natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten sanktionerede, at Kommissionen ikke havde iverksat proceduren iartikel 88, stk. 2, EF, ved at annullere Kommissionens beslutning om ikke atgsre indsigelse mod Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands statsstotte til Chemische
On account of its failure to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, theCommission was censured by the Court of First Instance which annulled thedecision of the Commission to raiseno objection to the grant of aid by theFederal Republic of Germany to Chemische WerkePiesteritz GmbH (udgment
Werke Piesteritz (ovennavnte dom af L5 .3 .200I, Prayon-Rupel mod Kommissionen).
in Prayon-Rupelv Commission, cited above).
Den redegjorden & rmere for betingelserne for at ivrerksrettedenne procedure.
The conditions under which thatprocedure must be initiated were defined.
Med hensyn hertil er det fastsläet igennem fast retspraksis, at proceduren ihenhold til traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, er nodvendig, när Kommissionenstsder pä alvorlige vanskeligheder ved undersogelsen af, om enstotteforanstaltning er forenelig med frellesmarkedet.
In that rdgard, it is settled caselaw that the procedure under Article S8(2) ECis obligatoryif the Commission experiences serious difficulties in establishingwhetheror not aid is compatible with the common market.
Kommissionen kan derforkun begr & nsesig til den indledende procedure i medfsr af traktatens artikel88, stk. 3, EF og godkende en statslig foranstaltning, der er anmeldt, säfremtden efter en fsrste undersogelse kan nä til den opfattelse,at foranstaltningenikke kan betegnes som ststte i artikel 87, stk. 1, EF's forstand, eller at denganske vist udgsr en stotte, men er forenelig med fallesmarkedet.
The Commissioncannot therefore limit itself to the preliminary procedure under Article 88(2)EC and take a favourable decision on a State measure which has been notifiedunless it is in a position to reach the firm view, following an initialinvestigation, that the measure cannot be classified as aid within the meaningof Article 87(1) EC, or that the measure, whilst constituting aid, is compatiblewith the common market.
Hvis Kommissionen pä grundlag af denne fsrste undersogelse imidlertid när til denmodsatte opfattelse af sporgsmälet om ststtens forenelighed medfellesmarkedet eller ikke har kunnet overvinde alle vanskelighederneved ved bedernmelsenaf den omhandlede foranstaltning, skal den indhente alle densdvendige udtalelser og med henblik herpä indlede proceduren efter traktatensartikel 88, stk. 2, EF.
On the otherhand, if the initial analysis results inthe Commission taking the contrary view of the aid's compatibility with thecommon market or does not enable all the difficulties raised by the assessmentof the measure in question to be overcome,the Commission has a düty togather all necessary views and to that end to initiate the procedure underArticle 88(2) EC.
När Kommissionen pä baggrund af sagens faktiske og retlige omsteendighederafgar, om det pä grund af de vanskeligheder, der er opstäet underundersogelsen af ststtens forenelighed med fallesmarkedet, er nsdvendigt atindlede denne procedure, skal tre krav overholdes.
When the Commission decides, on the basis of the factual and legalcircumstances of the case, whether the difficulties involved in assessing thecompatibility of the aid require the initiation of that procedure, that decisionmust satisff threerequirements. requirements.
For det fsrste kan Kommissionen kun tage stilling til en ststteforanstaltningsforenelighed med fellesmarkedet efter afslutningen af den indledendeprocedure i medfsr af traktatens artikel 88 EF, när der er tale omforanstaltninger, der ikke frembyder alvorlige vanskeligheder, idet dette er ennsdvendig betingelse for befojelsen hertil.
Firstly, under Article 88 EC the Commission's power to find aid to becompatible with the common market upon the conclusion of the preliminaryprocedure is restricted to aid measures that raiseno serious difficulties, Thatcriterion is thus an exclusiveone.
