natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved brev af 7. september 1992 meddelte SIDE Kommissionen, at man havde til hensigt at anfægte foranstaltningerne som værende udtryk for forskelsbehandling og de deraf følgende konsekvenser for samhandelen i Fællesskabet uden imidlertid at anfægte det franske kulturministeriums kulturelle målsætning, idet man ønskede at udbrede kendskabet til fransk sprog og kultur.
By letter dated 7 September 1992, SIDE informed the Commission that it intended to submit a complaint with regard to the discriminatory nature of the measures and the consequences for intra-Community trade, without however disputing the cultural purpose of the Ministry of Culture, which was to see the spread of the French language and French literature.
Ved beslutning af 18. maj 1993 [6] konkluderede Kommissionen, at på baggrund af den særlige konkurrencesituation på bogmarkedet og det kulturelle formål med den pågældende støtteordning havde den besluttet at anvende undtagelsen i traktatens tidligere artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), derpå.
By Decision dated 18 May 1993 [6], the Commission concluded that, given the special nature of competition in the book trade and the cultural purpose of the aid schemes at issue, the exemption provided for in former Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty was applicable to them.
SIDE indbragte den 2. august 1993 et annullationssøgsmål mod denne beslutning.
By application dated 2 August 1993, SIDE filed an action for annulment of the Decision.
Ved dom af 18. september 1995 [7] gav Retten SIDE delvis medhold i søgsmålet og annullerede Kommissionens beslutning af 18. maj 1993, men udelukkende for så vidt angår visse støtteordninger til fordel for CELF for små ordrer.
By judgment of 18 September 1995 [7], the Court of First Instance (CFI) partially granted SIDE’s request, annulling the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 but only in relation to the measures granted to CELF with regard to small orders.
Retten fastslog, at Kommissionen var i stand til at vedtage positiv beslutning over for følgende tre støtteordninger forvaltet af CELF på den franske stats regning:
The Court concluded that the Commission was in a position to adopt a favourable decision concerning the following three aid schemes administered by CELF on behalf of the State:
støtte til luftfragt eller luftpost
subsidies for airfreight or airmail;
»Page à Page«-programmet [8] (støtte til distribution af fransksprogede bøger i Central- og Østeuropa)
the ‘Page à Page’ programme [8] (aid for the dissemination of French-language books in the countries of central and eastern Europe);
»Programme Plus« (fransksprogede universitetsbøger til studerende i Afrika syd for Sahara).
the ‘Programme Plus’ (university textbooks in French for students in sub-Saharan Africa).
Retten fandt, at Kommissionen havde fået tilstrækkelige oplysninger om disse tre ordninger til at kunne konstatere, at deres indvirkning på konkurrencevilkårene var ubetydelig.
The Court held that the Commission had obtained sufficient information on these three schemes to justify the finding that their impact on competition was negligible.
Retten anførte i øvrigt, at »For så vidt angår det kulturelle formål med den omtvistede støtte er det ubestridt af parterne, at den franske regerings formål er udbredelsen af det franske sprog og fransk litteratur«.
The Court stated that ‘as regards the cultural purpose of the aids at issue, it is common ground that the aim of the French Government is the spread of the French language and French literature’.
Retten skønnede, at man måtte konkludere, at vurderingen af det kulturelle sigte med den anfægtede støtte ikke gav Kommissionen særlige problemer, og at man ikke behøvede andre oplysninger for at konstatere, at sigtet var af kulturel art.
The Court felt bound to conclude that determining the cultural purpose of the aid at issue did not pose any particular difficulties for the Commission and that it was not necessary for it to obtain further information in order to accept that its purpose was cultural.
Retten skønnede derimod, at Kommissionen for så vidt angår støtte udelukkende til CELF i forbindelse med små ordrer burde have foretaget en tilbundsgående undersøgelse af konkurrencesituationen inden for den pågældende sektor, før den udtalte sig om, hvorvidt foranstaltningerne var forenelige med det indre marked.
On the other hand, the Court found that, as regards the compensation granted exclusively to CELF for small orders, the Commission should have thoroughly examined the conditions of competition in the sector concerned before expressing an opinion on the compatibility of the measures with the internal market.
