natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In 2004 the volume of energy consumed via this system amounted to approximately 22 200 MWh, of which, over and above FLH’s own consumption of 85.4%, around 3 800 MWh, or 14.6%, was supplied to other undertakings situated at the airport.
Leta 2004 je bila količina energije, porabljena prek tega omrežja, približno 22.200 MWh, od česar je več kot 85,4 % porabila družba FLH, približno 3800 MWh ali 14,6 % energije pa je bilo dobavljeno drugim podjetjem na letali�ču.
Since the beginning of 2004 citiworks AG (‘citiworks’), an electricity supply undertaking, has supplied DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, located at Leipzig/Halle Airport, with electricity.
Družba citiworks AG (v nadaljevanju: citiworks), podjetje za dobavo električne energije, je od začetka leta 2004 družbi DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, ki se nahaja na letali�ču Leipzig/Halle, dobavljala električno energijo.
On 12 July 2006, following an application by FLH, the Saxon Ministry of the Economy and Employment, as regulatory authority for the Land, issued a decision declaring that the energy supply system managed by FLH at Leipzig/Halle Airport constituted a ‘site
Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in delo zvezne dežele Sa�ke je kot pristojni organ te zvezne dežele 12. julija 2006 izdalo odločbo, s katero je odločilo, da je omrežje za oskrbo z energijo, ki ga upravlja družba FLH na
The Oberlandesgericht considered that since compliance with the relevant provisions of the EnWG would not impose an unreasonable burden on FLH, the system at issue could not be regarded as a ‘service network’ in accordance with Paragraph 110(1)(2) of the EnWG.
Oberlandesgericht je menilo, da ker ravnanje v skladu z ustreznimi določbami EnWG družbi FLH ne bi povzročilo nesprejemljivih težav, zadevnega omrežja ni mogoče �teti za „storitveno omrežje“ v skladu z odstavkom 110(1)(2) EnWG.
However, the system fulfils the conditions laid down in Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG and could thus be qualified as an ‘operation network’ and be exempted inter alia from the provisions of the EnWG on third party access.
Omrežje pa izpolnjuje pogoje iz odstav - ka 110(1)(1) EnWG in bi bilo lahko opredeljeno kot „obratovalno omrežje“ ter bi lahko med drugim bilo izključeno iz določb EnWG glede dostopa tretjih strani.
The action brought by citiworks is therefore, in principle, unfounded under national law.
Tožba, ki jo je vložila družba citiworks, je po nacionalnem pravu načeloma neutemeljena.
However, the Oberlandesgericht expressed doubts as to whether Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is consistent with the requirements of Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54.
Toda Oberlandesgericht je izrazilo dvom glede tega, ali je odstavek 110(1)(1) EnWG v skladu s členom 20(1) Direktive 2003/54.
A hearing was held on 20 September 2007.
Obravnava je bila opravljena 20. sep -tembra 2007.
Therefore, by order of 17 October 2006, received at the Court’s Registry on 24 October 2006, the Kartellsenat of the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Germany) decided to stay the proceedings and to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the following question:
Kartellsenat Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Nemčija) je tako z odločbo z dne 17. oktobra 2006, ki jo je sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prejelo 24. oktobra 2006, prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču Evropskih skupnosti v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
IV — Main arguments of the parties
IV – Bistvene trditve strank
Citiworks submits that Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is not compatible with Article 20 of the Directive.
Družba citiworks trdi, da člen 110(1)(1) EnWG ni združljiv s členom 20 Direktive.
‘Is the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Law on electricity and gas supply, or “EnWG”) compatible with Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council inasmuch as in accordance with the conditions laid down in the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the EnWG a so-called “operation network” is exempted from the general provisions on system access (Paragraphs 20 to 28a of the EnWG) even where such system access would not impose an unreasonable burden?’
„Ali je člen 110(1), točka 1, Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (zakon o oskrbi z električno energijo in plinom ali EnWG) nezdružljiv s členom 20(1) Direktive 2003/54/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v delu, v katerem se v skladu s pogoji iz člena 110(1), točka 1, EnWG splo�ne določbe o dostopu do omrežja (odstavki od 20 do 28a EnWG) ne uporabljajo za ‚obratovalno omrežje‘, tudi če tak dostop do omrežja ne bi povzročal nesprejemljivih težav?“
However, Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG violates the obligation to guarantee access to the network.
Člen 110(1)(1) EnWG pa kr�i obveznost zagotavljanja dostopa do omrežja.
