natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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“.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS a breach is invoked by individuals, national courts must take all the consequential measures, in accordance with national procedures, as regards both the validity of measures giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of Article 88(3) EC’.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI nacionalno sodi�če sprejeti vse ustrezne ukrepe zaradi take kr�itve, ki jo navajajo posamezniki, v skladu z nacionalnimi procesnimi predpisi tako glede veljavnosti aktov o izvedbi ukrepov pomoči kot glede izterjave finančne pomoči, odobrene ob kr�itvi člena 88(3) ES“ 47.
47 gation, to notify not only the planned aid in the narrow sense, but also the method of financing the aid inasmuch as that method is an integral part of the planned measure’.
pomočjo in tudi načine njenega financiranja, kadar predstavljajo sestavni del predvidenega ukrepa“ 50.
50Accordingly, according to the Court, ‘since the obligation to notify also covers the method of financing the aid, the consequences of a failure by the national authorities to comply with [the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC] must apply also to that aspect of the aid’.
Poleg tega po mnenju Sodi�ča: „če se obveznost priglasitve raz�iri tudi na načine financiranja pomoči, se morajo ukrepi zaradi kr�itve člena [88(3), zadnji stavek, ES] uporabiti tudi glede tega vidika ukrepa pomoči“ 51.
51It follows that ‘where an aid measure of which the method of financing is an integral part has been implemented in breach of the obligation to notify, national courts must in principle order reimbursement of charges or contributions levied specifically for the purpose of financing that aid’. 52
Iz tega izhaja, da „nacionalna sodi�ča, če je bil ukrep pomoči, katerega način financiranja je njegov sestavni del, izveden v nasprotju z obveznostjo priglasitve, načeloma morajo odrediti povračilo dajatev ali prispevkov, posebej odmerjenih za financiranje te pomoči“ 52.
Even if the national court has not raised a question to that effect, it is, in any event, worth pointing out that, pursuant to the Court’s caselaw, consideration of an aid measure must necessarily also take into account the method of financing the aid in a case where that method forms an integral part of the measure.
Čeprav predložitveno sodi�če v zvezi s tem ni postavilo vpra�anja, je vendarle treba opozoriti, da v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča preizkusa ukrepa pomoči ni mogoče ločiti od presoje učinkov njenega načina financiranja v primeru, ko ta način pomeni sestavni del tega ukrepa 48.
48 The methods of financing aid may in fact render it incompatible with the common market, even if it satisfies other provisions of the Treaty, in par -ticular Articles 25 EC and 90 EC. 49
Načini financiranja pomoči lahko namreč vplivajo na to, da pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, tudi če izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v drugih določbah Pogodbe, zlasti v členih 25 ES in 90 ES 49.
In its judgment in Van Calster and Others, the Court also stated that, in circumstances of that nature, ‘in order to ensure the effectiveness of the obligation to notify and the Commission’s full and appropriate consideration of an aid, the Member State is required, in order to comply with that obli-
V sodbi Van Calster je Sodi�če poleg tega pojasnilo, da mora v takem primeru „država članica zaradi zagotovitve polnega učinka obveznosti priglasitve in tudi ustreznega in popolnega preizkusa državne pomoči s strani Komisije, zato da bo spo�tovana navedena obveznost, priglasiti načrt v zvezi z navedeno
In its judgment in Streekgewest, the Court held that ‘for a tax to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules, in the sense that the revenue from the tax is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid’ and have a direct impact on the amount of the aid and, consequently, on the assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the common market. 53
V sodbi Streekgewest je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da „morata biti zato, da bi bilo dajatev mogoče �teti za sestavni del ukrepa pomoči, dajatev in pomoč na podlagi ustrezne nacionalne zakonodaje neločljivo vsebinsko povezani, in sicer tako, da so prihodki od dajatve nujno namenjeni financiranju pomoči“ in nanjo neposredno vplivajo ter posledično neposredno vplivajo na presojo združljivosti s skupnim trgom 53.
50 — Van Calster and Others, cited in footnote 48, paragraph 51.51 — Ibidem, paragraph 52.52 — Ibidem, paragraph 54.
51 – Ibidem, točka 52.52 – Ibidem, točka 54.
53 — Streekgewest, cited in footnote 47, paragraph 26; see also, to the same effect, Joined Cases C-266/04 to C-270/04, C-276/04 and C-321/04 to C-325/04 Casino France and Others [2005] ECR I-9481, paragraph 40, and Air Liquide Industries Belgium, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 46.