Retten konkluderede således (i præmis 76 i dommen), at Kommissionen burde have indledt proceduren i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2 (nu artikel 108, stk. 2, i EUF-traktaten), og at Kommissionens beslutning af 18. maj 1993 skulle annulleres i det omfang, den vedrørte det tilskud, der udelukkende blev ydet til CELF som kompensation for de øgede omkostninger ved at effektuere små ordrer på bøger på fransk afgivet af boghandlere i udlandet.
The Court therefore concluded (paragraph 76 of the judgment) that the Commission should have initiated the procedure provided by former Article 93(2) EC (now Article 108(2) TFEU), and it was therefore necessary to annul the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 in so far as it concerned the aid granted exclusively to CELF for the purpose of offsetting the extra costs involved in handling small orders for French-language books placed by booksellers established abroad.
Anden fase
Second stage
I overensstemmelse med Rettens dom af 18. september 1995 besluttede Kommissionen den 30. juli 1996 at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
In accordance with the Court’s judgment of 18 September 1995, the Commission decided, by Decision of 30 July 1996, to open a formal investigation procedure.
Interesserede parter blev opfordret til at indsende deres bemærkninger til Kommissionen, og disse blev navnlig fremsendt i løbet af december 1996 og januar 1997.
Interested parties were invited to submit their comments to the Commission, and these were largely received during December 1996 and January 1997.
Ved afslutningen af undersøgelsesproceduren vedtog Kommissionen den 10. juni 1998 beslutning 1999/133/EF [9].
Once its investigation was complete, on 10 June 1998 the Commission adopted Decision 1999/133/EC [9].
Beslutningen bekræftede det kulturelle formål med støtten til de små ordrer, og det konkluderedes på grundlag af traktatens tidligere artikel 87, stk. 3, litra d), at støtten ikke ville kunne ændre samhandels- og konkurrencevilkårene i Unionen på en måde, der strider mod den fælles interesse på eksportmarkedet for fransksprogede bøger.
It confirmed the cultural purpose of aid for small orders and considered that, on the basis of former Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, the said aid was not likely to affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that was contrary to the common interest with regard to the export market for French-language books.
Ved dom af 28. februar 2002 [10] annullerede Retten artikel 1, sidste punktum, i Kommissionens beslutning.
By a judgment dated 28 February 2002 [10], the Court of First Instance annulled the last sentence of Article 1 of the said Decision.
Retten fandt nemlig, at Kommissionen burde have foretaget de nødvendige undersøgelser for at finde frem til de relevante oplysninger med henblik på at skelne mellem eksportagentur og eksportmarkedet for franske bøger i almindelighed.
The Court concluded that the Commission should have carried out the necessary verifications in order to obtain relevant data enabling it to distinguish the agency market from that of the export of French-language books in general.
Retten konstaterede, at Kommissionen ved ikke at have udført denne undersøgelse foretog en åbenbart urigtig vurdering ved at anvende eksportmarkedet for fransksprogede bøger i almindelighed som reference, selv om det var fastslået, at den omtvistede støtte kun var rettet mod eksportagenturer.
The Court found that, by failing to carry out such verification, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment in taking the export market for French-language books in general as the reference market when it was established that the contested aid was intended only for export agencies.
I sin dom afsagt den 22. juni 2000 [11] afviste Domstolen imidlertid uden at tage stilling til sagens materielle indhold de franske myndigheders søgsmål over for Kommissionens beslutning af 10. juni 1998, og Domstolen bekræftede, at selv når en støtte kan anses for at være forenelig med fællesmarkedet, er dette uden betydning for anmeldelsespligten, og at pligten til at forhåndsanmelde støtte indebærer en forpligtelse til at udsætte iværksættelsen af støtten.
However, in its judgment of 22 June 2000 [11], the Court of Justice rejected the appeal brought by the French authorities against the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998, without going into the substance of the case, and confirmed that, even if the aid could be considered compatible with the common market, this was irrelevant to the obligation to notify and that the obligation to give prior notification meant that the aid had to be suspended.
Tredje fase
Third stage
Efter den delvise annullation af beslutningen af 10. juni 1998 bad Kommissionen i breve af 14. juni 2002 de franske myndigheder og SIDE om at kommentere begrundelserne for annullationen og navnlig aspekter vedrørende den pågældende kontrakt.
