the provisions of the OEPS that the designated company is not entitled to use the proceeds from the charge for purposes other than those provided for by the Law.
Iz določb OEPS izhaja, da z zakonom določena družba ne more uporabljati prihodka od dajatve za druge namene, razen za tiste, ki so določeni v zakonu.
Furthermore, it is strictly monitored in carrying out its task, since Article 9(5) of the OEPS requires it to have the detailed account of the sums received and transferred certified by an auditor.
Poleg tega je pri tej nalogi strogo nadzorovana, saj člen 9(5) OEPS določa, da mora računovodja potrditi obračun prejetih in prenesenih zneskov.
It is of little account that that designated company was at one and the same time the centralising body for the tax received, the manager of the monies collected and the recipient of part of those monies.
Ni pomembno, da je ta z zakonom določena družba hkrati osrednji subjekt za obračunavanje dajatve, upravljavka zbranih sredstev in prejemnica dela teh sredstev.
The mechanisms provided for by the Law and, more specifically, the detailed accounts certified by an auditor, make it possible to distinguish those different roles and to monitor the use of the monies.
Mehanizmi, ki jih določa zakon, zlasti obračuni, ki jih potrdi računovodja, namreč omogočajo razlikovanje teh različnih vlog in nadzor nad uporabo sredstev.
It follows that as long as that designated company did not appropriate to itself the amount of NLG 400 million, at the time when it was freely able to do so, that amount remained under public control and therefore available to the national authorities, which is sufficient for it to be categorised as State resources (see, to that effect, Case C-482/99 France v Commission [2002] ECR I-4397, paragraph 37).
Iz tega izhaja, da dokler ta z zakonom določena družba ni prejela zneska 400 milijonov NLG, kar je trenutek, od katerega lahko z njim prosto razpolaga, je ta znesek pod javnim nadzorom in torej na voljo nacionalnim organom, kar zadostuje za to, da se ga opredeli za državna sredstva (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji, C-482/99, Recueil, str. I-4397, točka 37).
The objective of Article 9 of the OEPS appears to be that of enabling the electricity generating undertakings, through their subsidiary SEP, to recover the non-market-compatible costs which they have incurred in the past.
Cilj člena 9 OEPS naj bi bil omogočiti podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije, da si po hčerinski družbi SEP pokrijejo s trgom nezdružljive stro�ke, ki so jim nastali v preteklosti.
That provision relates to the costs for 2000, whereas certain costs in respect of subsequent years are to be offset by subsidies which are to be authorised by the Commission as State aid.
Ta določba zadeva stro�ke za leto 2000, medtem ko bodo za predhodna leta določeni stro�ki nadome�čeni s subvencijami, ki ji bo dovolila Komisija kot državne pomoči.
Those different circumstances distinguish the measure at issue in the main proceedings from that referred to in Case C-345/02 Pearle and Others [2004] ECR I-7139.
Po teh okoli�činah se v postopku v glavni stvari obravnavani ukrep razlikuje od ukrepa iz sodbe z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Pearle in drugi (C-345/02, ZOdl., str. I-7139).
2008 — CASE C-206/06 campaign, by means of compulsory levies earmarked for the organisation of that campaign (Pearle and Others, paragraph 36).
2008 – ZADEVA C-206/06 akciji, je poklicna organizacija pobirala od članov, ki so imeli od akcije koristi, in sicer so člani plačevali prispevke, ki so bili obvezno namenjeni za organizacijo te akcije (zgoraj navedena sodba Pearle in drugi, točka 36).
They were, therefore, neither revenue for the State nor monies which remained under State control, by contrast to the amount received by SEP, which has its origin in a charge and can be used for no other purpose than that provided for by the Law.
Zato ni �lo za breme države niti za sredstva pod nadzorom države, kar pa ne velja za znesek, ki ga je obračunavala družba SEP, ki izhaja iz dajatve in se ga lahko uporabi le za namen, določen v zakonu.
Furthermore, in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Pearle and Others, although the monies were collected by a professional body, the advertising campaign was organised by a private association of opticians, had a purely commercial purpose and had nothing to do with a policy determined by the authorities (Pearle and Others, paragraphs 37 and 38).
Poleg tega, čeprav je v zgoraj navedeni zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Pearle in drugi, sredstva pobirala poklicna organizacija, je ogla�evalsko akcijo organiziralo zasebno združenje optikov, imela je povsem komercialen namen in v ničemer ni sodila v okvir politike, ki so jo določili nizozemski organi (zgoraj navedena sodba Pearle in drugi, točki 37 in 38).
By contrast, in the case in the main proceedings, the payment of the amount of NLG 400 million to the designated company had been the subject of a decision by the legislature.
V obravnavanem postopku v glavni stvari pa je nasprotno o plačilu zneska 400 milijonov NLG z zakonom določeni družbi odločil zakonodajalec.
Likewise, the measure in question differs from that referred to in Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099, in which the Court held, at paragraph 59, that the obligation imposed on private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity produced from renewable energy sources at fixed minimum prices did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources to undertakings which produced that type of electricity.
Enako se obravnavani ukrep razlikuje tudi od ukrepa, obravnavanega v sodbi z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra (C-379/98, Recueil, str. I-2099), v kateri je Sodi�če v točki 59 presodilo, da obveznost zasebnih podjetij za dobavo električne energije, da kupijo električno energijo iz obnovljivih virov energije po fiksnih najnižjih cenah, ne povzroča nobenega neposrednega ali posrednega prenosa državnih sredstev k podjetjem za proizvodnjo take električne energije.
In the latter case, the undertakings had not been appointed by the State to manage a State resource, but were bound by an obligation to purchase by means of their own financial resources.
