natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the objection raised by the Netherlands Government concerning the fact that Essent acted only as a collector of the charge, I would refer to my comments in points 108 to 110 above. 87
Glede ugovora nizozemske vlade glede omejene vloge družbe Essent kot prejemnika dajatve se sklicujem na zgoraj navedeno v točkah od 108 do 110 87.
86 — The situation does not appear to be different for the other net operators, which were themselves in public ownership.
86 – V enakem položaju so tudi drugi upravljavci omrežja, ki so prav tako v lasti pravnih oseb javnega prava..
As we have seen, the mechanism put into place by the national rule at issue provided for the imposition of a surcharge for the transmission service to be borne by electricity consumers, the levying of that surcharge by the network operators and transfer of the revenue from that surcharge to the ‘designated company’ (SEP), which was responsible for exercising accounting control over the funds transferred and was required to pay to the Minister for the Economy any sums in excess of NLG 400 000 000.
Kot se je izkazalo, je mehanizem, določen v nacionalni ureditvi, predvidel: naložitev povi�anja cen za storitve prenosa v breme odjemalcev električne energije, izterjavo tega povi�anja s strani upravljavcev omrežja in njihovega prihodka na „določeno družbo“ (družbo SEP), ki je bila pristojna za revizijo prenesenih sredstev in prenos zneskov, ki bi morebiti presegali 400 milijonov NLG, na ministra za gospodarstvo.
The dispute pending before the national court relates, more particularly, to the sums payable by a private consumer, Aldel, in accordance with that surcharge, to the operator of the network for the territory in which it is established, namely Essent.
Spor pred predložitvenim sodi�čem se nana�a predvsem na zneske, ki jih na podlagi navedenega povi�anja dolguje zasebni uporabnik Aldel upravljavcu omrežja na ozemlju, na katerem ima sedež, družbi Essent.
87 — I would, moreover, point out that while it is true that, under Article 9(1) and (4) of the OEPS, Essent’s task was solely to collect the surcharge at issue and to pay it over to SEP, under Article 97 of the 1998 Law on electricity — which made the implementation of the protocol compulsory — it was, none the less, statutorily required to make to SEP the payments incumbent upon it in accordance with that protocol.
87 – Vendar opozarjam, da je bila družba Essent, čeprav je bila v skladu s členom 9(1) in (4) OEPS edina pristojna za prejemanje zadevnega povi�anja in za njegov prenos na družbo SEP, na podlagi člena 97 Elektriciteitswet 1998, ki je določal obvezno izvr�evanje protokola k sporazumu, zakonsko zavezana družbi SEP izvr�evati plačila, ki so ji bila naložena na podlagi navedenega protokola.
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the national court does not mention the possibility that Article 97 of the 1998 Law on electricity comprises an aid measure within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, se ne sklicuje na možnost, da bi se člen 97 Elektriciteitwet nana�al na ukrep pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
It is not, therefore, necessary to embark upon such an analysis.
Zato tega ni treba preverjati.
Secondly, it seems to me to be relevant that SEP was required to carry out accounting checks on the sums derived from the revenue from the surcharge at issue, for which it was answerable to the Minister for the Economy.
Drugič, pomembna se mi zdi okoli�čina, da je bila družba SEP zavezana za revizijo zneskov od prihodka od zadevnega povi�anja, o kateri je morala poročati ministru za gospodarstvo.
It was presumably only once those checks were completed that the sums in question were made available to SEP, which was, in any event, required to use them for specific purposes, that is to say to cover the costs resulting from investments made at the instigation of the public authorities.
Zadevni zneski so bili domnevno �ele po tej reviziji na razpolago družbi SEP, ki jih je morala uporabiti za posebne namene, to je za pokritje stro�kov, nastalih zaradi investicij, izvr�enih na zahtevo javnih oblasti.