Citiworks indicates that the exemption pursuant to Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is in practice automatic. According to a majority of competent regulators at Federal
Sodi�če je prejelo stali�ča družbe citiworks, ministrstva za gospodarstvo in delo zvezne dežele Sa�ke kot pristojnega organa te dežele, družbe FLH, Komisije ter nem�ke in poljske vlade ter vlade Združenega kraljestva.
The Court has received observations from citiworks, the Saxon Ministry of the Economy and Employment as regulatory authority for the Land, FLH, the Commission, and the German, Polish and United Kingdom Governments.
Družba citiworks navaja, da je izjema na podlagi člena 110(1)(1) v praksi avtomatična. Večina pristojnih zakonodajalcev na zvezni in deželni ravni meni, da je člen 110(1)(1) EnWG neposredno uporabljiv, ko so pogoji,
and Land level, Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is directly applicable when the conditions it lays down are fulfilled.
ki jih določa, izpolnjeni.
While many system operators have submitted applications for the provision to be declared applicable to their system, others presume that they fulfil the requirements of that provision and do not even seek a declaration to that effect.
Medtem ko je veliko upravljavcev omrežij vložilo pro�nje za izjavo, da je določba uporabljiva za njihovo omrežje, drugi domnevajo, da izpolnjujejo pogoje iz te določbe in za tako izjavo niti ne zaprosijo.
B — FLH
B – Družba FLH
Moreover, there is nothing in the directive to allow Member States to determine freely those situations in which they may derogate from the principle of freedom of access to the network.
Poleg tega v Direktivi ni nobene določbe, ki bi državam članicam dopu�čala, da svobodno določijo primere, v katerih je mogoče odstopiti od načela prostega dostopa do omrežja.
First of all, FLH submits that the reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible because the question referred to the Court is hypothetical.
Prvič, družba FLH trdi, da je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe nedopusten, ker je vpra�anje, ki je predloženo Sodi�ču, hipotetično.
Indeed, the referring court refers in its question to a wording of Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG which does not actually exist.
Predložitveno sodi�če se v svojem vpra�anju namreč sklicuje na besedilo člena 110(1)(1) EnWG, ki dejansko ne obstaja.
Moreover, the answer to that question is not relevant for the solution of the dispute before the referring court.
Poleg tega pa odgovor na to vpra�anje ni pomemben za razre�itev spora, predloženega predložitvenemu sodi�ču.
The exception provided for under Article 26 of the Directive for small isolated systems does not justify a provision such as Paragraph 110(1)(1) EnWG, because no request for derogation has been submitted by Germany to the Commission and the systems covered by the national provision are not micro or small isolated systems as defined at Article 2(26) and (27) of the Directive.
Izjema iz člena 26 Direktive glede majhnih izdvojenih omrežij ne upravičuje določbe, kot je določba člena 110(1)(1) EnWG, ker Nemčija pri Komisiji ni vložila nobene pro�nje za odstopanje, omrežja, ki jih zajema nacionalna določba, pa niso mikro ali majhna izdvojena omrežja, kot so opredeljena v členu 2(26) in (27) Direktive.
A general exemption of systems from third party access obligations for structural reasons cannot be inferred from the directive.
Splo�na izključitev omrežij iz obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani zaradi strukturnih razlogov v Direktivi nima podlage.
While it may be true that third party ac- cess obligations impose a disproportionately heavy burden on small systems, this
Čeprav je lahko res, da obveznost dostopa tretjih strani nesorazmerno obremenjuje majhna omrežja,
On the substance, FLH submits that Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is compatible with Community law.
Družba FLH v bistvu trdi, da je člen 110(1)(1) EnWG združljiv s pravom Skupnosti.
The systems falling within that provision are internal systems created by companies for the purposes of their own consumption and they do not affect competition.
Omrežja, ki spadajo pod to določbo, so notranja omrežja, ki jih podjetja postavijo za lastno porabo in ne vplivajo na konkurenco.
Therefore they do not fall within the scope of the directive.
Zato ne spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive.
For these reasons Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is compatible with Article 20(1) of the Directive.
Zato je člen 110(1)(1) EnWG združljiv s členom 20(1) Direktive.
This is illustrated by the fact that the consumption of the system in question is far below that of a ‘micro isolated system’ as defined in Article 2, point 27 of the Directive.
To ponazarja dejstvo, da je poraba zadevnega omrežja veliko manj�a kot poraba „mikro izdvojenega omrežja“, kot je opredeljeno v členu 2, točka 27, Direktive.