Kommissionen kan säledes ikkeafslä at indlede den formelle undersogelsesprocedure under päberäbelse afandre omstendigheder, säsom tredjemands interesser, procesokonomiskehensyn eller andre hensyn til administrativformälsdenlighed. formälsdenlighed.
The Commission may not, therefore,decline to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relianceupon othercircumstances, such as third party interests,considerations of economy ofprocedure or any other ground of administrative convenience.
For det andet skal Kommissionen indlede den formelle procedure, när denstsder pä alvorlige vanskeligheder, og den har i denne forbindelse ikke nogensksnsmrssig befojelse.Selv om den er bundet med hensyn til beslutningenom, hvorvidt der skal indledes denne procedure, har Kommissionen dog en visskonsmargen ved indhentningen og undersogelsen af sagens konkreteomstendigheder med henblik pä at afgore, offi de giver anledning til alvorligevanskeligheder.
Secondly,where it encounters serious difficulties, the Commission mustinitiate the formal procedure, having no discretion in this regard. Whilst its powers powers are are circumscribed circumscribed as as far far as as initiating initiating the the formal formal procedure procedure isis concerned, the Commission nevertheless enjoysa certain margin of discretionin identifying and evaluatingthe circumstances of the case in order todetermine whether or not they present serious difficulties.
For det tredje skal begrebet alvorlige vanskeligheder fastlagges objektivt.
Thirdly, the notion of serious difficulties is an objective one.
Bädemed udgangspunkt i omstandighederne ved vedtagelsen af den anfregtederetsakt og i retsaktens indhold skal detundersoges, om der foreligger sädannevanskeligheder, pä et objektivt grundlag ved at sammenholde beslutningensbegrundelse med de oplysninger, som Kommissionen havde til rädighed, daden traf afgorelse om den omtvistede ststtes forenelighed med fallesmarkedet.Det foLger heraf, at den legalitetskontrol, Retten foretager af, om derforeligger alvorlige vanskeligheder, i sagens naturer merevidtgäende end enundersogelse af, om der er anlagt en äbenbar urigtigvurdering. vurdering.
Whether or notsuch difficulties exist requires investigation of both the circumstances underwhich the contested measure was adopted and its content, conductedobjectively, comparing the grounds of the decision with the informationavailable to the Commission when it took a decision on the compatibility of thedisputed aid with the common market. It follows that judicial review by theCourt of First Instance of the existence of serious difficulties will, by nature,go beyond simple consideration of whether or not there has been a manifest error of assessment.
I den konkrete sag lykkedes det sagsogeren at fsre bevis for, at der foreläalvorlige vanskeligheder.
In this case the applicant succeeded in proving the existence of seriousdifficulties.
Dette bevis blev fart pä grundlag af en rakkeobjektive, samstemmende oplysninger, nemlig offi, at Kommissionen ikkehavde tilstrekkelige oplysninger, og om, at Kommissionens procedure bädemed hensyn til varigheden af og omstrendighederne ved den indledendeprocedure var gäet langt ud over, hvad der normalt er päkravet for at foretageen fsrste undersogelse inden for rammerne af artikel 88, stk. 3, EF.
That proof was furnishedby reference to a body of consistent evidence, namelythat the Commission did not possess sufficient informationand the fact that the procedure conducted by the Commissionsignificantly significantly exceeded, both in terms of the duration of the administrative procedure and interms of the circumstances under which it was conducted,the normalparameters of a preliminary examination carried out pursuant to Article 88(3)
Sondring Sondring mellem mellem ny ny stotte stotte og og eksisterende eksisterende stotte stotte
Dtstinction between new and sxisting aid
Nogle ststteordninger for vejgodstransportvirksomheder var indfortved lov iregionen Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italien)i 1981 og 1985, men var ikke blevetanmeldt til Kommissionen. I en beslutning i 1997erklrerede Kommissionenden ststte, der var blevet ydet til international vejgodstransport, og stotte, derfra den 1. juli 1990 var ydet til virksomheder, der udelukkende udferte lokal,regional eller national transport, for uforenelig med fellesmarkedet og pälagdetilbagesogning heraf.
