natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, it must be determined to what extent the purpose for which a system is operated is essential for the qualification of the system as ‘distribution system’.
Drugič, ugotoviti je treba, v kolik�ni meri je namen upravljanja omrežja bistven
If this approach were to be followed, this would also mean that the same customer, for example a shop or a restaurant, would or would not have the right to choose freely among electricity suppliers depending on the business purpose of the system operator running the electricity system to which it is
Če bi sledili temu pristopu, bi to prav tako pomenilo, da bi isti odjemalec, na primer restavracija ali trgovina, bodisi imel bodisi ne imel pravice, da svobodno izbere dobavitelja električne energije, glede na poslovni namen
CITIWORKS obligations imposed on distribution system operators by the directive.
Zato naj taki upravljavci ne bi smeli biti predmet obveznosti, ki jim jih Direktiva nalaga.
connected for the purpose of receiving electricity.
upravljavca elektroenergetskega omrežja, na katerega je priključen zaradi prejemanja električne energije.
Thus, the exclusion of systems from third party access obligations on the basis of the purpose for which they are operated would result in a different treatment of final customers.
Izključitev omrežij iz obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani na podlagi njihovega namena bi torej povzročila različno obravnavanje končnih odjemalcev.
These considerations suggest that a situation where the qualification of a system as a ‘distribution system’ would depend on the condition that it pursues the main objective of delivering electricity to the general public would lead to substantial discrimination between system operators as well as between customers.
Te ugotovitve kažejo na to, da bi v primeru, da bi opredelitev omrežja kot „distribucijskega omrežja“ bila odvisna od tega, da sledi glavnemu cilju dobave električne energije splo�ni javnosti, pri�lo do bistvene diskriminacije tako med upravljavci omrežij kot med odjemalci.
Such an outcome seems difficult to reconcile with the objective of nondiscriminatory third party access and the end-user’s right to freely choose the energy supplier that the directive seeks to achieve.
Tak izid bi bilo težko uskladiti s ciljem nediskriminatornega dostopa tretjih strani in s pravico končnega uporabnika, da svobodno izbere dobavitelja električne energije, ki se ju z Direktivo želi doseči.
This approach should not be followed.
Ta pristop ne bi smel biti sprejet.
Member States enjoy a wide margin of discretion in how they implement in practice the third party access obligations provided for in the directive.
Države članice imajo �iroko diskrecijsko pravico glede tega, kako v praksi izvajajo obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani, določene v Direktivi.
Member States might possibly provide for a lighter administrative regime for smaller or newly-created systems or systems which pursue a main objective that is different from that of the supply of energy to customers.
Države članice bi mogoče lahko določile blažji administrativni režim za manj�a ali nova omrežja ali omrežja, katerih glavni cilj je drugačen od cilja dobave električne energije odjemalcem.
Thus, the actual burden which the fulfilment of such obligations constitutes for an individual operator is to a certain extent the result of regulatory choices made by each Member State.
Tako je dejanska obremenitev, ki jo izpolnjevanje takih obveznosti povzroča posameznemu upravljavcu, v določeni meri posledica regulativnih možnosti vsake države članice.
21Therefore, such a ground would not in itself allow for the total exclusion of such systems from the obligations imposed by the directive on distribution system operators and especially third party access obligations.
21Zato na tej podlagi takih omrežij ne bi bilo mogoče povsem izključiti iz obveznosti, ki jih Direktiva nalaga upravljavcem distribucijskih omrežij, zlasti iz obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani.
It follows that none of the above reasons justifies as such the exclusion of a system such as that operated by Leipzig/Halle Airport from the scope of the concept of
Sledi, da noben od zgoraj navedenih razlogov kot tak ne upravičuje izključitve
21 — For example the German legislature has opted for an ex-ante control of tariffs for network access, ‘an intrusive and cumbersome instrument of regulation not required by Community law, instead of confining itself to control methods to calculate these tariffs’.
21 – Nem�ki zakonodajalec je na primer izbral ex­ante nadzor nad tarifami za dostop do omrežja, „posegajoč in ovirajoč in�trument regulacije, ki ga pravo Skupnosti ne zahteva, namesto da bi se omejil na metode nadzora za izračun teh tarif“. Glej Thomas von Danwitz, „Regulation and Liberalisation of the European Electricity Market – A German View“, 2006 Energy Law Journal, Vol. 27:423, str. 448.