Following the partial annulment of the Decision of 10 June 1998, the Commission asked the French authorities and SIDE, by letters dated 14 June 2002, to give their views on the grounds for the annulment of the Decision and, in particular, on the aspects relating to the relevant market.
SIDE blev opfordret til navnlig at kommentere begrebet små ordrer og angive, hvilke særlige kendetegn der gjorde sig gældende for SIDE's tilbud i forhold til tilbuddet fra CELF og fra andre aktører på markedet.
SIDE was asked to comment in particular on the notion of small orders and to indicate any special feature its offer might have compared with CELF’s and those of the other market operators.
Efter i et brev dateret den 19. september 2002 at have bedt SIDE angive, hvorvidt virksomhedens svar indeholdt fortrolige oplysninger, og efter at have fået dette afkræftet den 30. september 2002, fremsendte Kommissionen i et brev dateret den 17. oktober 2002 SIDE's svar og tilhørende bilag til de franske myndigheder og udbad sig deres kommentarer.
Having asked SIDE, by letter dated 19 September 2002, to say whether its reply contained confidential information, and having obtained a negative reply on 30 September 2002, the Commission, by letter dated 17 October 2002, sent SIDE’s reply together with its annexes to the French authorities for comment.
Ved samme lejlighed stillede den en række nye supplerende spørgsmål.
It also asked them a series of further questions on this occasion.
Den 9. januar 2003 fremsendte Kommissionen SIDE's svar af 23. december 2002 til de franske myndigheder med henblik på kommentarer.
On 9 January 2003, the Commission sent SIDE’s reply of 23 December 2002 to the French authorities for comment.
Ved brev dateret den 17. januar 2003 indsendte de franske myndigheder svar på Kommissionens spørgsmål af 17. oktober 2002.
By letter dated 17 January 2003, the French authorities replied to the Commission’s questions sent on 17 October 2002.
SIDE havde endvidere efter eget ønske haft et møde med Kommissionens tjenestegrene, hvor virksomheden fremlagde sin opfattelse af sagen siden dens begyndelse. Dette møde fandt sted den 4. marts 2003.
In the meantime, SIDE was received by the Commission’s services at its request and was able to explain its view of the case from the beginning, at a meeting held on 4 March 2003.
Ved udgangen af denne procedure vedtog Kommissionen beslutning 2005/262/EF, hvori den vurderede, at den anfægtede støtte var forenelig med traktatens tidligere artikel 87, stk. 3, litra d), idet den fastslog, at støtte ikke ville kunne overkompensere de udgifter, der var forbundet med ekspeditionen af de små ordrer.
At the end of this procedure, the Commission adopted Decision 2005/262/EC, concluding that the disputed aid was compatible on the basis of former Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, having established that the aid did not overcompensate for the costs of processing small orders.
Fjerde fase
Fourth stage
Retten annullerede ved dom af 15. april 2008 Kommissionens beslutning af 20. april 2004.
By its judgment of 15 April 2008, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission Decision of 20 April 2004.
Retten fandt endvidere, at Kommissionen havde begået en åbenbar skønsfejl i vurderingen af den anfægtede støttes forenelighed ved at have overvurderet de faktiske omkostninger ved ekspeditionen af små ordrer, der er afholdt af CELF.
Moreover, the Court concluded that the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment when examining the compatibility of the disputed aid by overestimating the small order processing costs that were actually borne by CELF.
I sin beslutning af 20. april 2004 tog Kommissionen således ikke de faktiske omkostninger i tilknytning til ekspedition af små ordrer i betragtning, men foretog et skøn over disse omkostninger på baggrund af de samlede omkostninger, som CELF havde afholdt (fordeling på ekspeditionen af små ordrer af en del af CELF's samlede omkostninger ved hjælp af en forskellig fordelingsnøgle for hver omkostningskategori).
In its Decision of 20 April 2004, the Commission did not take account of the actual costs of processing small orders but estimated these costs on the basis of the total costs borne by CELF (allocating a share of the total costs to the processing of small orders, using a different method of apportioning costs for each cost category).
Multiplikatorfaktorer blev anvendt på visse omkostningskategorier under hensyntagen til de yderligere vanskeligheder, som ekspeditionen af små ordrer medførte i forhold til CELF's øvrige virksomhed.