Laws of the Friuli-venezia Giulia Region (Italy) of 1981 and 1985 provide forfinancial aid measures for local road haulage firms, but those measures werenot notified to the Commission.
Retten henviste til ovennevnte dom i sagenAlzetta m.fl. mod Kommissionenog udtalte, at en ststteordning,der er indfsrt pä et marked, der oprindeligt varlukket for konkurrence, mä anses for en eksisterendeststteordning, närmarkedet liberaliseres, for sä vidt som stotteordningen ikke ved indfsrelsen var omfattet af anvendelsesomrädet for artikel 87 , stk. 1, EF, idet dennebestemmelse kun kan anses for at finde anvendelse pä erhvervsgrene,der er äbnefor konkurrence.
Upholdingthe solution originally devised in the judgment in Alzettaand Othersv Commission, the Court of First Instance held that a system of aid establishedin a market that was initially closedto competition must, when that market isliberalised, be regarded as an existing aid system, in so far as at the time ofits establishment it did not come within the scope of Articte 87(1) EC, whichapplies only to sectors open to competition.
I den konkrete sag skulle stette udbetalt i medfsr af ordningerne indfsrt i 1981og 1985 til virksomheder, der udelukkende udfsrte lokal, regional og nationaltransport, eftersomcabotagemarkedet fsrst var blevet liberaliseretfra den 1.juli 1990, anses for eksisterende stotte, og der kunne i givet fald kun traeffesen beslutning med virkning for fremtiden om, at ststten var uforenelig medfrellesmarkedet.
In this case, as the cabotage market was only liberalised from I July 1990, aidgranted to undertakings engaged solely in local, regional or national transport,under systems set up in 1981 and 1985, must be classified as existing aid andcan be the subject, if at all, only of a decision finding it incompatible as to thefuture.
Da det internationale vejgodstransportmarkedderimod blev äbnet forkonkurrence i 1969, skulle de stotteordninger, der inden for denneerhvervsgren varblevetindfsrti1981ogi1985,anses fornyeststteordningerder, derfor skulle anmeldessom fastsati artikel 88, stk. 3, EF,
Conversely, Conversely, since since the the international international road road haulage haulage sector sector was was opened opened up up to to competition from 1969 onwards, the systems of aid established in 1981 and1985 in that sector should have been regarded as new systems of aid whichwere subject, as such, to the obligation of notification laid down by Article 88(3) EC.
Den anfegtede beslutning blev derfor annulleret, for sä vidt somKommissionen deri erklrerededen ststte, der blev ydet efter den 1. juli 1990til fordel for transportvirksomheder, der udelukkendevirkede pä nationalt,regionalt eller lokalt plan, ulovlig, og pälagde tilbagesogning heraf.
The contested decision was therefore annulled in so far as in it the Commissiondeclared aid granted with effect from 1 July 1990 to undertakings engagedsolely in local, regional or national transport to be illegal and requiredrecovery of that aid.
Der er samtidig af Den Italienske Republik for Domstolen blevet indbragt etannullationsssgsmäl (sag C-372197) angäende den retsakt, denne sag vedrorer,og appelsager til provelse af disse to domme, som Retten har afsagt, og Domstolen skal endeligt tage stilling til dette retlige sporgsmäl.
C-372197), C-372197), and and appeals appeals against against those those two two of of the the
I den ovennevnte dom af 7.juni 2001 i sagen Agrana Zucker und Stärke modKommissionen gentages det, at hvis Kommissionen ikke har reageret inden tomäneder efter at have fäet en fuldstendig anmeldelse af ny stotte, kanvedkommende medlemsstat gennemfsre den päteenkte ststteforanstaltning, dogpä betingelse af at den forudgäende har underrettetKommissionen.
