natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I den appellerede kendelses præmis 61 fastslog Retten dog, at sagsøgerne i den foreliggende sag — uden på nogen måde at være individualiserede som følge af egenskaber, der er særlige for dem — var berørt på samme måde som alle de andre driftsledere af anlæg, der er underlagt samme nationale og fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser og befinder sig i samme situation.
In paragraph 61 of the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the applicants in those proceedings, far from being individually distinguished by attributes peculiar to them, were affected in the same way as all the other operators of installations subject to the same national and Community legislation who were in the same situation.
Det vil således kun være på grundlag af deres objektive egenskab som driftsledere, der er omfattet af bestemmelserne i kapitel 6.2 i den tyske tildelingsplan II, og som aktive i sektorer, der er omfattet af bilag I til direktiv 2003/87, at sagsøgerne ville kunne gøre gældende at være berørt af den omtvistede beslutning.
It was therefore only because of their objective status as operators covered by the rules in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II and active in the sectors falling within Annex I to Directive 2003/87 that the applicants could claim to be affected by the contested decision.
I samme præmis i den appellerede kendelse fastslog Retten desuden, at ingen af de argumenter, sagsøgerne havde fremført, svækkede denne bedømmelse.
In addition, in the same paragraph of the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that none of the arguments submitted by the applicants was capable of calling that finding into question.
Navnlig mente Retten ikke — i præmis 65 i den appellerede kendelse — at den kunne tiltræde argumentet, hvorefter Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland skulle være en del af en lukket kreds af personer, fordi selskabet tilhører en gruppe driftsledere, som i medfør af § 8, stk. 1, i ZuG 2007 har ansøgt og er blevet tildelt emissionskvoter under perioden fra 2003 til 2004.
It held in particular, in paragraph 65 of the order under appeal, that the argument could not be accepted that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland was part of a closed class of persons because it belonged to a group of operators who had applied for and obtained emission allowances during the period 2003 to 2004 under Article 8(1) of the ZuG 2007.
I denne henseende fastslog Retten indledningsvis, at Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland hverken havde anført nogle nærmere omstændigheder vedrørende eller fremført noget bevis for sammensætningen af denne påståede lukkede kreds af driftsledere.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance held, first, that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland had not provided any clarifications or produced any proof as to the composition of that supposed closed class of operators.
Tilsvarende havde selskabet ikke vedlagt sagsakterne nogen liste over driftsledere, der havde draget fordel af anvendelsen af § 8, stk. 1, i ZuG 2007, i lighed med den liste, som de to andre sagsøgere havde fremlagt.
Thus it had failed to place on the case-file any list of operators who had benefited from the application of Article 8(1) of the ZuG 2007 similar to that produced by the other two applicants.
Retten påpegede desuden, at den omstændighed, at det på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede foranstaltning var muligt med større eller mindre nøjagtighed at fastlægge antallet eller endog identiteten af de retssubjekter, som denne foranstaltning fandt anvendelse på, ikke indebærer, at de pågældende retssubjekter må anses for individuelt berørt af foranstaltningen, når det kan fastslås, at denne retsvirkning som grundlag har objektive retlige eller faktiske kriterier, som er opstillet i den pågældende retsakt (Domstolens dom af 22.11.2001, sag C-451/98, Antillean Rice Mills mod Rådet, Sml. I, s. 8949, præmis 52).
In addition, the Court of First Instance pointed out that the possibility of determining, at the time of the adoption of a contested measure, more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom that measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (Case C-451/98 Antillean Rice Mills v Council [2001] ECR I-8949, paragraph 52).
Under disse omstændigheder fastslog Retten, at Saint Gobain Glass Deutschland ikke havde godtgjort, at selskabet var individuelt berørt af den omtvistede beslutning af den grund, at det påstod at tilhøre en lukket kreds af driftsledere.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance accordingly held that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland had failed to demonstrate that it was individually concerned by the contested decision because of its supposed membership of a closed class of operators.