Moreover, I do not think that certain small or closed systems should be denied, as a matter of principle, the qualification as ‘distribution systems’ on structural grounds.
Poleg tega mislim, da se določenim majhnim ali zaprtim omrežjem zaradi strukturalnih razlogov načeloma ne bi smelo odreči, da se jih opredeli kot „distribucijska omrežja“.
It has indeed been argued that the obligations imposed by the directive on distribution system operators, and in particular third party access obligations, are per se overly burdensome for certain system ope r-ators, particularly when they are small, new entrants and/or pursue a main objective that is different from that of the supply of energy to customers. For that reason, such ope r-ators cannot be intended to be subject to the
Zatrjevano je bilo, da so obveznosti, ki jih Direktiva nalaga upravljavcem distribucijskih omrežij, zlasti obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani, za določene upravljavce omrežij preveč obremenjujoče per se, zlasti ko so to majhni, novi udeleženci in/
‘distribution system’ within the meaning of the directive.
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-439/06 takega omrežja, kot je omrežje, ki ga upravlja letali�če Leipzig/Halle, iz okvira pojma „distribucijsko omrežje“ v smislu Direktive.
Quite to the contrary, some elements suggest that a system such as that operated by FLH should in fact be regarded as a distribution system within the meaning of the directive.
Ravno nasprotno, iz nekaterih elementov izhaja, da je tako omrežje, kot je omrežje, ki ga upravlja družba FLH, treba �teti za distribucijsko omrežje v smislu Direktive.
happen to be located at the airport but they pursue their own commercial purpose.
se nahajajo na letali�ču, toda imajo svoj lastni poslovni namen.
The contractual relationship they have with FLH is, as was confirmed at the hearing, primarily a lease contract.
Pogodbeni odnos, ki ga imajo z družbo FLH, je, kot je bilo potrjeno na obravnavi, v prvi vrsti najemna pogodba.
The situation of the 93 undertakings in question therefore does not differ fundamentally from that of businesses renting city centre premises or premises in a retail centre.
Položaj 93 zadevnih podjetij se torej bistveno ne razlikuje od dajanja v najem poslovnih prostorov v mestnem sredi�ču ali v maloprodajnem centru.
These undertakings should therefore, in principle, be able to choose freely their supplier of electricity.
Zato bi omrežje, ki dobavlja električno energijo priključnemu mestu zasebne napeljave teh odjemalcev, načeloma moralo biti dostopno tretjim stranem.
For these reasons, I believe that a system, such as that operated by FLH, must be regarded as a ‘distribution system’ within the meaning of the directive.
Zato menim, da je treba omrežje, kot je omrežje, ki ga upravlja družba FLH, �teti za „distribucijsko omrežje“ v smislu Direktive.
23 Thus, the supply to third parties, while perhaps not predominant, is far from irrelevant.
stranem, čeprav ni prevladujoča, prav gotovo ni nepomembna.
Nor do I see why the 93 undertakings located at Leipzig/Halle Airport should not be regarded as ‘true’ third parties.
Prav tako ne vidim, zakaj 93 podjetij, ki se nahajajo na letali�ču Leipzig/Halle, ne bi smeli �teti za „prave“ tretje strani. Res je, da
22 — As already mentioned at point 15 of the present Opinion, for 2004, the volume of energy consumed via this system amounted to approximately 22 200 MWh, of which around 3 800 MWh, or 14.6%, was supplied to other undertakings situated at the airport.
22 – Kot je bilo že navedeno v točki 15 teh sklepnih predlogov, je bila leta 2004 količina energije, porabljena prek tega omrežja, približno 22.200 MWh, od česar je bilo približno 3800 MWh ali 14,6 % energije dobavljeno drugim podjetjem na letali�ču.
23 — According to the order for a reference, it was forecast that for 2007 the volume of energy supplied to other undertakings situated on the airport site would be of approx. 8 000 MWh, which is said to be the equivalent of the consumption of 2 000 3-person-households and represents a doubling of the volume of energy provided by the network in question to third parties within only three years.