Stärke Stärke v v Commission, Commission, citedcited above, recalls that if the Commission has not responded within two months of full full notification notification of of a a new new aid aid plan plan the the
Ststtenhenhorer derefter under ordningen for eksisterende ststteforanstaltninger.Overholdelse af denne forpligtelse til forudgäende anmeldelse har i parternesog de nationale retters interesse til formäl at fastlregge en dato, hvorefter denpägeldende ststteforanstaltninghenhsrer under ordningen for eksisterendeststteforanstaltninger.
State State concerned concerned may may put put the the proposed aid into effect provided, however, that it has given prior notice to theCommission, and that aid will then come under the scheme for existing aid.Compliance with that obligation to give notice is designed to establish, in the interest interest of of the the parties parties concerned concerned and and of of the the national national courts, courts, the the date date fromfrom which the aid falls under the scheme for existing aid.
När forpligtelsen til forudgäende anmeldelse ikke er
Where that obligation has has not not been been met met the the aid aid concerned concerned cannot cannot be be regarded regarded as as existing existing aid.aid.
Undtagelser fra forbuddet
Derogations from the prohibition
I Rettens vurdering i sager vedrsrende undtagelser fra det principielle forbudinden for rammerne af EF-traktaten (bl.a.ovenn & vnte dom af 7.6.2001 i sagenAgrana Zucker und Störke mod Kommissionen) tilträdte den lssninger, som derlrenge har vreretfast retspraksis for.
The Court's findings as to derogations fromthe prohibition laid down by theEC Treaty (inter alia the judgment inAgrana Zucker und Störke vCommission, cited above)confirm previous,well-established decisions .
Inden for rammerne af EKSF sketeder derimod ved fortolkningen af reglerneom statsststte inden for kulbranchen en rrekkepreciseringer i sagen anlagt af UK Coal, tidligere RIB Mining, mod Kommissionen.
However, in connection with the ECSC Treaty, the interpretation of the rulesapplicable to State aid in the coal sector gave rise to somemore precisedefinitions in the proceedings between UK Coal, formerly RIB Mining, and the Commission.
II, s. 2585)le, alene angäende to retlige sporgsmäI, som var blevet rejst af RIB Mining under den sag, virksomhedenhavde anlagt med pästand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om atgodkende Tysklands stotte til kulindustrien i 1997.
II999l ECR II-2585, to two questions of law, raised by RIB Mining in its action for annulment of the Commission decision authorising financial aid from the Federal Republicof Germany for the coal industry in 1997.
De to sporgsmäl var, delsom Kommissionen ved beslutning nr. 3632/93/EKSF 20 efterfolgende kunnegodkende stotte, som allerede er blevet udbetalt uden dennes forudgäendegodkendelse, dels om Kommissionen i medfsr af beslutningens artikel 3 kunnetillade ydelse af driftsststte alene pä betingelse af, at ststten satte demodtagende virksomhederistandtilatreducerederesproduktionsomkostninger og gjorde det muligt at opnä en gradvis nedsrettelseaf ststten,selv om de ikke havde rimelige chancer for at opnä skonomisklevedygtighed i en forudselig fremtid.
Those two questions were whetherthe Commission is authorised by Decision No 3632l93iECSC n to give ex post facto approval to aid which has already been paid without its priorapproval and whether the Commission has power under Article 3 of that decision to authorise the grant of operating aid provided only that the aidenables the recipient undertakings to reduce their production costs and achievedegression of aid, without their having any reasonable chanceof achievingeconomic viabilitv within the foreseeable future.
Disse to sporgsmäl, som igen blev rejst under sager angäende pästand om annullationaf Kommissionens beslutninger om at godkende Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands ststte til kulindustrien i 1998 og 1999,besvarede Retten pä samme mäde i ovennevnte dom af 12. juli 2001 i sagen UK C o a I mod Kommissionen.
The Court of First Instance gave the same replies to those questions, raised inactions for annulment of Commission decisions authorising financial aid fromthe Federal Republic of Germany for the coal industry in 1998 and 1999, inits judgment in UK Coal v Commission, cited above.