Endvidere mente Retten heller ikke, at der af formålene med direktiv 2003/87, sammenholdt med femte betragtning hertil, eller af femte kriterium i bilag III, eller af nogen anden bestemmelse i dette direktiv fulgte en garanti for driftslederne af anlæg for, at en bestemt tildelingsmetode skulle finde anvendelse, eller for, at de ville få tildelt en bestemt mængde kvoter for drivhusgasemissioner, navnlig ikke når denne påståede garanti omfatter flere tildelingsperioder. Artikel 11, stk. 1 og 2,
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance also held that it was not possible to derive from the objectives of Directive 2003/87, read in the light of recital 5 in the preamble, from criterion 5 in Annex III, or from any other provision of that directive, a guarantee for the operators of installations that a particular allocation method would be applied to them, let alone that they would obtain a particular quantity of greenhouse gas emission allowances, especially when the supposed guarantee referred
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND MOD KOMMISSIONEN i direktiv 2003/87, sammenholdt med dette direktivs artikel 9, stk. 1, og artikel 13, stk. 1, sondrer derimod klart mellem den første og den anden tildelingsperiode og begrænser gyldigheden af tildelte emissionskvoter til en enkelt tildelingsperiode, hvilket indebærer, at det er nødvendigt for medlemsstaterne at træffe separate beslutninger om tildeling for hver periode.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION to a number of allocation periods. On the contrary, Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/87, read in conjunction with Articles 9(1) and 13(1) of the directive, clearly distinguished between the first and second allocation periods and restricted the validity of the allocated emission allowances to a single allocation period, which implied that the Member States had to adopt separate allocation decisions for each period.
— Den appellerede kendelse ophæves i det omfang, den vedrører appellanten.
— set aside the order under appeal in so far as it concerns the appellant;
— Annullation af artikel 2, stk. 2, i den omtvistede beslutning, dels for så vidt som bestemmelsen giver Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland pålæg i forhold til anvendelsen af tildelingsgarantier fra den første handelsperiode, der beskrives i kapitel 6.2 i den tyske tildelingsplan, dels for så vidt som bestemmelsen herved foreskriver, at der gælder den samme opfyldelsesfaktor som for andre tilsvarende bestående anlæg.
— annul Article 2(2) of the contested decision to the extent that it imposes obligations on the Federal Republic of Germany relating to the application of the allocation guarantees from the first trading period referred to in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II, and to the extent that it requires the application of the same compliance factor as for other comparable existing installations;
— Subsidiært ophæves den appellerede kendelse, og sagen hjemvises til Retten i Første Instans.
— in the alternative, set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
Kommissionen har nedlagt påstand om, at appellen forkastes, og ved en eventuel underkendelse af denne påstand en subsidiær påstand om frifindelse. Den har også nedlagt påstand om, at appellanten tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
The Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and, in the alternative, unfounded.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland har til støtte for appellen gjort to anbringender om annullation af den appellerede kendelse gældende, dels vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af procesretten, dels vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af artikel 230, stk. 4, EF.
In support of its appeal, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland relies on two pleas supporting the claim to set aside the order under appeal, alleging infringement of procedural law and an infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
I henhold til artikel 119 i Domstolens procesreglement kan Domstolen, når det er åbenbart, at en appel skal afvises eller forkastes, når som helst på grundlag af den refererende dommers rapport og efter at have hørt generaladvokaten ved begrundet kendelse beslutte at afvise eller forkaste appellen.
Under Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, by reasoned order dismiss the appeal.
Domstolen mener, at dette er tilfældet i denne sag, og at der henset til afsigelsen af nærværende kendelse ikke er anledning til at tage stilling til begæringen om en fremskyndet procedure.
The Court considers that to be the case in the present proceedings and holds that, taking into account the making of the present order, it is not necessary to rule on the application for an expedited procedure.
Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at appellanten ikke længere har nogen retlig interesse, idet annullationen af bestemmelserne i den omtvistede beslutning inden for rammerne af appellen ikke har nogen retsvirkning på grund af den af Kommissionen trufne beslutning K(2007) 5258 af 26. oktober 2007, der godkender Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands ændringer til sin lovgivning, og navnlig erstatningen af ordningen, der bygger på en enkelt opfyldelsesfaktor, med en anden ordning.
The Commission considers that the appellant no longer has an interest in bringing proceedings since the annulment of the provisions of the contested decision in the appeal would not produce any legal effects, on account of the adoption of Commission Decision C(2007) 5258 of 26 October 2007 authorising the amendments introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany to its legislation and in particular the replacement of the system based on a single compliance factor by another system.
På Domstolens forlangende i medfør af procesreglementets artikel 54a har Kommissionen fremlagt den nævnte beslutning.
At the request of the Court, made pursuant to Article 54a of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission communicated that decision to it.
Det skal herved påpeges, at Domstolen kan fastslå, at en appel må afvises, når der efter afsigelsen af Rettens dom er indtrådt en sådan omstændighed, at dommen ikke kan skade appellanten.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the Court may declare an appeal inadmissible when an event subsequent to the judgment of the Court of First Instance has removed its prejudicial effect as regards the appellant.
I denne sag må det fastslås, at den beslutning, som Kommissionen har henvist til for at godtgøre, at appellanten ikke har nogen retlig interesse, dels ikke erstatter den omtvistede beslutning, dels kun henviser til ændringer i forbindelse med den omtvistede beslutnings artikel 1, stk. 2.