ily imposed on the consumption of electricity and collected by the net operators is to be paid by them to an undertaking which is the joint subsidiary of the national electricity producers and which is required, under that rule, to retain a part of that revenue to cover the nonrecoverable costs resulting from the investments made by that undertaking or the producer undertakings before the market was opened to competition, as well as to pay over to the State any excess, similarly intended to cover the abovementioned costs, may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
prehoden ukrep naloženo za porabo električne energije in ki ga je bilo treba plačati upravljavcem omrežja, ki so ga nato prenesli na skupno hčerinsko družbo nacionalnih proizvajalcev električne energije, ki je bila na podlagi navedene zakonodaje zavezana del tega prihodka zadržati za pokritje nasedlih stro�kov, nastalih zaradi investicij, ki jih je izvr�ila ta družba ali so jih proizvajalci pred liberalizacijo trga, ter na državo prenesti morebiten presežek, prav tako namenjen pokritju navedenih stro�kov, lahko vključuje državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
Finally, it is also relevant that, under Article 9(5) of the OEPS, SEP had to pay to the Ministry of the Economy the sums in excess of NLG 400 000 000.
Nazadnje, prav tako je pomembna okoli�čina, da bi morala družba SEP zneske, ki so presegali 400 milijonov NLG, v skladu s členom 9(5) OEPS prenesti na ministrstvo za gospodarstvo.
It is for the national court to assess whether the conditions necessary for Article 87(1) EC to apply are met.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji za uporabo navedenega člena.“
Based on the above considerations, it seems to me to be possible to conclude that the payments made for the benefit of SEP under the combined provisions of Article 9(1) and (4) of the OEPS involved the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Na podlagi predhodnih ugotovitev bi bilo mogoče skleniti, da so plačila, namenjena v korist družbe SEP, v skladu s členom 9(1) in (4) OEPS vključevala uporabo „državnih sredstev“ v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
On the basis of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na vse predhodne ugotovitve predlagam Sodi�ču, da na drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovori:
Although the national court is not asking the Court about the interpretation of Article 88(3) EC, on the assumption that the obligation to notify laid down by that provision was not met by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I none the less consider it useful to make a few brief observations on the arguments advanced by the Netherlands Government to challenge the failure to comply with its obligation which has been imputed to it.
Čeprav predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ča ne spra�uje glede razlage člena 88(3) ES, pri čemer izhaja iz domneve, da Nizozemska ni spo�tovala obveznosti priglasitve iz te določbe, vendarle menim, da je treba na kratko obravnavati trditve nizozemske vlade, s katerimi prereka nespo�tovanje obveznosti.
A national rule pursuant to which the revenue from a price surcharge temporar-
„Nacionalna zakonodaja, na podlagi katere je prihodek od povi�anja cene, ki je bilo kot
The Kingdom of the Netherlands contends that it ‘brought to the notice’ of the
Nizozemska meni, da je v okviru postopka na področju državnih pomoči
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS lishing that regime was communicated to the Commission.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI ki tako ureditev določa, sporočena navedeni instituciji.
Commission, in the context of the procedure concerning aid N 597/1998, the whole text of the OEPS draft law.
N597/1998 Komisijo „seznanila“ s celotnim besedilom predloga zakona OEPS.
That communication is said to have taken the form of the letter of 30 August 2000, in which the Netherlands specifically drew the Commission’s attention to the text of Article 9 of that draft.
To naj bi storila z dopisom z dne 30. avgusta 2000, v katerem naj bi Nizozemska Komisijo posebej opozorila na besedilo člena 9 tega predloga.
The Commission does not dispute that the whole of the draft law was attached to the letter of 30 August 2000.
Komisija ne zanika, da je bilo celotno besedilo predloga zakona priloženo k dopisu z dne 30. avgusta 2000.
Moreover, it is clear from the text of that letter, which the Netherlands Government has provided in response to a request from the Court, that that government refers explicitly to Article 9 of the OEPS, albeit solely in the paragraph entitled ‘Supplementary information on the Protocol for the purposes of applying Article 24 of Directive 92/96’.
Poleg tega iz besedila tega dopisa, ki ga je nizozemska vlada predložila na zahtevo Sodi�ča, izhaja, da se navedena vlada v njem izrecno sklicuje na člen 9 OEPS, čeprav le v odstavku z naslovom „Dodatni podatki o protokolu za namene uporabe člena 24 Direktive 92/96“.
I should point out that the N 597/1998 procedure came to an end with the decision of 25 July 2001.
Poudariti je treba, da je bil postopek N 597/1998 končan s sprejetjem odločbe z dne 25. julija 2001.