V navedenem primeru država podjetij ni pooblastila za upravljanje državnih sredstev, ampak so imela podjetja obveznost nakupa z lastnimi finančnimi sredstvi.
It follows from all of those points that the amounts paid to SEP constitute intervention by the State through State resources.
Iz vseh teh okoli�čin izhaja, da zneski, ki so bili plačani družbi SEP, pomenijo pomoč iz državnih sredstev.
As regards the second condition, namely the possibility of affecting trade between Member States, it must be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s caselaw, there is no threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected.
Glede drugega pogoja, to je glede možnosti, da bi bila prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami, je treba spomniti, da v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča ne obstaja prag ali odstotek, do katerega bi se lahko �telo, da trgovina med državami članicami ni prizadeta.
The relatively small amount of an aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected (see Tubemeuse, paragraph 43, and Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, paragraph 81).
Sorazmerno nizek obseg pomoči ali sorazmerna majhnost podjetja, ki prejme pomoč, namreč a priori ne izključujeta možnosti, da bi bila prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Tubemeuse, točka 43, ter Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, točka 81).
In that regard, it must be stated that SEP and the domestic electricity generating undertakings are in competition with the electricity producers of other Member States.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da so družba SEP in nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije konkurenti proizvajalcev električne energije iz drugih držav članic.
Furthermore, having regard to the context of the liberalisation of the market in electricity and the resulting intense competition, that factor is sufficient to establish that the aid is liable to affect trade.
Če se upo�tevajo tudi okoli�čine liberalizacije trga električne energije in močna konkurenca, ki je posledica te liberalizacije, je to zadosten dokaz za to, da bi pomoč lahko prizadela trgovino.
Regarding the third and fourth conditions, it appears to follow from the Law, from its Explanatory Memorandum and from the explanations submitted before the Court, that the amount of NLG 400 million received by SEP was to enable it to pay the non-market-compatible costs for 2000 without analysis of the nature and the origin of those costs.
Glede tretjega in četrtega pogoja kaže, da izhaja iz zakona, iz njegove obrazložitve in pojasnil pred tem sodi�čem, da bi znesek 400 milijonov NLG, ki ga obračuna družba SEP, tej družbi moral omogočiti plačilo s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov iz leta 2000, ne da bi bilo treba analizirati vrsto in izvor teh stro�kov.
By contrast, in respect of 2001 and the years following that, the Herkströter Committee regarded the Netherlands State as having been responsible for certain costs, such as the urban heating projects and the Demkolec plant, and subsidies from that State were provided for in order to offset those costs.
Za leto 2001 in naslednja leta pa je Herkströterjev odbor za nekatere stro�ke, kot je projekt daljinskega ogrevanja in naprava Demkolec, �tel, da jih je povzročila država Nizozemska, in za njihovo nadomestitev so bile predvidene subvencije te države.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions are regarded as State aid (see Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, paragraph 84; Joined Cases C-34/01 to C-38/01 Enirisorse [2003] ECR I-14243, paragraph 30; and Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, paragraph 59).
Glede tega je treba spomniti na to, da se kot državne pomoči �tejejo pomoči v kateri koli obliki, ki lahko neposredno ali posredno dajejo prednost podjetjem ali ki jih je treba razumeti kot gospodarsko korist, ki je upravičeno podjetje v normalnih tržnih razmerah ne bi dobilo (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, točka 84; sodbo z dne 27. novembra 2003 v združenih zadevah Enirisorse, od C-34/01 do C-38/01, Recueil, str. I-14243, točka 30, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, točka 59).
By contrast, where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 87(1) EC (Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, paragraph 87; Enirisorse, paragraph 31; and Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, point 60).
Nasprotno pa, ker je treba državno pomoč �teti za nadomestilo v zameno za storitve, ki so jih opravila upravičena podjetja za izvedbo obveznosti javnih služb, tako da taka podjetja v resnici ne uživajo finančne koristi in ukrep ne učinkuje tako, da jih postavi v ugodnej�i konkurenčni položaj, kot ga imajo konkurenčna podjetja, taka pomoč ne sodi na področje uporabe člena 87(1) ES (zgoraj navedene sodbe Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, točka 87; Enirisorse, točka 31, in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, točka 60).
However, for such compensation to escape classification as State aid in a particu- lar case, and there was, moreover, no submission to that effect in the case in the main proceedings, a number of conditions must be satisfied (Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, paragraph 88; Enirisorse, paragraph 31; and Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, paragraph 61).
Vendar morajo biti izpolnjeni določeni pogoji, da bi se tako nadomestilo v konkretnem primeru izognilo opredelitvi za državno pomoč, kar pa se med postopkom v glavni stvari tudi ni zatrjevalo (zgoraj navedene sodbe Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, točka 88; Enirisorse, točka 31, in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, točka 61).
First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined. (Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, paragraph 89; Enirisorse, paragraph 32; and Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, paragraph 62).
Prvič, podjetje, upravičeno za prejetje takega nadomestila, mora biti dejansko poobla�čeno za izvajanje obveznosti javnih služb in te obveznosti morajo biti jasno opredeljene (zgoraj navedene sodbe Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, točka 89; Enirisorse, točka 32, in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, točka 62).
Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, to avoid it conferring an economic advantage which may favour the recipient undertaking over competing undertakings. (Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, paragraph 90; Enirisorse, paragraph 35; and Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, paragraph 64).
Drugič, merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej, objektivno in pregledno, da se prepreči priznanje gospodarske koristi, ki bi dajala upravičenemu podjetju prednost v primerjavi s konkurenčnimi podjetji (zgoraj navedene sodbe Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, točka 90; Enirisorse, točka 35, in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, točka 64).