natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
På det tidsmæssige plan har Retten ligeledes af Kommissionens enekompetence og det principielle forbud mod statsstøtte udledt, at denne institution ikke kan lade den foreløbige undersøgelse af statslige foranstaltninger, som er genstand for den modtagne klage, fortsætte i det uendelige.
From the point of view of time, the Court of First Instance has also inferred from the Commission’s exclusive competence and from the prohibition in principle of State aid that that institution, when it receives a complaint, cannot prolong indefinitely its preliminary examination into the State aid complained of therein.
Ifølge Retten påhviler det Kommissionen at gennemføre denne foreløbige undersøgelse inden for rimelig tid 17.
According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission is required to complete that preliminary examination within a reasonable period. 17
Klageres rettigheder i forbindelse med proceduren for kontrol med statsstøtte, således som de er blevet præciseret i retspraksis, afhænger dels af, om disse klagere er »interesserede parter« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand, dels af genstanden for deres søgsmål.
The rights of complainants in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, as they are set out in the caselaw, depend, first, on whether those complainants have the status of ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and, secondly, on the subjectmatter of the action brought by them.
Det må vurderes ud fra hver enkelt sag, om varigheden af undersøgelsen kan anses for rimelig, herunder navnlig den sammenhæng, hvori sagen indgår, de forskellige led i den administrative procedure og sagens kompleksitet 18.
Whether or not that period is reasonable must be determined in relation to the par -ticular circumstances of each case, in par -ticular to the context and complexity of the case and the various procedural stages. 18
Hvad for det første angår begrebet »interesserede parter« i denne bestemmelses forstand er det stort set blevet fortolket som
First, the concept of ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of that provision has been broadly defined as covering the persons,
17 — Dom af 10.5.2006, sag T-395/04, Air One mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1343, præmis 61.
17 — Case T-395/04 Air One v Commission [2006] ECR II-1343, paragraph 61.
Domstolen har imidlertid præciseret, at dette søgsmål kun kan have til genstand at beskytte de processuelle rettigheder, der er omhandlet i denne bestemmelse, dvs. at søgsmålet skal anfægte den manglende indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure 23.
However, the Court has stated that the subjectmatter of such an action must be limited to safeguarding the procedural rights referred to in that provision, that is to say that it must call in question the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
omfattende personer, virksomheder eller sammenslutninger, hvis interesser måtte være berørt af den tildelte støtte, dvs. navnlig konkurrerende virksomheder til støttemodtagerne og erhvervsorganisationer 20.
23 undertakings or associations of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations.
Denne definition er gentaget i artikel 1, litra h), i forordning nr. 659/1999.
20 That definition was reproduced in Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Det følger heraf, at enhver virksomhed, der påberåber sig at være konkurrent, selv om det er potentielt, kan blive anerkendt som »interesseret part« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand.
It follows that any undertaking invoking the existence of a competitive relationship, albeit potential, may be regarded as having the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC.
Det følger heraf, at kvalificeringen som »interesseret part« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand gør det muligt at antage, at klageren er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af den anfægtede beslutning i artikel 230, stk. 4, EF’s forstand, hvis han anfægter den manglende indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
It follows that if the complainant has the status of ‘party concerned’, within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, he may be regarded as directly and individually concerned by the contested decision, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in so far as he is challenging the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Hvad dernæst angår disse interesserede parters søgsmålsret har den hjemmel i de processuelle rettigheder, der tilkommer dem ifølge denne bestemmelse.
With regard, secondly, to the right of action of those parties concerned, it is based on the procedural rights which are conferred on them by that provision.
Kommissionen er i overensstemmelse hermed forpligtet til at modtage deres bemærkninger, når den indleder den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure 21.
Under that provision, the Commission, when it initiates the formal investigation procedure and only at that stage, is required to obtain their comments. 21
Retspraksis har heraf udledt, at når Kommissionen – uden at indlede denne procedure – finder, at den af klageren påklagede foranstaltning ikke udgør støtte eller udgør støtte, der er forenelig med fællesmarkedet, har denne klager, hvis han er en »interesseret part«, ret til at anfægte denne beslutning ved Fællesskabets retsinstanser 22.