Multiplying factors were applied for certain categories of cost, bearing in mind the additional difficulties small order processing would entail in relation to CELF’s other activities.
Retten skønnede imidlertid, at disse vanskeligheder kunne løses ved hjælp af den elektroniske transmission, som vedrørte to tredjedele af de små ordrer.
The Court, however, considered that these difficulties would have been resolved through the use of tele-transmission, which related to two thirds of small orders.
Retten konkluderede således, at Kommissionen havde begået en skønsfejl ved at anvende multiplikationsfaktorer på visse omkostninger (og under alle omstændigheder på de ordrer, der vedrørte elektronisk transmission), og at i fravær af de nævnte multiplikatorfaktorer ville omkostningerne i tilknytning til ekspedition af de små ordrer have været mindre, ligesom driftsresultatet for de små ordrer ville have været positivt (600000 FRF, svarende til 91469 EUR).
The Court therefore concluded that the Commission had made an error of judgment by applying multiplying factors to some costs (and, in any case, to the tele-transmitted orders) and concluded that, in the absence of the said multiplying factors, the costs related to small order processing would have been reduced and the trading results for the activity relating to small orders would have been positive (FRF 600000, or EUR 91469).
Efter Rettens synspunkt havde Kommissionen således ikke påvist fraværet af overkompensation.
According to the Court, the Commission had therefore not demonstrated the absence of overcompensation.
Femte fase
Fifth Phase
Som følge af Rettens dom af 15. april 2008 forblev undersøgelsesproceduren indledt med Kommissionens beslutning af 30. juli 1996 således fortsat åben, og Kommissionen bør vedtage en ny beslutning.
Following the Court’s judgment of 15 April 2008, the investigation procedure initiated by the Commission Decision of 30 July 1996 therefore remains open and the Commission has to adopt a new decision.
Under hensyntagen til begrundelserne i Rettens dom af 15. april 2008 og i betragtning af det forhold, at beslutningen om at indlede proceduren blev vedtaget den 30. juli 1996, ønskede Kommissionen på ny at opfordre de franske myndigheder og interesserede parter til at fremsætte deres bemærkninger.
Having regard to the grounds for the Court’s judgment of 15 April 2008, and in view of the fact that the decision initiating the procedure dates back to 30 July 1996, the Commission wished to invite the French authorities and the parties concerned to submit their comments again.
Kommissionen vedtog således den 8. april 2009 [12] en beslutning om at forlænge procedure (beslutning K(2009) 2481, i det følgende benævnt »beslutningen om forlængelse af proceduren«).
The Commission therefore adopted a decision extending the procedure dated 8 April 2009 [12] (Decision C(2009) 2481, the ‘decision extending the procedure’).
Beslutningen om forlængelse, med en ny frist for fremsættelsen af bemærkninger, supplerede således beslutningen af 30. juli 1996 om indledning af proceduren.
By setting a new time limit for the submission of comments, this decision extending the procedure supplemented the decision initiating the procedure on 30 July 1996.
Det blev anført, at de to beslutninger bør ses som en uadskillelig helhed og indleder en og samme formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, og at hvis beskrivelsen af de faktiske eller retlige forhold eller Kommissionens foreløbige evaluering i beslutningen for forlængelse af proceduren fraveg fra beslutningen om procedurens indledning af 30. juli 1996, skulle der kun tages hensyn til beslutningen om forlængelse af proceduren.
It states that the two decisions should be regarded as forming an inseparable whole, that they will give rise to one and the same formal investigation procedure and that, should the description of facts and law or the Commission’s preliminary assessment in the decision extending the procedure diverge from the decision initiating the procedure on 30 July 1996, it would be appropriate to take into consideration only the decision extending the procedure.
Kommissionen opfordrede interesserede parter til at sende deres bemærkninger til den omhandlede foranstaltning.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure at issue.
De franske myndigheder har imidlertid ikke tilvejebragt de nærmere angivne oplysninger, som Kommissionen anmodede om i sin beslutning om forlængelse af proceduren, og begrænsede sig til, for så vidt angår støttens proportionalitet, at fremsende de oplysninger, der allerede var tilvejebragt den 17. september 2002, den 17. januar 2003 og den 11. marts 2003, som Kommissionen ikke havde mulighed for at udnytte som sådan i henhold til Rettens afgørelse af 15. april 2008.