Furthermore, as part of that implementation, there was provision for levying the surcharge under Article 9(1) of the OEPS, with retroactive effect from 1 August 2000, that is to say a date preceding the letter by which the Commission was informed of the measures laid down by that article.
Poleg tega je bila v okviru te izvr�itve določena izterjava povi�anja iz člena 9(1) OEPS z retroaktivnim učinkom od 1. avgusta 2000, to je preden je bil poslan dopis, s katerim je bila Komisija obve�čena o predvidenih ukrepih iz navedenega člena.
In that connection, it may be useful to bear in mind that in its judgment in Van Calster and Others, the Court found to be unlawful parafiscal charges designed to finance support measures to benefit certain agricultural sectors, which had been levied with retroactive effect to cover a period prior to the Commission’s decision on the compatibility of those measures.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Van Calster ugotovilo nezakonitost davkom podobnih dajatev, namenjenih financiranju ukrepov pomoči v korist določenih kmetijskih sektorjev, ki so bili izterjani retroaktivno v obdobju pred odločbo Komisije o združljivosti navedenih ukrepov.
According to the Court, by giving the imposition of those measures retroactive effect, the State concerned had acted in breach of the obligation to give notification prior to implementing the aid.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča je zadevna država s tem, da je retroaktivno določila obdavčitev, kr�ila obveznost predhodne priglasitve izvajanja pomoči.
However, the provisions of Article 9 of the OEPS entered into force on 29 December 2000 and stipulated that the revenue from the surcharge levied in accordance with Article 9(1) was to be paid by the net oper -ators to SEP by 1 July 2001 (Article 9(4)).
Ureditev iz člena 9 OEPS je začela veljati 29. decembra 2000 in je določala, da morajo upravljavci omrežja prihodek od povi�anja, pobranega na podlagi odstavka 1 tega člena, prenesti na družbo SEP do 1. julija 2001 (člen 9(4)).
The Netherlands thus implemented that regime without waiting for the decision whereby the Commission closed the procedure in the context of which the provision estab-
Nizozemska je torej navedeno ureditev uporabljala, ne da bi počakala na odločbo, s katero je Komisija končala postopek, v katerem je bila določba,
It follows that, even were the information communicated in the letter of 30 August 2000 to have to be deemed to constitute notification for the purposes of Article 88(3) EC, this would not be sufficient to consider that the obligation laid down by Article 88(3) EC had been complied with.
Iz tega izhaja, da tudi če bi bilo treba obvestilo iz dopisa z dne 30. avgusta 2000 �teti kot priglasitev v smislu člena 88(3) ES, to ne bi zadostovalo za ugotovitev, da je bila obveznost iz navedene določbe spo�tovana.
In that context, the national court should consider whether, and to what extent, the costs, whose coverage the revenue from the contested price surcharge is designed to secure, affect, directly or indirectly, the national electricity producers.
V tem okviru bo nacionalno sodi�če preučilo, ali in koliko stro�ki, za pokritje katerih je namenjen prihodek od zadevnega povi�anja cen, neposredno ali posredno bremenijo nacionalne proizvajalce električne energije.
It is for the national court to assess whether the conditions necessary for Article 87(1) EC to apply are met.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji za uporabo navedenega člena.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 17. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank Groningen (Netherlands), made by decision of 19 April 2006, received at the Court on 2 May 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-206/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Rechtbank Groningen (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 19. aprila 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 2. maja 2006, v postopku
Aluminium Delfzijl BV, and in the indemnification proceedings
Aluminium Delfzijl BV in na podlagi jamčevalnega zahtevka
2008 — CASE C-206/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-206/06
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodna tajnica: M.
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 May 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 10. maja 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Lyal and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents.
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti R.
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 January 2008,
Lyal in H. van Vliet, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 24. januarja 2008
2008 — CASE C-206/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-206/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 25 EC, 87(1) EC and 90 EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 25 ES, 87(1) ES in 90 ES.
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Essent Netwerk Noord BV (‘Essent Netwerk’), an electricity net operator, and Aluminium Delfzijl BV (‘Aldel’), a purchaser of electricity and transport services, regarding a price surcharge for the transmission of electricity in the period from 1 August 2000 to 31 December 2000.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbama Essent Netwerk Noord BV (v nadaljevanju: Essent Netwerk), upravljavko električnega omrežja, in Aluminium Delfzijl BV (v nadaljevanju: Aldel), odjemalko električne energije in storitev prenosa, zaradi cenovnega doplačila, ki se je za prenos električne energije zaračunaval od 1. avgusta 2000 do 31. decembra 2000.