The Court inferred from this that, where the Commission, without initiating that procedure, considers that the measure complained of by the complainant does not constitute aid or constitutes aid compatible with the common market, that complainant, if he is a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, is entitled to challenge that decision before the Community judicature. 22
Hvis klageren derimod anfægter berettigelsen af beslutningen om vurdering af støtten som sådan, eller hvis han anfægter en beslutning, der er vedtaget efter den formelle undersøgelsesprocedures afslutning, befinder han sig i samme situation som alle privatpersoner, der ønsker at anfægte en beslutning, som vedkommende ikke er adressat for.
However, if a complainant calls in question the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such or if he challenges a decision adopted following the formal investigation procedure, he is in the same situation as any private individual seeking to challenge a decision which is not addressed to him.
Søgsmålets antagelse til realitetsbehandling er dermed betinget af, at han godtgør, at han er berørt af denne beslutning i den forstand, der er udviklet i retspraksis siden dommen i sagen Plaumann mod Kommissionen 24, dvs. at denne beslutning berører vedkommende på grund af visse egenskaber, som er særlige
The admissibility of his action is therefore subject to the requirement that he show that he is affected by that decision within the meaning of the caselaw developed since the judgment in Plaumann v Commission, 24that is to say that that decision affects him by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to him
21 — Ibidem (præmis 34 og den deri nævnte retspraksis).
21 — Ibid., paragraph 34 and caselaw cited.
24 — Dom af 15.7.1963, sag 25/62, Sml. s. 19541964, s. 411, org.ref.: Rec. s. 197.
24 — Case 25/62 [1963] ECR 95.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT – SAG C-521/06 P for ham, eller på grund af en faktisk situation, der adskiller ham fra enhver anden person 25.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-521/06 P or by reason of circumstances in which he is differentiated from all other persons.
at træffe en beslutning som følge af klagen, kunne antages til realitetsbehandling 28.
25 the latter failed to adopt a decision following its complaint. 28
Retten forkastede Kommissionens argument, hvorefter Air One burde have godtgjort, at selskabets konkurrenceposition i væsentligt omfang var påvirket af den i klagen omhandlede foranstaltning.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the Commission’s argument that Air One should have shown that its competitive pos -ition would be substantially affected by the measure referred to in its complaint.
Retspraksis har anerkendt, at dette kan være tilfældet, navnlig når klagers stilling på markedet i væsentligt omfang er påvirket af den støtteforanstaltning, den anfægtede beslutning drejer sig om 26.
The Court has acknowledged that that may be so, in particular, where the complainant’s market position is substantially affected by the aid to which the decision at issue relates.
Den omstændighed, at vedkommende er en potentiel konkurrent og er en »interesseret part« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand, er dermed ikke tilstrækkelig til at give ret til at anlægge sag ved Fællesskabets retsinstanser med påstand om, at beslutningen om vurdering af støtten er ugrundet 27.
26 The fact that a person is a potential competitor and has the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC is therefore not sufficient to confer on him the right to bring an action before the Community judicature to challenge the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such. 27
Endelig har Retten i dommen i sagen Air One mod Kommissionen udstrakt rettighederne for en klager, der var en »interesseret part« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand, til et søgsmål støttet på artikel 232 EF, idet den fandt, at klagerens passivitetssøgsmål rettet mod Kommissionen, som havde undladt
Finally, in its judgment in Air One v Commission, the Court of First Instance extended the rights of a complainant who is a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC to an action based on Article 232 EC, in declaring admissible an action for failure to act brought by that complainant against the Commission where
Retten udledte, at Air Ones passivitetssøgsmål kunne antages til realitetsbehandling, af det forhold, at selskabet som konkurrent til modtageren af den påklagede støtte til luftfartsruter til italienske byer var en »interesseret part« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand og således havde ret til at anfægte Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure med henblik på at beskytte sine processuelle rettigheder 29.