6 The exclusion of such a system is therefore unlikely to imply a significant distortion of competition on the internal market for energy.
6 Ni torej verjetno, da bo izključitev takega omrežja povzročila občutno izkrivljanje konkurence na notranjem trgu z energijo.
Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is merely the expression of the discretion which the German legislature had when implementing the directive.
Člen 110(1)(1) EnWG je zgolj izraz diskrecijske pravice, ki jo je nem�ki zakono -dajalec imel ob prena�anju Direktive.
Articles 3(8), 13, 15(2)(d), 15(2), last sentence, and 20(1) of the Directive provide indeed for a number of possibilities to derogate from the provisions on unbundling, connection and access to the network.
Čle ni 3(8), 13, 15(2)(d), 15(2), zadnji stavek, in 20(1) Direktive namreč določajo �tevilne možnosti za odstopanja od določb glede ločevanja, priključitve in dostopa do omrežja.
This party submits that the system at issue in the present proceedings, which may be exempted under Paragraph 110(1) of the EnWG, is neither a transmission system nor a distribution system within the meaning of the directive but a system which serves predominantly for to supply FLH’s own consumption.
Ta stranka trdi, da zadevno omrežje v tem postopku, ki bi lahko bilo izključeno po členu 110(1) EnWG, ni niti prenosno niti distribucijsko omrežje v smislu Direktive, temveč omrežje, ki je pretežno namenjeno oskrbi lastne porabe družbe FLH.
Therefore the system does not fall within the scope of the directive and there is no obligation to give third parties access to that system pursuant to the provisions of the directive.
Omrežje tako ne spada na področje uporabe Direktive in ne obstaja nobena obveznost, da se tretjim stranem da dostop do tega sistema v skladu z določbami Direktive.
Furthermore, FLH cannot be regarded as an operator of a distribution system within the meaning of Article 2(6) of the Directive, because its main objective is to operate an airport and, as a result, it cannot fully comply with the obligations imposed on a distribution system operator.
Poleg tega družbe FLH ni mogoče �teti za upravljavko distribucijskega omrežja v smislu člena 2(6) Direktive, ker je njen glavni namen upravljanje letali�ča in zato ne more v celoti izpolniti obveznosti, ki jih ima upravljavec distribucijskega omrežja.
FLH emphasises that it is a company which provides services in the general economic interest within the meaning of Article 3(8) of the Directive and is not just a simple energy distributor.
Družba FLH poudarja, da je družba, ki storitve opravlja v splo�nem gospodarskem interesu v smislu člena 3(8) Direktive, in ni le distributer energije.
It bears the obligation of running an airport.
Njena obveznost je upravljati letali�če.
Therefore the private supply system that it operates is not a distribution system within the meaning of the directive.
Zato zasebno omrežje za oskrbo, ki ga upravlja, ni distribucijsko omrežje v smislu Direktive.
6 — A ‘micro isolated system’ is a system which had a consumption of less than 500 GWh in the year 1996.
6 – „Mikro izdvojeno omrežje“ je omrežje s porabo, ki je manj�a od 500 GWh v letu 1996.
The consumption of the network in question is not known for 1996 but it appears from the file that it varied between 19 GWh and 23 GWh between 2000 and 2007.
Za leto 1996 poraba zadevnega omrežja ni znana, iz spisa pa izhaja, da je med letoma 2000 in 2007 nihala med 19 GWh in 23 GWh.
Therefore Paragraph 110(1)(1) EnWG only concerns systems which do not fall within the scope of the directive and it
Člen 110(1)(1) EnWG se torej nana�a zgolj na omrežja, ki ne spadajo na področje
Therefore the rules on energy market liberalisation apply only to systems with third party participation.
Zato se pravila o liberalizaciji trga z električno energijo uporabljajo zgolj za omrežja, v katerih so udeležene tretje strani.
The German Government submits that on a systemic and teleological interpretation of the directive ‘customer installations’ do not fall within its scope.
Nem�ka vlada trdi, da po sistematični in teleolo�ki razlagi Direktive „odjemalčeve naprave“ ne spadajo na njeno področje uporabe.
A customer installation is the electricity installation of a final consumer which also includes systems set up by such consumers and which distribute energy within a closed installation.
Odjemalčeva naprava je električna naprava končnega porabnika, vključno z omrežji, ki jih postavijo taki porabniki, in ki energijo distribuirajo v okviru zaprte naprave.