In connection with an intervention and with indemnification proceedings, the dispute also involves Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV, formerly Samenwerkende ElektriciteitsProduktiebedrijven NV (‘SEP’), a statutorily-desig-nated company, the State of the Netherlands and Saranne BV, a subsidiary of SEP and a high-voltage net operator.
V okviru intervencije in jamčevalnih zahtevkov so se v postopek vključile tudi družba Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV, prej Samenwerkende Elektricite-itsProduktiebedrijven NV (v nadaljevanju: SEP), z zakonom določena družba, država Nizozemska in družba Saranne BV, hčerinska družba družbe SEP in upravljavka visokonapetostnega omrežja.
Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ 1997 L 27, p.
Direktiva 96/92/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. decembra 1996 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z električno energijo (UL 1997, L 27, str.
20) (‘the Directive’) sets out common rules relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity.
20, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva) določa skupna pravila za proizvodnjo, prenos in distribucijo električne energije.
Chapters IV, VI and VII of the Directive deal respectively with transmission system operation, the accounts of electricity undertakings and the organisation of access to the system.
Njena poglavja IV, VI in VII se nana�ajo na obratovanje prenosnega sistema, računovodske izkaze elektroenergetskih podjetij oziroma organiziranje dostopa do omrežja.
Article 24(1) and (2) of the Directive provides:
Člen 24(1) in (2) Direktive določa:
Those Member States in which commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of this Directive may not be honoured on account of the provisions of this Directive may apply for a transitional regime which may be granted to them by the Commission, taking into account, amongst other things, the size of the system concerned, the level of interconnection of the system and the structure of its electricity industry.
Tiste države članice, kjer se obveznosti ali zajamčeno obratovanje, ki so bili določeni pred začetkom veljavnosti te direktive, ne morejo izpolnjevati zaradi določb te direktive, lahko zaprosijo za prehodni režim, ki ga Komisija lahko odobri, ob upo�tevanju, med drugim, velikosti sistema, ravni medsebojnih povezav omrežja in organiziranosti elektrogospodarstva.
The Commission shall inform the Member States of those applications before it takes a decision, taking into account respect for confidentiality.
Preden se odloči, Komisija ob upo�tevanju stopnje zaupnosti obvesti države članice o teh vlogah.
This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Odločitev se objavi v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.
The transitional regime shall be of limited duration and shall be linked to expiry of the commitments or guarantees referred to in paragraph 1.
Prehodni režim traja omejen čas in je vezan na prenehanje obveznosti ali jamstev iz odstavka 1.
The transitional regime may cover derogations from Chapter IV, VI and VII of this Directive. Applications
Prehodni režim lahko zajema odstopanja od poglavij IV, VI in VII te
2008 — CASE C-206/06 for a transitional regime must be notified to the Commission no later than one year after the entry into force of this Directive.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-206/06 direktive. Pro�nje za prehodni režim je treba Komisiji predložiti najkasneje v enem letu po začetku veljavnosti te direktive.“
Before the liberalisation of the electricity sector in the Netherlands, electricity was generated by four regional undertakings.
Pred liberalizacijo sektorja električne energije na Nizozemskem so električno energijo proizvajala �tiri regionalna podjetja.
Under Article 2 of the Law on the regulation of the production, importation, transmission and sale of electricity (Elektriciteitswet) of 16 November 1989 (Staatsblad 1989, No 535) (‘the EW 1989’), those generating undertakings, together with a designated company (SEP, their jointly-owned subsidiary), were responsible for ensuring that the public transmission of electricity functioned reliably and effectively at a cost which was as low as possible and was justified in the light of the public interest.
Na podlagi člena 2 zakona o ureditvi proizvodnje, uvoza, prenosa in prodaje električne energije (Elektriciteitswet) z dne 16. novembra 1989 (Staatsblad 1989, str. 535, v nadaljevanju: EW 1989) so bila ta proizvodna podjetja zadolžena za zanesljivo in učinkovito delovanje javne distribucije električne energije ob najnižjih možnih stro�kih, ki so družbeno upravičeni.