53 – Glej zgoraj v opombi 47 navedeno sodbo Streekgewest, točka 26; v istem smislu glej tudi sodbo z dne 27. oktobra 2005 v združenih zadevah Casino Francia in drugi (od C-266/04 do C-270/04, C-276/04 in od C-321/04 do C-325/04, ZOdl., str. I-9481, točka 40), in zgoraj v opombi 13 navedeno sodbo Air Liquide, točka 46.
49 — See Van Calster and Others, cited in footnote 48, paragraph 47; see also, to that effect, Case 47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 487, paragraph 13.
49 – Glej v opombi 48 navedeno sodbo Van Calster in drugi, točka 47; glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 25. junija 1970 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (47/69, Recueil, str. 487, točka 13).
In this case, the surcharge at issue is levied specifically and exclusively to enable SEP and/or the EGUs to cover the nonrecoverable costs which they have to bear.
V obravnavani zadevi se zadevno povi�anje naloži posebej in izključno zato, da lahko družba SEP in/ali PEE pokrijejo nasedle stro�ke.
Consequently, the Court’s requirement that the revenue from the charge be hypothecated to financing the public measure — and it will be for the national court to assess whether the latter constitutes State aid — appears to me to be established.
Zdi se mi torej, da je povezava, ki jo zahteva Sodi�če, med prihodkom od dajatve in financiranjem javnega ukrepa, za katerega mora nacionalno sodi�če presoditi, ali je državna pomoč v obravnavani zadevi utemeljena.
As regards the first and second of those conditions, it seems clear to me that the measure at issue confers a benefit on SEP and/or the EGUs and that, since that benefit is confined to the electricity generating sector, it is of a selective nature.
Glede prvih dveh pogojev se mi zdi očitno, da sporni ukrep pomeni ugodnost za družbo SEP in/ali PEE in da je ta ugodnost, ker je omejena na sektor proizvodnje električne energije, selektivna.
Based on the abovementioned caselaw, the claims which Essent has made against Aldel under Article 9(1) of the OEPS could therefore be rejected, if it were established that the system set in place by that article comprises an aid measure within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, and that the measure was not notified to the Commission.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedene sodne prakse bi bile lahko trditve družbe Essent glede družbe Aldel v skladu s členom 9(1) OEPS zavrnjene, če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da ureditev iz tega člena vključuje ukrep pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES in ta ukrep ni bil prigla�en Komisiji.
I shall therefore consider those two aspects below.
Zato bom po vrsti preučil oba vidika.
The fact which the Netherlands Government emphasised, namely that the net operators were, in any event, required to contribute to covering the nonrecoverable costs under the protocol, does not seem to me to be of crucial importance.
Menim, da okoli�čina, na katero je opozorila nizozemska vlada, da naj bi bili upravljavci omrežja zavezani prispevati za pokritje nasedlih stro�kov na podlagi protokola k sporazumu, ni odločilnega pomena.
Article 9 of the OEPS places those required to collect the surcharge under a legal obligation to pay the resulting revenue to SEP, an obligation which is separate from and independent of any obligation which may be incumbent upon them under the protocol.
Člen 9 OEPS namreč subjekte, zavezane za pobiranje povi�ane dajatve, pravno zavezuje za plačilo prihodka od dajatve družbi SEP samostojno in neodvisno od tistega, kar bi bilo morda lahko naloženo istim subjektom na podlagi protokola k sporazumu 55.
55 Furthermore, the mechanism which Article 9 of the OEPS lays down enables SEP to rely on greater security of payments, since the relevant funds come from the levying of parafiscal charges, and,
Poleg tega mehanizem, določen v členu 9 OEPS, družbi SEP omogoča, da lahko računa na precej�njo varnost plačil, katerih sredstva izvirajo iz davkom podobnih dajatev, in da tako zmanj�a ali izključi tveganje za more-
54 — See, inter alia, Air Liquide Industries Belgium, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 28.
54 – Glej inter alia v opombi 13 navedeno sodbo Air Liquide Industries Belgium, točka 28.
55 — Although, as the Netherlands Government points out and as the order for reference itself indicates, the imposition of that requirement presupposes the existence of the protocol, and the collection of the surcharge is designed to make it possible to implement the latter, by enabling the distribution sector to pass on to consumers the resulting financial burdens.