Although they supply several physical or legal persons as customers, some systems must be regarded as customer installations, when such customers cannot be regarded as true third parties.
Čeprav nekatera omrežja oskrbujejo več fizičnih ali pravnih oseb kot odjemalcev, jih je treba �teti za odjemalčeve naprave takrat, ko takih odjemalcev ni mogoče �teti za tretje strani.
This is the case for parties which are associated with the operator of the customer installation in a ‘supply community’, which may be the result of factual or legal circumstances.
To je tako v primeru strani, ki so povezane z upravljavcem odjemalčeve naprave v „oskrbovalni skupnosti“, ki je lahko rezultat dejanskih ali pravnih okoli�čin.
Since such customers are not true third parties vis-à-vis the system operator, it is not necessary to ensure their right to choose freely their electricity supplier and the rules on energy market liberalisation do not apply to them.
Glede na to, da taki odjemalci niso prave tretje strani v odnosu do upravljavca omrežja, jim ni treba zagotoviti pravice, da prosto izberejo svojega dobavitelja električne energije, pravila liberalizacije trga z električno energijo pa se zanje ne uporabljajo.
As is apparent from the definition of a ‘distribution system operator’ contained in Article 2(6) of the Directive and the obligations of such operators set out in Article 14 of the Directive, the directive concerns only companies operating distribution systems which are aimed at the supply of energy to the public, which excludes customer installations.
Kot izhaja iz opredelitve „upravljavec distribucijskega omrežja“ iz člena 2(6) Direktive in obveznosti takih upravljavcev, določenih v členu 14 Direktive, se Direktiva nana�a zgolj na družbe, ki upravljajo distribucijska omrežja, katerih namen je oskrba javnosti z energijo, kar izključuje odjemalčeve naprave.
Moreover the legal rules on energy market liberalisation aim at giving third parties the right freely to choose their provider.
Poleg tega je cilj pravnih pravil glede liberalizacije trga z električno energijo tretjim stranem dati pravico, da svobodno izberejo
Paragraph 110(1)(1) EnWG is aimed at excluding precisely such systems, by reference to which there are no true third parties, from the obligations relating to third party access.
Cilj člena 110(1)(1) EnWG je ravno izključitev takih omrežij, pri katerih tretje strani ne obstajajo, iz obveznosti glede dostopa tretjih strani.
It is therefore compatible with Article 20(1) of the Directive.
Zato je združljiv s členom 20(1) Direktive.
The Polish Government recalls that it appears especially from the 11th recital to and Article 3(8) of the Directive that Member States can provide for exemptions from the principle of third party access to the network, but there is no scope for general exemptions.
Poljska vlada opozarja, da zlasti iz enajste uvodne izjave in člena 3(8) Direktive izhaja, da države članice lahko določijo izjeme od načela dostopa tretjih strani, vendar ne splo�nih izjem.
A provision of national legislation, such as Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG, which allows for the exemption of small distribution system operators from third party access obligations, even where this does not entail excessive difficulties for the operator in question, is therefore incompatible with Article 20(1) of the Directive.
Določba nacionalne zakonodaje, kot je člen 110(1)(1) EnWG, ki dopu�ča izključitev majhnih distribucijskih omrežij iz obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani, tudi če ne pride do nesprejemljivih težav za zadevnega operaterja, je zato nezdružljiva s členom 20(1) Direktive.
The United Kingdom Government is of the view that the national provision in question is compatible with Article 20(1) of the Directive.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva meni, da je zadevna nacionalna določba združljiva s členom 20(1) Direktive.
The 11th recital to the Directive clearly implies that an exemption of small system operators from the obligations to provide third party access requires the existence of a disproportionate financial and administrative burden.
Enajsta uvodna izjava Direktive jasno kaže na to, da mora za namene izključitve majhnih upravljavcev omrežja iz obveznosti, da tretjim stranem omogočijo dostop, obstajati nesorazmerna finančna in administrativna obremenitev.
It is likely that for small operators compliance with administrative requirements laid out by the directive is more burdensome and related costs will be more difficult to offset given the relatively limited amount of electricity which they sell.
Verjetno je, da je za majhne upravljavce izpolnjevanje administrativnih zahtev, ki so določene v Direktivi, bolj obremenjujoče, s tem povezani stro�ki pa bodo težje pokriti, glede na relativno omejeno količino električne energije, ki jo prodajajo.
Moreover, in the present case, the operator of the transmission system is also required to contribute to the security of electricity supply.