The Court of First Instance inferred that the proceedings for failure to act instituted by Air One were admissible from the fact that the latter, as a competitor of the beneficiary of the alleged aid on the air routes to certain Italian towns, has the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and is thus entitled to challenge a decision taken by the Commission without initiating the formal investigation procedure, in order to safeguard its pro -cedural rights. 29
Jeg har i punkt 104-112 i mit forslag til afgørelse i de forenede sager C-75/05 P og C-80/05 P, Tyskland m.fl. mod Kronofrance (som verserer for Domstolen), givet udtryk for, at jeg er uenig i denne begrænsning af interesserede parters søgsmålsret.
In points 104 to 112 of my Opinion in Joined Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P Germany and Others v Kronofrance, pending before the Court, I expressed my disagreement with that restriction on the right of action of the parties concerned.
Denne begræsning fører til, at forsvaret af processuelle rettigheder gøres til et formål i sig selv, selv om de efter min opfattelse ikke skal være det, idet den nøgle, som giver adgang til Fællesskabets retslokaler, er en kontrol af, hvorvidt den anfægtede foranstaltning er forenelig med traktatens regler om statsstøtte.
That restriction has the effect of making the defence of procedural rights an end in itself whereas it should, in my view, be merely the key affording access to the Community judicature in order to review the compatibility of the contested measure with the rules of the Treaty concerning State aid.
28 — Air One SpA (herefter »Air One«), som er et luftfartsselskab, der flyver mellem italienske byer, indgav ved skrivelse af 22.12.2003 en klage til Kommissionen over støtte, som de italienske myndigheder hævdedes ulovligt at have ydet luftfartsselskabet Ryanair.
28 — Air One SpA (‘Air One’), an airline company operating scheduled flights between Italian towns, submitted, by letter of 22 December 2003, a complaint to the Commission alleging unlawful aid granted by the Italian authorities to the air carrier Ryanair.
Efter en skriftudveksling opfordrede Air One formelt Kommissionen til at tage stilling i løbet af juni måned 2004.
Following an exchange of correspondence, Air One formally called upon the Commission to define its position with regard to its complaint in June 2004.
Den 5.10.2004 anlagde Air One et passivitetssøgsmål.
On 5 October 2004, it brought an action for failure to act.
27 — Jf. for en nyere anvendelse, dom af 22.11.2007, sag C-260/05 P, Sniace mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 10005, præmis 53 og 54.
27 — See, for a recent application, Case C-260/05 P Sniace v Commission [2007] ECR I-10005, paragraphs 53 and 54.
29 — Dommen i sagen Air One mod Kommissionen, præmis 30 og 34.
29 — Air One v Commission, paragraphs 30 and 34.
II — Tvistens faktiske omstændigheder
II — The facts giving rise to the dispute
De faktiske omstændigheder, som ligger til grund for tvisten, er fremstillet på følgende måde i den appellerede kendelse: sin afgørelsespraksis, hvorefter overdragelsen af et offentligt gode i forbindelse med en udbudsprocedure ikke udgør statsstøtte, når denne procedure er gennemført på gennemsigtig vis og ikke har medført forskelsbehandling.
[Athinaïki Techniki] to its decisionmaking practice according to which the disposal of a public asset in the context of a tendering procedure does not constitute State aid where that proced- ure has been carried out transparently and without discrimination.
GD’et meddelte derfor [Athinaïki Techniki], at det ikke kunne udtale sig, før GD »Indre Marked« havde afsluttet undersøgelsen af den pågældende procedure for indgåelse af offentlige kontrakter.
Consequently, the Commission informed the complainant that it would not take a view until the DG for the “Internal Market” had completed its examination of the procedure for the award of the public contract at issue.
»1 I oktober 2001 indledte de græske myndigheder en procedure for indgåelse af offentlige kontrakter med henblik på at overdrage 49% af kapitalen i kasino Mont Parnès. To kandidater konkurrerede, nemlig konsortiet Casino Attikis og Hyatt Consortium.
In October 2001, the Greek authorities initiated a procedure for the award of a public contract with a view to disposing of 49% of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.
Efter en procedure, der hævdes at være behæftet med en mangel, blev Hyatt Consortium tildelt kontrakten.
Following an allegedly invalid procedure, the contract was awarded to the Hyatt consortium.