55 – Vendar kot poudarja nizozemska vlada in kot izhaja iz same predložitvene odločbe, naložitev take obveznosti predpostavlja obstoj protokola k sporazumu in se izterjava povi�anja opravlja na njegovi podlagi, pri čemer sektor distribucije potro�nike obremeni z dajatvami, ki iz tega izhajajo.
Moreover, Article 9 of the OEPS makes no express provision for an offsetting mechanism should SEP have already received, in whole or in part, the payments which the net operators (or the suppliers) are required to make under the protocol.
Člen 9 OEPS pa izrecno ne določa nikakr�nega mehanizma za nadomestilo v primerih, v katerih je družba SEP že v celoti ali deloma prejela plačila, ki jih morajo upravljavci omrežja (ali dobavitelji) izvr�iti na podlagi protokola.
It is the settled caselaw of the Court that, in assessing whether a State measure constitutes State aid, it is necessary to ascertain whether four cumulative conditions are met, namely the existence of a benefit for an undertaking, the selective nature of the
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba pri presoji, ali je nacionalni ukrep državna pomoč, preveriti, ali so kumulativno izpolnjeni �tirje pogoji, in sicer obstoj koristi za podjetje, selektivnost ukrepa, njegovo financiranje s strani države ali iz državnih
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS therefore, to reduce or exclude the risk of those bound by the protocol defaulting or being unable to pay.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI bitno neizpolnjevanje ali nezmožnost izvr�evanja obveznosti s strani zavezancev na podlagi protokola 56.
56 caselaw that ‘it is necessary, not to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’.
z ustaljeno sodno prakso namreč „ni treba dokazati dejanskega vpliva odobrene pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami niti dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak je treba le preučiti, ali taka pomoč lahko vpliva na trgovino in na izkrivljanje konkurence“ 59.
59In particular, where aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intraCommunity trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. 60
Zlasti kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, se �teje, da pomoč na ta podjetja vpliva 60.
However, were it to prove that at the time when the payments for which Article 9(4) of the OEPS provides were made SEP had already received, in whole or in part and in implementation of the protocol, the NGL 400 000 000 for which Article 9(5) provides, 57the benefit to SEP and/or the
Vendar če bi se izkazalo, da je družba SEP v trenutku, ko so bila izvr�ena plačila, določena v členu 9(4) OEPS, iz naslova izvr�itve protokola k sporazumu v celoti ali deloma prejela 400 milijonov NLG iz odstavka 5 istega člena 57, bi se ugodnost za družbo SEP in/ali PEE iz zadevne ureditve ustrezno zmanj�ala, tako da bi bila morda omejena samo na presežek 58.
It is for the national court to make the relevant assessments.
Ta preizkus mora izvesti predložitveno sodi�če.
It seems to me that the fourth condition concerning the effects of the measure at issue on competition and on trade between the Member States may also be considered to be fulfilled.
Zdi se mi, da se lahko za izpolnjenega �teje tudi četrti pogoj v zvezi z vplivom zadevnega ukrepa na konkurenco in na njegov vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami.
In that connection, I shall merely point out that the Court takes a particularly broad approach to this.
V zvezi s tem bi opozoril le, da je pristop Sodi�ča glede tega posebej �irok. V skladu
Although it is not directly involved in the activity of producing electricity, in its capacity as the joint subsidiary of the EGUs, SEP was involved in marketing the electricity which they produced, as well as imported electricity.
Čeprav družba SEP ni bila neposredno vpletena v proizvodnjo električne energije, je kot skupna hčerinska družba �tirih PEE skrbela za trženje njihove in uvožene električne energije.
Formally at least, it operated within a system of competition on the market for the import of electricity outside the field of public supply, 61 managed the Demkolec coal gas plant and was active in the urban heating sector.
Vsaj formalno je delovala v sistemu konkurence na trgu uvoza električne energije, ki ni namenjena javni uporabi 61, upravljala z napravo za uplinjanje premoga (Demkolec) in bila aktivna na področju daljinskega ogrevanja.
As regards the effect of the measure at issue on intraCommunity trade, it follows from the above that SEP’s activities were not limited to the domestic arena and that it was also involved in cross-border trade.
Glede vpliva zadevnega ukrepa na trgovino v Skupnosti iz navedenega izhaja, da dejavnost družbe SEP ni bila omejena le na nacionalno področje, ampak je ta sodelovala tudi pri čezmejni trgovini.