To accomplish that task, SEP and its shareholders had concluded a cooperation agreement in 1986.
Za izpolnitev te naloge je družba SEP leta 1986 z delničarkami sklenila sporazum o sodelovanju.
The EW 1989 provided a legal basis for that agreement in respect of the period from 1990 onwards.
Z EW 1989 je bila določena pravna podlaga za ta sporazum za obdobje od leta 1990.
All generated and imported electricity was managed by SEP.
Družba SEP je upravljala vso proizvedeno in uvoženo električno energijo.
The costs were pooled by SEP and paid by it to the four generating undertakings.
Ta družba je tudi ugotavljala vi�ino skupnih stro�kov in jih plačevala �tirim proizvodnim podjetjem.
SEP’s total costs made it possible to establish the price of the electricity invoiced to the distribution sector, taking account of a maximum set by the Minister for Economic Affairs.
Na podlagi skupnih stro�kov družbe SEP je bilo mogoče določiti ceno električne energije, ki je bila zaračunana distribucijskemu sektorju, vendar ob upo�tevanju najvi�jega zneska, ki ga je določilo ministrstvo za gospodarske zadeve.
During the period of the closed energy market, SEP or SEP and the generating undertakings had, under the cooperation agreement, made certain investments, in part at the instigation of the State, the reasons for those investments being considerations in respect of security of supply and provision and the sustainable use of sources of energy.
V obdobju zaprtega trga z energijo je družba SEP sama ali s proizvodnimi podjetji v okviru sporazuma o sodelovanju izvedla nekaj naložb, delno na zahtevo javnih organov zaradi skrbi za zanesljivo oskrbo in dobavo ter za trajno uporabo energijskih virov.
The investments in question related in particular to (i) long-term contracts for the importation of electricity and gas which SEP had concluded with foreign
Zadevne naložbe so se nana�ale zlasti na i) dolgoročne pogodbe za uvoz električne energije in plina, ki jih je družba SEP sklenila s tujimi proizvajalci električne
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS electricity and gas producers, (ii) agreements concluded, it seems, by the generating undertakings in connection with urban heating projects, and (iii) the construction of an experimental and ecological coal gas plant called ‘Demkolec’.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI energije in plina, ii) pogodbe, ki so jih, kot kaže, sklenila proizvodna podjetja v okviru projektov daljinskega ogrevanja, in iii) gradnjo poskusne ekolo�ke naprave za uplinjanje premoga „Demkolec“.
The costs related to those projects were not expected to be recoverable after liberalisation.
Pričakovati je bilo, da stro�kov v zvezi s temi projekti po liberalizaciji ne bo mogoče povrniti.
What were involved were non-market-compatible costs, or ‘stranded costs’, according to the terminology used by the Commission.
Šlo je za s trgom nezdružljive stro�ke ali „nasedle stro�ke“ („stranded costs“), kar je izraz, ki ga uporablja Komisija.
On 21 January 1997, SEP, the four generating undertakings and the 23 distribution companies concluded an agreement (‘the protocol agreement’) relating to the supply of electricity to the distribution companies for the period from 1997 to 2000.
Družba SEP, �tiri proizvodna podjetja in 23 distribucijskih podjetij so 21. januarja 1997 sklenili sporazum (v nadaljevanju: protokol k sporazumu) o dobavi električne energije distribucijskim podjetjem za obdobje od 1997 do 2000.
That protocol agreement provided inter alia that the distribution companies would, until 2000, jointly pay an amount of NLG 400 million per year to SEP (that is to say, a total of NLG 1.6 thousand million) to cover the non-market-compatible costs.
Ta protokol k sporazumu je med drugim določal, da bodo distribucijska podjetja vsako leto, in to do leta 2000, družbi SEP skupaj plačevala znesek 400 milijonov NLG (skupaj 1,6 milijard NLG), namenjen kritju s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov.
The payment of that amount by the distribution companies was to be financed by an increase in the price of electricity charged to small, medium and (ordinary) large consumers.
Plačevanje tega zneska s strani distribucijskih podjetij se je financiralo z zvi�anjem cen električne energije malih, srednjih in velikih običajnih potro�nikov.