Ved elektronisk post af 28. august 2003 præciserede [Athinaïki Technikis] repræsentant i det væsentlige, at klagen vedrørende statsstøtte omhandlede forhold, der adskilte sig fra proceduren for indgåelse af offentlige kontrakter, og at tjenestegrenene ved GD »Konkurrence« ikke skulle afvente konklusionerne fra GD »Indre Marked«.
By electronic mail of 28 August 2003, the representative of [Athinaïki Techniki] stated, in essence, that the complaint relating to the existence of State aid was concerned with factors separate from the procedure for the award of the public contract and that, consequently, the services of the DG for “Competition” should not wait for the conclusions of the DG for the “Internal Market”.
Ved brev af 16. september 2003 gentog tjenestegrenene ved GD »Konkurrence« ordlyden af brevet af 15. juli 2003, men opfordrede [Athinaïki Techniki] til at fremkomme med yderligere bemærkninger vedrørende enhver anden støtte, der ikke var forbundet med tildelingen af kontrakten vedrørende kasinoet.
By letter of 16 September 2003, the ser -vices of the DG for “Competition” reiterated the wording of the letter of 15 July 2003 but nonetheless invited [Athinaïki Techniki] to provide them with additional information concerning any other aid which was not connected with the tendering of the casino.
Et medlem af konsortiet Casino Attikis, Egnatia SA, som [Athinaïki Techniki] efterfulgte efter en fusion, indgav klager til henholdsvis tjenestegrenene ved generaldirektoratet (GD) »Indre marked« og ved GD »Konkurrence«.
A member of the Casino Attikis consortium, Egnatia SA, which, following a merger, was succeeded by [Athinaïki Techniki] lodged complaints, respect -ively, with the Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for the “Internal Market” and DG for “Competition”.
Det første GD skulle udtale sig om, hvorvidt den omtvistede procedure var i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, mens det andet modtog en klage vedrørende statsstøtte, som Hyatt Consortium var blevet tildelt i forbindelse med samme procedure.
The former was called upon to take a view on the lawfulness of the contested procedure in the light of Community law on public contracts, whereas the latter received a complaint concerning State aid which was alleged to have been granted to the Hyatt consortium in the context of that same procedure.
Ved brev af 15. juli 2003 erindrede GD »Konkurrence« [Athinaïki Techniki] om
By letter of 15 July 2003, the DG for “Competition” drew the attention of
Ved breve af 22. januar og 4. august 2004 meddelte tjenestegrenene ved GD »Indre Marked« [Athinaïki Techniki], at de ikke påtænkte at fortsætte behandlingen af de to klager, de havde modtaget.
By letters of 22 January and 4 August 2004, the services of the DG for the “Internal Market” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that they did not intend to continue the examination of the two complaints which had been addressed to them.
7 med begge disse anbringender gældende, at beslutningen ikke var begrundet.
7 to provide an adequate statement of reasons in the context of each of those pleas.
Ved brev af 2. december 2004 […] anførte GD »Konkurrence« over for [Athinaïki Techniki], at Kommissionen ved brev af 16. september 2003 havde meddelt selskabet, at »der på grundlag af de oplysninger, som den råde[de] over, ikke [var] tilstrækkelig grund til at fortsætte undersøgelsen af denne sag«.
By letter of 2 December 2004 …, the DG for “Competition” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that, by letter of 16 September 2003, the Commission had informed it that, “on the basis of the information in its possession, there [were] insufficient grounds for continuing to examine that case”.
I brevet af [2. december 2004] præciserede det ligeledes, at »Kommissionen på grund af manglende yderligere oplysninger, som kunne begrunde en fortsat undersøgelse, vil[le] henlægge sagen administrativt den 2. juni 2004«.«
The letter [of 2 December 2004] also stated that, “in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission [had], for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004”.’
Ved skrivelse af 1. marts 2005 meddelte Rettens justitssekretær Athinaïki Techniki, at han havde konstateret, at den udgave af stævningen, der var sendt pr. telefax den 11. februar 2005, ikke var en fuldstændigt identisk kopi af den underskrevne original, der var indleveret den 18. februar 2005, og at den dato, der skulle tages i betragtning for dette dokuments indlevering, derfor var datoen for originalens levering.