56 — I should point out in passing that Article 97 of the 1998 Law on electricity in any event made implementation of the protocol a statutory requirement.
56 – Mimogrede pripominjam, da je člen 97 Elektriciteitswet določil z zakonom obvezno izvr�itev protokola k sporazumu.
Although not taken directly into consideration by the national court, that provision, which does not appear to have been notified to the Commission, could of itself involve an aid measure, the methods of financing of which are laid down by Article 9 of the OEPS.
Ta določba, čeprav je predložitveno sodi�če ni neposredno upo�tevalo in ki naj ne bi bila predložena Komisiji, bi lahko sama po sebi vsebovala ukrep pomoči, katere načini financiranja so določeni v členu 9 OEPS.
59 — See, inter alia, Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 44, and Air Liquide Industries Belgium, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 34.
59 – Glej inter alia sodbi z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (C-372/97, Recueil, str. I-3679, točka 44) in zgoraj v opombi 13 navedeno Air Liquide Industries Belgium, točka 34.
57 — It is not clear whether, if they had already implemented the protocol, the net operators and/or the suppliers would be exempted from the payments under Article 9(4) of the OEPS in respect of amounts corresponding to their participation in the nonrecoverable costs or if they would in any event be required to pay, subject to subsequent reimbursement of the sums by SEP.
57 – Ne ve se, ali so upravljavci omrežja in/ali dobavitelji v primeru izvr�itve protokola plačila iz člena 9(4) OEPS razdelili na zneske, ki ustrezajo njihovi udeležbi pri nasedlih stro�kih, ali so bili kasneje zavezani od družbe SEP zahtevati povračilo navedenih zneskov.
58 — On the basis of Article 9(5) of the OEPS, that excess is, in any case, designed to cover the nonrecoverable costs.
61 – Na podlagi Elekriciteitswet 1989 glej v opombi 12 navedeno sodbo Almelo, točka 13 in naslednje.
61 — Based on the 1989 Law on electricity, see Almelo and Others, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 13 et seq.
58 – Na podlagi člena 9(5) OEPS je ta presežek namenjen pokritju nasedlih stro�kov.
By contrast, whether the third condition, concerning the financing of the measure from State resources, is met requires a more complex analysis.
Bolj zapleteno pa je vpra�anje glede obstoja tretjega pogoja v zvezi s financiranjem ukrepa z javnimi sredstvi.
That matter was comprehensively aired before both the national court and the Court of Justice.
To vpra�anje sta ob�irno obravnavala predložitveno sodi�če in Sodi�če.
I shall therefore now consider whether that condition is met.
Zato bom preučil, ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen.
According to the Court, in the absence of any direct or indirect transfer of State resources, the fact that the legislation conferred an undeniable economic advantage on undertakings producing electricity from renewable sources and that the advantage was the consequence of intervention by the public authorities was not sufficient to categorise the contested measure as aid. 68
Po mnenju Sodi�ča dejstvo, da je taka zakonodaja ob neobstoju neposrednega ali posrednega prenosa državnih sredstev nedvomno dajala ekonomsko korist podjetjem proizvajalcem električne energije, pridobljene iz obnovljivih virov, in da je bila taka korist posledica posredovanja javnih oblasti, ni zadostovalo za opredelitev zadevnega ukrepa kot pomoč 68.
More recently, the Court held, in its judgment in Pearle and Others, 69that aid meas-
Sodi�če je nedavno v sodbi Pearle 69menilo, da pravila, ki jih sprejmejo organi-
In my analysis, I shall deliberately avoid entering into the debate, which has been fuelled, inter alia, by some earlier decisions of the Court, 63as to the need for there to be public financing if a State measure is to be categorised as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
Pri tem preizkusu se namenoma ne bom spustil v razpravo, ki izhaja iz nekaterih prej�njih odločb Sodi�ča 63 glede javnega financiranja, ki je nujni pogoj, da se državni ukrep lahko opredeli kot pomoč v smislu člena 87 ES.
I shall simply point out that, as of its judgment in Sloman Neptun, 64the Court has repeatedly and unhesitatingly affirmed the principle that an aid measure must be financed, directly or indirectly, through State resources, 65thereby demonstrating that it regards that requirement as intrinsic to the concept of aid.
V zvezi s tem bom poudaril le, da je Sodi�če od sodbe Sloman Neptun 64dalje brez obotavljanja pogosto potrdilo načelo, na podlagi katerega mora biti pomoč neposredno ali posredno financirana iz javnih sredstev 65, in tako pokazalo, da je to zahtevo treba upo�tevati kot sestavni element pojma pomoči.