In the present case, it should be pointed out that the decision on which the Commission relies in order to show the appellant’s lack of an interest to bring proceedings does not replace the contested decision and refers only to amendments in connection with Article 1(2) of the contested decision.
Under disse omstændigheder og i mangel af yderligere oplysninger er Domstolen ikke i stand til at fastslå — således som Kommissionen har påstået — at Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland overhovedet ikke har retlig interesse i den foreliggende appelsag.
In those circumstances, and in the absence of additional information, the Court is not in a position to hold, as requested by the Commission, that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland has no interest to bring the present appeal proceedings.
Følgelig skal Kommissionens formalitetsindsigelse afvises.
At a result, the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission must be dismissed.
Det første anbringende vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af procesretten
First plea in law alleging infringement of procedural law
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland har gjort gældende, at Retten ved den appellerede kendelse både har tilsidesat retten til en retfærdig rettergang og høringsretten. I
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland submits that the Court of First Instance has, by the order under appeal, committed an infringement of the right to a fair and judicial hearing of its case.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND MOD KOMMISSIONEN denne henseende har selskabet navnlig anført, at parterne i en sag skal gives mulighed for at udtale sig vedrørende samtlige spørgsmål om faktisk og retlige omstændigheder, som er relevante i forhold til tvistens afgørelse.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION must be given the possibility of expressing themselves on all the questions of fact and law relevant for the resolution of the dispute.
Ifølge appellanten har Retten i det væsentlige støttet sin kendelse på den omstændighed, at appellanten hverken havde præciseret eller fremført noget bevis for sammensætningen af den lukkede kreds af driftsledere, som selskabet havde henvist til for at blive anerkendt som en person, der var individuelt berørt af den omtvistede beslutning.
According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance based its order essentially on the fact that it had not produced further clarifications or proof with regard to the composition of the closed class of operators on which it relied in order to be recognised as a person individually concerned by the contested action.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland påstår, at Retten på ingen måde anmodede selskabet om at fremlægge en liste over de pågældende driftsledere.
The appellant claims that in fact the Court of First Instance did not ask it to produce a list of the operators concerned.
Heraf følger, at selskabet ikke var i stand til over for Retten at redegøre for, hvorfor det ikke havde fremlagt en sådan liste.
It follows that it was not in a position to explain to the Court of First Instance the reasons for the failure to produce such a list.
Appellanten har herved anført, at det ikke havde nogen grund til at fremlægge den pågældende liste uden udtrykkeligt at være blevet opfordret hertil af Retten.
In that regard, the appellant considers that it had no reason to produce the list in question without being expressly requested by the Court of First Instance to do so.
Desuden mener appellanten, at tilhørsforholdet til en lukket kreds af driftsledere direkte fulgte af den nationale lovgivnings opbygning og derfor ikke afhænger af, om der fremlægges en liste over de pågældende driftsledere.
In addition, the fact of belonging to a closed class of operators affected by the adoption of the contested decision derives directly from the structure of the national legislation and therefore does not depend on the production of a list of the operators concerned.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland har desuden anført, at selskabet ikke kunne fremlægge en sådan liste, eftersom Umweltbundesamt (det tyske Forbundsmiljøkontor) af databeskyttelseshensyn ikke havde kunnet efterkomme en sådan begæring.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland also submits that it was impossible for it to produce such a list because the Umweltbundesamt is not allowed to accede to a request of that kind for reasons related to data protection.
Derimod havde Retten adgang til at træffe foranstaltning med henblik på sagens tilrettelæggelse eller bevisoptagelsen.
By contrast, it would have been open to the Court of First Instance to adopt a measure of organisation of procedure or a measure of inquiry.
Hvis Retten således havde fremsat en sådan begæring, ville Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland have fremlagt en sådan liste, der kunne godtgøre appellantens tilhørsforhold til en lukket kreds af driftsledere.
Thus, if the Court of First Instance had made such a request, the Federal Republic of Germany would have produced a list capable of demonstrating that the appellant belonged to a closed class of operators.
I modsætning til appellantens opfattelse skal det straks fastslås, at det alene var for fuldstændighedens skyld, at Retten bemærkede, at appellanten ikke havde fremlagt en liste over driftsledere, der var berørt af den omtvistede beslutning, med henblik på at godtgøre, at selskabet var individuelt berørt heraf.
It should be noted at the outset that, contrary to what the appellant seems to believe, it was only for sake of completeness that the Court of First Instance pointed out that it had not furnished a list of the operators affected by the contested decision in order to show that it was individually concerned by the decision.
Retten bemærkede nemlig indledningsvis — i den appellerede kendelses præmis 61 — at sagsøgerne ikke var individuelt berørt af den omtvistede beslutning og ikke havde fremsat nogen argumenter, der kunne drage denne vurdering i tvivl.