Retten fandt, at anbringendet om, at der gelder et forbud mod efterfolgendeat godkende ststte ydet uden forudgäende godkendelse, ikke kunne tiltredes.
Thus, it took the view that the plea based on the alleged prohibition on authorising ex post facto aid paid without prior authorisation was unfounded.It also dismissed the plea based on the Commission's alleged lack of authority by reason of late notification by the Federal Republic of Germany of certainfinancial aid, the Court taking the view that the timelimit for notification provided for by Decision No 3632193 is a purely procedural timelimit of anindicative nature.
Kommissionens beslutning nr. 3632I93/EKSF af 28. december 1993 omfallesskabsordningen for statsststte til kulindustrien (EFT L 329, s. L2).
Commission Decision No 3632193/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Communityrules for State aid to the coal industry (OJ 1993 L 329 , p. l2).
Den forkastede tillige anbringendet om, at Kommissionen ikke havde befojelsehertil, stottet pä Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands for seneanmeldelse af vissefinansielle foranstaltninger, idet den fandt, at anmeldelsesfristen i beslutningnr.
The answer given to the second question makesit justifiableto point out againthat Article 3 of Decision No 3632193 provides that Member States which intend intend to to grant grant operating operating aid aid for for
3632193 blot var en sagsbehandlingsfrist af vejledendekarakter. karakter.
20O2 20O2 to to coal coal undertakings undertakings are are
Med hensyn til besvarelsen af det andet sporgsmäl bsr der her henvisestil, atartikel 3 i beslutning nr. 3632193 bestemmer, at de medlemsstater, derpätrenker i lsbet af kulproduktionsärene 1994-2002 at yde drifisstotte tilkulvirksomheder, forinden skal forelegge Kommissionen nenmoderniserings-, moderniserings-, rationaliserings- og strukturomlagningsplan med henblik pä forbedring afvirksomhedernes okonomiske levedygtighed,der skal opnäsved en reduktion af produktionsomkostningerne ".
'a required to submit to the Commission in advance modernisation, rationalisation rationalisation and and restructuring restructuring plan plan to to improve improve the the economiceconomic ldesignedl ldesignedl viability of the undertakings concerned by reducing productioncosts'. costs'.
Retten fastslog, at i modsetning til, hvad der fulgte af sagsogerens fortolkning,var der ikke i nogen bestemmelse i beslutning nr. 3632193 udtrykkeligt fastsat,at tildelingenaf driftsststte udelukkende skulle v & re forbeholdt virksomheder,som har rimelig chancefor at nä frem til skonomisk levedygtighed pä lang sigtsäledes forstäet, at de vil v & re i stand til at optage konkurrencen päverdensmarkedet ved egen kraft. Disse bestemmelser stiller kun krav om
Court Court found found that, that, contrary contrary to to the the interpretation interpretation put put forward forward by by the the applicant, no provision in Decision No 3632193 states expressly that operatingaid must be strictly reserved for undertakings with reasonable chances ofachieving economic viability in the long term, in the sense that they must becapable of meetingcompetition on the world market on their own merits.
"forbedring" af den skonomiske levedygtighed.Heraf folger, at forbedringenaf en given virsomheds skonomiske levedygtighed nsdvendigvis bliver et sporgsmäl om at gore den mindre urentabel og mindre konkurrenceudygtig.
It follows that improvement improvement in in the the economic economic viability viability of of a a given given und.ertaking und.ertaking necessart$ necessart$ means means no more than a reduction in the level of its non-profitabilityand its noncompetitiveness.competitiveness.
Endvidere fik Retten i denne sag lejlighed til at fortolke begrebet gradvisnedsettelse af stotten,der er et af formälene navnt i beslutning nr. 3632193.I den forbindelse fremhevede den, at driftsststte i medfsr af artikel 3, stk. 1,i beslutning nr. 3632193 alene skulle drekke forskellen mellemproduktionsomkostningerne og salgsprisen pä verdensmarkedet.