23 – V predložitveni odločbi je navedeno, da je bilo za leto 2007 predvideno, da bo količina energija, dobavljena drugim po -djetjem, ki se nahajajo na letali�ču, približno 8000 MWh, kar naj bi bilo enakovredno porabi 2000 tričlanskih gospodinjstev in pomeni podvojitev količine energije, ki jo zadevno omrežje dobavlja tretjim stranem, v samo treh letih.
However, this does not mean that such a system may not be exempted, in compliance with the directive, from third party access obligations.
To pa ne pomeni, da v skladu z Direktivo takega omrežja ni mogoče izključiti iz obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani.
The directive provides indeed for a number of provisions which exempt systems from certain obligations, in an attempt to strike a balance between the need to grant third party access to the network while safeguarding overriding general inter-
Direktiva namreč vsebuje �tevilne določbe, ki omrežja izključujejo iz določenih obveznosti, zato da bi bilo doseženo ravnovesje med potrebo po odobritvi dostopa do omrežja tretjim stranem z zagotavljanjem pomembnih
CITIWORKS exemption based on lack of capacity could be unlimited in time.
CITIWORKS zmogljivosti. Prav tako je težko sprejeti, da lahko izključitev na podlagi neobstoja zmogljivosti traja nedoločen čas.
ests such as security of supply and the fulfilment of services in the general economic interest.
splo�nih interesov, kot je zanesljivost oskrbe, in opravljanjem storitev v splo�nem gospodarskem interesu.
Under Article 3(8) of the Directive, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Article 20 ‘insofar as their application would obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the obligations imposed on electricity undertakings in the general economic interest and insofar as the development of trade would not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community’.
V skladu s členom 3(8) Direktive se države članice lahko odločijo, da ne bodo uporabile določb iz člena 20, „če bi uporaba teh določb pravno in dejansko ovirala izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki so naložene elektroenergetskim podjetjem v splo�nem gospodarskem interesu, in če razvoj trgovanja ni prizadet do tak�ne mere, ki bi bila v nasprotju z interesi Skupnosti“.
While it cannot be excluded that some ‘operation networks’ eligible for exemption pursuant to Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG fulfil these conditions, there is no basis for the conclusion that this is necessarily the case, without further evaluation of the circumstances in which a given system operates.
Čeprav ni mogoče izključiti, da nekatera „obratovalna omrežja“, ki so primerna za izključitev v skladu s členom 110(1)(1) EnWG, izpolnjujejo te pogoje, ni nobene podlage za ugotovitev, da je to nujno tako, ne da bi bile okoli�čine, v katerih to omrežje deluje, nadalje ocenjene.
As mentioned above, Article 26 of the Directive provides for an exception for micro and small isolated systems from inter alia third party access obligations.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, člen 26 Direktive določa izključitev mikro in majhnih izdvojenih omrežij iz, med drugim, obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani.
However, there is no evidence that either the system operated by FLH or all ‘operation networks’ eligible for exemption pursuant to Paragraph 110(1)(1) of the EnWG are isolated within the meaning of the directive.
Kljub temu pa ni nobenega dokaza, da so bodisi omrežje, ki ga upravlja družba FLH, bodisi vsa „obratovalna omrežja“, ki so primerna za izključitev na podlagi člena 110(1)(1) EnWG, izdvojena v smislu Direktive.
Moreover, the application of this exception requires a Member State to submit an application to the Commission, whereas Germany has never submitted such a request.
Poleg tega morajo države članice za uporabo te izjeme vložiti pro�njo pri Komisiji, Nemčija pa ni nikoli vložila take pro�nje.
Each of these two reasons precludes that an exemption of ‘operation networks’ in application of Paragraph 110(1)(1) EnWG could as a rule be based on Article 26 of the Directive.
Ta dva razloga nasprotujeta temu, da bi izključitev „obratovalnih omrežij“ na podlagi člena 110(1)(1) EnWG praviloma temeljila na členu 26 Direktive.
A distribution system may also be exempted from third party access obligations in accordance with Article 20(2) of the Directive, ‘where it lacks the necessary capacity’.
Distribucijsko omrežje je v skladu s členom 20(2) Direktive prav tako lahko izključeno iz obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani, „če nima potrebnih zmogljivosti“.