62 — See Air Liquide Industries Belgium, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 37.
62 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Air Liquide Industries Belgium, točka 37.
ures were not involved in by-laws adopted by a trade association governed by public law for the purpose of funding — using resources collected from its members and compulsorily earmarked for that purpose — a joint advertising campaign decided upon by the members themselves, since it was established that that funding had been carried out using resources which the organisation never had the power to dispose of freely. In particular, the Court attached significance to the fact
zacije javnega prava za financiranje ogla�evalske akcije, organizirane v korist njenih članov, ki so se zanjo odločili, s sredstvi, ki jih plačajo navedeni člani in so obvezno namenjena financiranju za ta namen, niso sestavni del ukrepa pomoči, če se ugotovi, da je bilo to financiranje izvedeno s sredstvi, s katerimi organizacija v nobenem trenutku
66 — On that occasion, the Court was asked directly by the Commission to reconsider its caselaw, particularly in the light of recent developments in the Community legal order.
66 – Ob tej priložnosti je Komisija odkrito pozvala Sodi�če, naj ponovno premisli o svoji sodni praksi, �e posebej glede na kasnej�i razvoj ureditve Skupnosti.
63 — See Case 290/83 Commission v France [1985] ECR 439, paragraphs 13 and 14; Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 219, paragraphs 32 to 38; and Case 57/86 Greece v Commission [1988] ECR 2855, paragraph 12.
63 – Glej sodbe z dne 30. januarja 1985 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (290/83, Recueil, str. 439, točki 13 in 14); z dne 2. februarja 1988 v združenih zadevah Kwekerij van der Kooy in drugi proti Komisiji (67/85, 68/85 in 70/85, Recueil, str.
64 — Cited in paragraph 63.
67 – Sodba z dne 13. marca 2001 (zadeva C-379/98, Recueil, str. I-2099).
65 — That form of words had already been used in Case 82/77 van Tiggele [1978] ECR 25, paragraph 25.
69 – Sodba z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Pearle in drugi (C-345/02, ZOdl., str. I-7139).
67 — Case C-379/98 [2001] ECR I-2099.68 — Paragraphs 59 and 61.69 — Case C-345/02 [2004] ECR I-7139.
65 – Ta opredelitev je bila uporabljena že v sodbi z dne 24. ja -nuarja 1978 v zadevi van Tiggele (82/77, Recueil, str. 25, točka 25).
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS that the costs incurred by the public association for the advertising campaign were offset in full by the levies imposed on the undertakings.
Sodi�če je �telo za pomembno okoli�čino, da so bili stro�ki pravne osebe javnega prava za navedeno akcijo v celoti poravnani s prispevki podjetij, ki so uživala njene koristi.
Consequently, in the Court’s view, that association’s action ‘did not tend to create an advantage which would constitute an additional burden for the State or that body’, 70which served ‘merely as a vehicle for the levying and allocating of resources collected for a purely commercial purpose previously determined by the trade and which had nothing to do with a policy determined by the Netherlands authorities’.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča iz tega izhaja, da posredovanje navedene pravne osebe „ni bil v ustvarjanju prednosti, ki bi bila dodaten stro�ek za državo ali za to pravno osebo“ 70, ki je imela le vlogo „instrumenta za pobiranje in razdeljevanje sredstev, ki jih je za predhodno določen in popolnoma posloven namen zbral zadevni poklicni sektor in ki v ničemer ne sodi v okvir politike, ki so jo določili nizozemski organi“ 71.
71 on liberalisation are particularly mater- ial. In that area, the Commission’s powers to monitor national support measures for companies affected by such costs have been significantly reduced by the rigid application of the condition concerning financing through State resources, particularly bearing in mind that such measures are often designed in such a way that the economic burden of recovering those costs falls on final consumers, not infrequently as a result of the introduction of parafiscal charges.
Komisije nad nacionalnimi ukrepi pomoči podjetjem, obremenjenimi s temi stro�ki, precej zmanj�ane zaradi toge uporabe pogoja, ki se nana�a na financiranje iz državnih sredstev, predvsem če se upo�teva, da so taki ukrepi pogosto zasnovani tako, da je na končne potro�nike prevaljeno ekonomsko breme povračila navedenih stro�kov, pogosto prek davkom podobnih dajatev 72.