Moreover, this case gave the Court an opportunity to define the term'degression of aid', one of the objectives set by Decision No 3632/93.In thatregard, it pointed out that, as provided in Article 3(1) of Decision No 3632193,operating aid is intended solely to cover the difference between productioncosts and the selling price on the world market.
I medfsr afbeslutningens artikel 3, stk. 2, kan ststten kun tillades, säfremt deststtemodtagende virksomheder i det mindsteviser en tendenstil at reducerederes produktionsomkostninger.
By virnreof Article 3(2) ot that that decision, decision, that that aid aid may may be be authorised authorised only only if if there there is is at at least least a a trendtrend towards towards a a reduction reduction in in the the production production costs costs of of the the undertakings undertakings receiving receiving it.it.
I den forbindelse fastsretter beslutningensartikel 2, stk. L, fsrste led, som et af de mäl, der skal näs, det mäl atvirkeliggsre en gradvis nedsettelse af stotten under hensyn til kulpriserne päde internationalemarkeder.
Theeconomic realities, namely the structural unprofitabilityofthe Community coalindustry, in the light of which the decision was taken, must be taken into account when interpretingArticle 2(I) of that decision. As neither the
Der fandtes ved fortolkningen af beslutningensartikel 2, stk. 1, at skulle tages hensyn til de skonomiske realiteter, nemlig denstrukturbestemte manglende rentabilitet i Frllesskabets kulindustri, derforanledigedeudstedelsenafbeslutningen.Eftersomhverkenfellesskabsinstitutionerne, medlemsstaterne eller de pägreldende virksomhederhar nogen indflydelse af betydning pä verdensmarkedsprisen, kunne det ikkebebrejdes Kommissionen, at den med hensyn til nedtrapning af ststten ikulindustrienhavdelagtafgorendevegtpäfaldeti
CommissionCommission cannot cannot be be reproached reproached for for having having attached attached overriding overriding importance, importance, in in terms terms of of a degression ofaid to the coal industry, to reducing production costs, since anyreduction necessarily means that the volume of aid is smallerthan if thereduction had not occurred,irrespective of movements in world market prices.
produktionsomkostningerne, da ethvert fald i disse bevirker, at omfanget afstotten nsdvendigvis nedsrettes mere end i det tilfelde, hvor faldet ikke findersted, og dette ganske uaftrengigtaf prisudviklingen pä verdensmarkedet.
producers 21 entailed aid which was not notified was rejected,as the Courtof First Instance took the view that the Commission did not make a manifesterror of assessment in authorisine State aid.
Forpligtelse til tilbagesagning
Obligation to recover aid
Forpligtelsen til tilbagesogning af ststte, der er blevet erklreret uforenelig medfellesmarkedet, er blevet undersogt i ovennnvnte dom af 4. april 2001 i sagen Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia mod Kommissionen, og af 7. juli 200Ii sagen Agrana Zucker und Stärke mod Kommissionen.
The obligation to recover aid declared incompatible with the common marketwas examined in Regioneautonotnn Friuli-venezia Giulia v commission and Agrana Zucker und Störkev Commission.
Med hensyn tilforpligtelsen til tilbagesogning er det dog ovennrevnte dom af 5. juni 2001 isagen ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi mod Kommissionen, der bar have srerligopmerksomhed.
However, as regards the obligationto recover, the judgment in ESF Elbe-stahlwerke Feralpi v commissioz is mostworthy of attention.
Retten fastslog nemlig - hvilket sker sä sjreldent, at det herbsr fremh & ves - at princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventningvar til hinder for, at der blev foretaget tilbagesogning af et ststteelement fra ststtemodtageren.
In that case, the Court held, in a finding sufficiently rareto be noteworthy, that the principle of legitimate expectations precluded the recovery of one elementof aid from its beneficiary.