Again, it cannot be excluded that this pro vision allows for the exemption of certain ‘operation networks’, but this is certainly not the case if there is no circumstantiated evidence of a lack of capacity to allow access. Furthermore, it is difficult to accept that an
Ni mogoče izključiti, da ta določba dovoljuje izključitev določenih „obratovalnih omrežij“, toda to prav gotovo ni tako, če za zavrnitev dostopa ni nobenih dokazov glede neobstoja
It follows from the foregoing that the exclusion of the application of the provisions on third party access obligations to ‘operation networks’ within the meaning of the EnWG cannot be justified by the wording, context and purpose of the directive.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da besedilo, kontekst in namen Direktive izključitve uporabe določb glede obveznosti dostopa tretjih strani za „obratovalna omrežja“ v smislu EnWG ne upravičujejo.
In the light of the foregoing, I am of the view that the answer to the question referred should be that:
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega menim, da bi moral odgovor na vpra�anje biti:
‘Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC must be construed so as to preclude national legislation which excludes, as a general rule, the application of the provisions on third party access to distribution systems which are located on a geographically connected operation zone and which predominantly serve to supply the energy needs of the undertaking itself or of connected undertakings.’
Člen 20(1) Direktive 2003/54/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 2003 o skupnih pravilih za notranji trg z električno energijo in o razveljavitvi Direktive 96/92/ES je treba razumeti tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki načeloma izključuje uporabo določb o dostopu tretjih strani do distribucijskih omrežij, ki se nahajajo na obratovalnem območju, ki je prostorsko povezano, in katerih namen je zlasti oskrba potreb po energiji samega podjetja ali priključenih podjetij.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)22 May 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 22. maja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Germany), made by decision of 17 October 2006, received at the Court on 24 October 2006, in the energy management proceedings citiworks AG intervening party: für
V zadevi C-439/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 17. oktobra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 24. oktobra 2006, v postopku glede upravljanja energije citiworks AG ob udeležbi
2008 — CASE C-439/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-439/06
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 September 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mazák, sodni tajnik: J. Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 20. septembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by B. Schima, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 December 2007, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti B. Schima, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 13. decembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Dir ective 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 20(1) Direktive 2003/54/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 2003 o skupnih pravilih za notranji trg z električno energijo in o razveljavitvi Direktive 96/92/ES (UL L 176, str. 37).
The reference has been made in proceedings brought by citiworks AG (‘citiworks’) against the decision by which the Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde (Ministry of the Economy and Employment of the Land of Saxony, acting as regulatory authority for the Land; ‘the regulatory
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru postopka, katerega predmet je tožba, ki jo je družba citiworks AG (v nadaljevanju: citiworks) vložila zoper odločbo, s katero je Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde (ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in delo zvezne dežele Sa�ke kot pristojni organ na ravni
2008 — CASE C-439/06 authority’) classified the energy supply network managed by Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH (‘FLH’) as a ‘site network’ within the meaning of the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Law on electricity and gas supply (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) of 7 July 2005 (BGBl. 2005 I, p.
2008 – ZADEVA C-439/06 zvezne dežele, v nadaljevanju: pristojni organ), opredelilo, da gre pri omrežju za oskrbo z energijo, ki ga upravlja družba Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH (v nadaljevanju: FLH), za „omrežje na območju obratovalnega sistema“ v smislu člena 110(1), točka 1, zakona o oskrbi z električno energijo in plinom, tako imenovanega zakona o racionalnem upravljanju energije (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversor -gung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) z dne 7. julija 2005 (BGBl. 2005 I, str.
1970; ‘EnWG’).
1970, v nadaljevanju: EnWG).
Pursuant to Article 1 of Directive 2003/54:
V členu 1 Direktive 2003/54 je določeno:
‘This Directive establishes common rules for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity.
„Ta direktiva določa skupna pravila za proizvodnjo, prenos, distribucijo in dobavo električne energije.
It lays down the rules relating to the organisation and functioning of the electricity sector, access to the market, the criteria and procedures applicable to calls for tenders and the granting of authorisations and the operation of systems.’