The Court of First Instance first of all held, in paragraph 61 of the order under appeal, that the applicants were not individually concerned by the contested decision and that none of the arguments put forward by them was capable of calling into question that assessment.
Som svar på visse af Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland fremsatte argumenter og på grundlag af selskabets påståede tilhørsforhold til en lukket kreds af driftsledere påpegede Retten navnlig i den appellerede kendelses præmis 65, at den omstændighed, at det med større eller mindre nøjagtighed er muligt at fastlægge antallet eller endog identiteten af de retssubjekter, som den i nævnte beslutning anfægtede foranstaltning finder anvendelse på, ikke indebærer, at de pågældende retssubjekter må anses for individuelt berørt af foranstaltningen, når det kan fastslås, at denne retsvirkning som grundlag har objektive retlige eller faktiske kriterier, som er opstillet i den pågældende retsakt.
In particular, in response to certain arguments put forward by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland which were based on the claim that it belonged to a closed class of operators affected by the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraph 65 of the order under appeal, that the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom that contested measure contained in the decision applies by no means implies that those persons must be regarded as being individually concerned by that measure, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question.
Retten fastslog herved, at Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland hverken havde præciseret eller fremført noget bevis for sammensætningen af denne påståede lukkede kreds af driftsledere.
In that context, the Court of First Instance found that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland had failed to provide any clarifications or to produce any proof as to the composition of that supposed closed class of operators.
Følgelig var det alene for fuldstændighedens skyld, at Retten bemærkede, at appellanten ikke havde vedlagt sagsakten nogen liste over driftsledere, i modsætning til, hvad de andre sagsøgere havde gjort.
Therefore it was only for sake of completeness that it noted that the appellant had not placed a list of the operators on the case file, unlike the other applicants.
Under disse omstændigheder skal det første anbringende forkastes som irrelevant.
In those circumstances, the first plea in law must be rejected.
Det andet anbringende vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af artikel 230, stk. 4, EF
Second plea in law alleging infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland har med dette anbringende i det væsentlige gjort gældende, at Retten har foretaget en fejlagtig anvendelse af begrebet individuelt berørt af en fællesskabsretsakt.
By this plea, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland submits, essentially, that the Court of First Instance misapplied the concept of being individually concerned by a Community act.
Ifølge appellanten var den pågældende kreds af driftsledere på grundlag af den tyske lovgivning endegyldigt defineret og/eller definerbare og kunne i hvert fald ikke udvides.
According to the appellant, the class of operators concerned was conclusively defined and/or definable on the basis of German legislation and could not, in any event, be extended.
Under disse omstændigheder mener appellanten, at Retten ikke kunne fastslå, at forbuddet mod at opretholde tildelingsgarantien fandt anvendelse på grundlag af objektive retlige eller faktiske kriterier, som var opstillet i den pågældende retsakt.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance was not in a position to assert that the prohibition on the maintenance in force of the allocation guarantee applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the act in question.
Ifølge appellanten var driftslederne præcist angivet i den omtvistede beslutning, således at den objektive reference til anvendelsesområdet for § 8 i ZuG 2007 uden at ændre beslutningens rækkevidde og uden undtagelse kunne have været erstattet af en navneliste over driftsledere.
According to the appellant, the operators were ascertained so precisely in the contested decision that the objective reference to the field of application of Article 8 of the ZuG 2007 could without difficulty have been replaced by a list of the names of the operators without changing the scope of that decision.
Endelig mener appellanten, at Kommissionens beslutning vedrørende den tyske tildelingsplan II både udgjorde en generel retsakt og en samling individuelle beslutninger, i det omfang den forbød anvendelsen af tildelingsgarantier i henhold til § 8 i ZuG 2007.
In the end, the Commission decision on the German NAP II constitutes both a decision of general application and a bundle of individual decisions, in so far as it prohibits the application of allocation guarantees in accordance with Article 8 of the ZuG 2007.
Kommissionen har herved anført, at Retten har anvendt artikel 230, stk. 4, EF korrekt.
In that regard, it considers that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Desuden mener Kommissionen, at den omtvistede beslutning ikke kan anses for at være en samling af individuelle beslutninger, eftersom Kommissionen ikke har taget
The contested decision cannot be classified as a bundle of individual decisions, since the Commission did not rule on the individual applications and, in any case, was not
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND MOD KOMMISSIONEN stilling til individuelle ansøgninger og under alle omstændigheder ikke rådede over tilstrækkelige oplysninger vedrørende de anlæg, der var omfattet af den anmeldte nationale tildelingsplan, til at kunne træffe nogen beslutning i den forstand, som appellanten søger at godtgøre.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION in possession of sufficient information concerning the installations affected by the NAP notified to be in a position to take a decision having the effect which the appellant is attempting to prove.