Poleg tega mora v obravnavanem primeru upravljavec prenosnega omrežja prispevati k zanesljivosti oskrbe z električno energijo.
However, before the operator of a small system can be exempted from obligations
Toda preden je upravljavec majhnega omrežja lahko izključen iz obveznosti
It recalls that one of the main objectives of the directive was to establish free competition and that it targeted especially
Opozarja, da je bil eden od glavnih ciljev Direktive svobodna konkurenca in da se je usmerila zlasti na podjetja z monopolnim ali kvazi-monopolnim položajem, ki
The Commission is of the view that Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG is incompatible with Article 20(1) of the Directive.
Komisija meni, da je člen 110(1)(1) EnWG nezdružljiv s členom 20(1) Direktive.
The application of the provisions of the directive to even the smallest systems would be absurd and unreasonable.
Uporaba določb Direktive tudi za najmanj�a omrežja bi bila absurdna in nerazumna.
Compliance with third party access obligations would make it too burdensome to run small and new systems and thus harder for them to compete effectively with larger-scale electricity undertakings.
Izpolnjevanje obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani bi povzročilo, da bi bilo upravljanje majhnih in novih omrežij preveč obremenjujoče, kar bi pomenilo, da bi bilo zanje težje učinkovito konkurirati večjim elektroenergetskim podjetjem.
In contrast, their exclusion from third party access requirements would have a negligible impact on the liberalisation of the electricity market given their very limited sphere of operation.
V nasprotju s tem pa bi imela njihova izključitev iz zahtev dostopa tretjih strani zanemarljiv vpliv na liberalizacijo trga z električno energijo glede na to, da je njihov krog delovanja zelo omejen.
It submits that Article 20 of the Directive, which requires that third parties are granted access to transmission and distribution systems, is applicable to the factual situation which gave rise to the dispute before the referring court.
Trdi, da je člen 20 Direktive, ki zahteva, da se tretjim stranem omogoči dostop do prenosnih in distribucijskih omrežij, mogoče uporabiti za dejansko stanje, zaradi katerega je pri�lo do spora pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
The system in question is a distribution system within the meaning of Article 2(6) of the Directive because it serves to distribute electricity to FLH and further 93 companies located at the airport.
Zadevno omrežje je distribucijsko omrežje v smislu člena 2(6) Direktive, ker električno energijo distribuira družbi FLH in drugim 93 podjetjem, ki se nahajajo na letali�ču.
Therefore the freedom to access such a system must be ensured in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Directive.
Zato je treba v skladu s člen - om 20(1) Direktive zagotoviti dostop do takega omrežja.
Lastly, according to the wording of the definition of ‘distribution’ in Article 2(5) of the Directive, it is made ‘with a view to its delivery to customers’.
Nazadnje, glede na opredelitev „distribucije“ iz člena 2(5) Direktive, gre za transport „z namenom dobave odjemalcem“.
Therefore, delivery to customers must be the main objective of a distribution system, but this is obviously not the case of FLH which itself consumes 85.4% of the electricity transported through its system.
Dobava odjemalcem mora torej biti glavni cilj distribucijskega omrežja, kar pa očitno ni tako v
FLH challenged the admissibility of the question referred essentially on the ground that it envisages a hypothesis which is not the one formulated by the national law in question and it is therefore hypothetical.
Družba FLH je v bistvu izpodbijala dopustnost vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje na podlagi tega, da vsebuje hipotezo, ki jo zadevno nacionalno pravo ne določa, in da je zato to vpra�anje hipotetično.
The small size of some systems and their limited economic importance do not justify their exclusion, as a matter of principle, from the principle of the freedom of access.
Majhnost nekaterih omrežij in njihov omejen gospodarski pomen ne opravičujeta, da se jih načeloma izključuje iz načela svobodnega dostopa.
The size of a system only plays a role for issues relating to the legal separation of distribution system operators, as it appears from Article 15(2) of the Directive.
Velikost omrežja je pomembna zgolj v zadevah, ki se nana�ajo na pravno ločevanje upravljavcev distribucijskih omrežij, kot izhaja iz člena 15(2) Direktive.
According to consistent caselaw, it is solely for the national court to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je izključno nacionalno sodi�če tisto, ki glede na posebnosti vsake zadeve presodi o potrebi po sprejetju predhodne odločbe, da bi lahko izdalo svojo sodbo, in o relevantnosti vpra�anj, ki jih postavi Sodi�ču.