Določa pravila glede organiziranja in delovanja elektroenergetskega sektorja, dostop do trga, merila in postopke, ki se uporabljajo pri javnih razpisih in izdaji energetskih dovoljenj ter obratovanju sistemov.“
Recitals (4) to (7) and (26) in the preamble to Directive 2003/54 are worded as follows:
V četrti, peti, �esti, sedmi in �estindvajseti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2003/54 je določeno:
‘(4) The freedoms which the Treaty guarantees European citizens — free movement of goods, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment — are only
„(4) Svobo�čine, ki jih Pogodba zagotavlja evropskim državljanom – prosti pretok blaga, prosti pretok storitev in svoboda ustanavljanja – so možne le na
CITIWORKS possible in a fully open market, which enables all consumers freely to choose their suppliers and all suppliers freely to deliver to their customers.
CITIWORKS popolnoma odprtem trgu, ki vsem odjemalcem omogoča svobodno izbiro dobaviteljev in vsem dobaviteljem, da svoje proizvode svobodno dobavijo svojim odjemalcem.
(5) The main obstacles in arriving at a fully operational and competitive internal market relate amongst other things to issues of access to the network, tarification issues and different degrees of market opening between Member States.
(5) Glavne ovire na poti k popolnoma operativnemu in konkurenčnemu notranjemu trgu med drugim zadevajo vpra�anje dostopa do omrežja, vpra�anje postavitve cen in razlik med državami članicami v stopnji odprtosti trgov.
(6) For competition to function, network access must be non-discriminatory, transparent and fairly priced.
(6) Za dobro delovanje konkurence je nujen nediskriminatoren in pregleden dostop do omrežja, ki bo na voljo za primerno ceno.
(7) In order to complete the internal electricity market, nondiscriminatory access to the network of the transmission or the distribution system operator is of paramount importance.
(7) Za vzpostavitev notranjega trga z električno energijo je bistvenega pomena nediskriminatoren dostop do omrežja upravljavcev prenosnega in distribucijskega omrežja.
A transmission or distribution system operator may comprise one or more undertakings.
Upravljavec prenosnega ali distribucijskega omrežja je lahko eno ali več podjetij.
(26) The respect of the public service requirements is a fundamental requirement of this Directive, and it is important that common minimum standards, respected by all Member States, are specified in this Directive, which take into account the objectives of [consumer] protection, security of supply, environmental
(26) Spo�tovanje obveznosti javnih storitev je osnovna zahteva te direktive. Pomembno je, da Direktiva določa skupne minimalne standarde, ki jih spo�tujejo vse države članice, pri čemer so upo�tevani cilji glede za�čite odjemalcev,
2008 — CASE C-439/06 protection and equivalent levels of competition in all Member States.
2008 – ZADEVA C-439/06 zanesljivosti oskrbe, varstva okolja in enakovrednih ravni konkurenčnosti v vseh državah članicah.
It is important that the public service requirements can be interpreted on a national basis, taking into account national circumstances and subject to the respect of Community law.’
Pomembno je, da je mogoče obveznost javnih storitev razlagati na nacionalni osnovi in pri tem upo�tevati nacionalne okoli�čine ter zakonodajo Skupnosti.“
Article 2 of Directive 2003/54, entitled ‘Definitions’, states:
V členu 2 Direktive 2003/54, naslovljenem Opredelitve pojmov, je določeno:
3. “transmission” means the transport of electricity on the extra high-voltage and high-voltage interconnected system with a view to its delivery to final customers or to distributors, but not including supply;
3) ‚prenos‘ pomeni transport električne energije na zelovisokonapetostnem in visokonapetostnem povezanem omrežju z namenom dostave električne energije končnim odjemalcem ali distributerjem, vendar ne vključuje dobave;
4. “transmission system operator” means a natural or legal person responsible for operating, ensuring the maintenance of and, if necessary, developing the transmission system in a given area and, where applicable, its interconnections with other systems, and for ensuring the long term ability of the system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity;
4) ‚upravljavec prenosnega omrežja‘ pomeni pravno ali fizično osebo, ki je odgovorna za obratovanje prenosnega omrežja, zagotavljanje njegovega vzdrževanja in po potrebi za razvoj le-tega na danem območju, za medsebojne povezave z drugimi omrežji, kjer to ustreza, in za zagotavljanje dolgoročne zmogljivosti omrežja za zadovoljitev razumnih potreb po transportu električne energije;