The French authorities did not, however, provide the detailed elements that were requested by the Commission in its decision extending the procedure and, in relation to the proportionality of the aid, merely referred back to information already provided on 17 September 2002, 17 January 2003 and 11 March 2003, which the Commission could not use as such due to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.
Kommissionen rykkede således i brev af 8. oktober 2009 de franske myndigheder om anmodningen om nærmere oplysninger om de nævnte punkter, idet Kommissionen anførte, at hvis den ikke modtog de anmodede oplysninger inden for en frist på ti arbejdsdage, ville Kommissionen være forpligtet til at træffe endelig afgørelse på grundlag af de til rådighed værende elementer i overensstemmelse med procedureforordningens artikel 13, stk. 1, efter at have fremsat et påbud om oplysninger i medfør af artikel 10, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [13].
By letter of 8 October 2009, the Commission’s services therefore reminded the French authorities of their request for information on the specific points mentioned, indicating that if this information were not provided within ten working days, the Commission would have to take a final decision on the basis of the information at its disposal, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the procedural Regulation, after delivering, if appropriate, an information injunction in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [13].
De franske myndigheder oplyste i brev af 21. oktober 2009 Kommissionen om, at CELF var trådt i likvidation ved dom afsagt af handelsretten i Paris af 9. september 2009, og at CELF's aktiviteter således var ophørt.
By letter dated 21 October 2009, the French authorities informed the Commission that CELF had been put into receivership by judgment of the Paris Commercial Court dated 9 September 2009 and had ceased trading.
For så vidt angår de elementer, der var anmodet om i Kommissionens brev af 8. oktober 2009, anførte de franske myndigheder, at de ikke havde yderligere oplysninger, og henviste til deres bemærkninger af 9. juni 2009.
Moreover, with regard to the elements requested in the Commission’s letter of 8 October 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to provide and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.
Ved en beslutning vedtaget den 20. november 2009 (beslutning K(2009) 9256, »påbuddet«) påbød Kommissionen de franske myndigheder at fremlægge de ønskede oplysninger, som på trods af flere rykkere endnu ikke var tilvejebragt.
By decision dated 20 November 2009 (Decision C(2009) 9256, the ‘injunction decision’), the Commission therefore decided to order France to present the information requested since, despite repeated requests, this information had not been provided.
I brev af 2. december 2009 anførte de franske myndigheder, at de ikke kunne bibringe Kommissionen yderligere oplysninger, og henviste til deres bemærkninger af 9. juni 2009.
By letter dated 2 December 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to give the Commission and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.
Det skal bemærkes, at de franske myndigheder den 2. december 2009 ligeledes fremsendte et brev om den støtteordning, der betegnes »Programme de Livres Universitaires et Scientifiques«, det såkaldte »Programme Plus«.
It should be noted that, on 2 December 2009, the French authorities also sent a letter relating to the aid scheme known as the ‘University and Scientific Books Programme’ also called ‘Programme Plus’.
Den støtteordning er ikke omfattet af nærværende afgørelse.
This aid scheme does not form the object of this Decision.
Ved brev af 22. december 2009 anmodede Kommissionen de franske myndigheder om oplysninger vedrørende CELF's situation og den igangværende likvidationsprocedure.
By letter dated 22 December 2009, the Commission asked the French authorities for information on CELF’s situation and applicable liquidation procedure.
Sagsforløb ved de nationale domstole og præjudicielle spørgsmål
Proceedings before the national courts and preliminary questions
Det skal bemærkes, at der kører sager for domstolene i Frankrig, og at de har ført til, at spørgsmål er indbragt for EU-Domstolen på grundlag af EUF-traktatens artikel 267 (tidligere EF-traktatens artikel 234).
It should, moreover, be noted that proceedings are under way in France before the national courts, and that they have given rise to referrals to the Court of Justice on the basis of Article 267 TFEU (former Article 234 EC).
De vigtigste etaper i disse sagsforløb beskrives kort i det følgende.
The main stages in these proceedings are briefly outlined below.
SIDE har indbragt en sag for de franske domstole med henvisning til den direkte virkning af den tidligere artikel 88, stk. 3, i EF-traktaten.
SIDE referred the matter of the direct effect of former Article 88(3) EC to the French courts.