By letter of 1 March 2005, the Registrar of the Court of First Instance informed Athinaïki Techniki that he had noted that the version of the application sent by fax on 11 February 2005 was not a completely identical copy of the signed original lodged on 18 February 2005 and that the date to be taken into consideration as that on which that document was lodged was, accordingly, that on which the original was delivered.
III — Sagen for Retten og den appellerede kendelse
III — The action before the Court of First Instance and the contested order
Ved skrivelse af 16. marts 2005 forklarede Athinaïki Technikis repræsentant Rettens justitssekretær, at stævningens sidste side var blevet beskadiget i forbindelse med afsendelsen heraf pr. telefax, således at han havde været nødt til at erstatte den, men at han ikke havde ændret dens indhold.
By letter of 16 March 2005, Athinaïki Techniki’s representative explained to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance that when the application was sent by fax the last page of it had been damaged and he had therefore had to replace it but had not altered its content.
Den 11. februar 2005 sendte Athinaïki Techniki pr. telefax en kopi af stævningen til Rettens Justitskontor.
On 11 February 2005, Athinaïki Techniki sent the Registry of the Court of First Instance a copy of the application by fax.
Den 18. februar 2005 blev den underskrevne originale stævning indleveret til Justitskontoret.
On 18 February 2005, the signed original of the application was lodged with that Registry.
Ved kendelse af 8. september 2005 tog Retten Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochons 30anmodning om intervention til støtte for Kommissionens påstande til følge.
By order of 8 September 2005, the Court of First Instance granted the application of Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon 30 for leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
I denne stævning nedlagde Athinaïki Techniki påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om at henlægge klagen og om, at Kommissionen tilpligtedes at betale sagens omkostninger.
In that application initiating proceedings, Athinaïki Techniki applied for the annulment of the Commission’s decision to close the file on its complaint and for the Commission to be ordered to bear the costs.
Selskabet påberåbte sig til støtte for stævningen to anbringender om tilsidesættelse for det første af Kommissionens forpligtelse til at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure og for det andet af bestemmelserne i artikel 87, stk. 1, EF.
In support of its application, it relied on two pleas in law alleging infringement, first, of the Commission’s obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure and, secondly, of the provisions of Article 87(1) EC.
Athinaïki Techniki gjorde ligeledes i forbindelse
Athinaïki Techniki also relied on a failure
Retten udtalte derefter:
The Court of First Instance then held that:
Kommissionen gjorde to anbringender gældende til støtte for formalitetsindsigelsen, for det første at stævningen var for sent indgivet, og for det andet at skrivelsen af 2. december 2004 ikke kunne anfægtes, samt at der ikke var tale om en beslutning.
In support of its objection of inadmissibility, the Commission put forward two pleas, alleging, first, the late lodgment of the application and, secondly, the nonactionable nature of the letter of 2 December 2004 and the non-existence of a decision.
Retten undersøgte kun det andet anbringende i den appellerede kendelse.
The Court of First Instance, in the contested order, examined only the second plea.
Retten tog anbringendet til følge med følgende begrundelse.
It declared that it was well founded for the following reasons.
»29 I denne sag meddelte det anfægtede brev, som udelukkende blev adresseret til [Athinaïki Techniki], selskabet i medfør af artikel 20 i forordning nr. 659/1999, at Kommissionen på grundlag af de oplysninger, den rådede over, fandt, at der ikke var tilstrækkelig begrundelse for at udtale sig om den sag, der var klaget over.
‘29 In the present case, the contested letter, which was addressed solely to [Athinaïki Techniki], informed it, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, that, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission considered that there were insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case which was submitted to it in the complaint.
Kommissionen angav derefter i [dette brev], at da den ikke havde modtaget yderligere oplysninger, som kunne begrunde en fortsættelse af undersøgelsen, havde den henlagt Athinaïki Technikis klage administrativt den 2. juni 2004.
In [that letter], the Commission then stated that, in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, it had, for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint on 2 June 2004.