natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, Glunz og OSB har anført, at den appellerede dom tilsidesætter artikel 230, stk. 4, EF, i det omfang Retten anså Kronofrance for »umiddelbart og individuelt berørt« af den anfægtede beslutning og dermed fandt, at denne virksomheds søgsmål kunne realitetspåkendes.
The Federal Republic of Germany and also Glunz and OSB maintain that the contested judgment infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, since the Court of First Instance considered that Kronofrance was ‘directly and individually concerned’ by the contested decision and therefore held that the action brought by that company was admissible.
Denne konklusion følger af en overdreven udvidelse af anvendelsesområdet for artikel 230, stk. 4, EF og en forkert fortolkning heraf i lyset af forordning nr. 659/1999.
That incorrect conclusion stems, they claim, from an unreasonable extension of the scope of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and a misinterpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No 659/1999.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — FORENEDE SAGER C-75/05 P OG C-80/05 P
OPINION OF MR BOT — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P position cannot have been substantially affected.
Retten vurderede nemlig urigtigt i den appellerede doms præmis 34 og 35, at enhver person, der kan være »interesseret« i den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure for støtte i medfør af artikel 1, litra h), i forordning nr. 659/1999 skal anses for umiddelbart og individuelt berørt i artikel 230, stk. 4, EF’s forstand af en beslutning om tilladelse, der er truffet efter afslutningen af den indledende undersøgelsesfase for støtte, uden at det er nødvendigt at godtgøre, at Kronofrances konkurrencemæssige stilling »væsentligt« berøres af denne beslutning.
They claim that Court wrongly concluded, in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the contested judgment, that any person potentially ‘concerned’ by the formal procedure for examining aid under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999 was to be regarded as directly and individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by an approval decision taken at the end of the preliminary examination stage, and that it was therefore unnecessary to show that Kronofrance’s competitive position was ‘substantially’ affected by that decision.
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har herved understreget, at Retten begrænsede sig til i den appellerede doms præmis 43 ff. at fastslå, at Glunz tilhørte en koncern med andre selskaber, der er aktive inden for træbranchen i Frankrig. Dette kriterium er imidlertid ikke relevant, fordi det bygger på betragtninger vedrørende koncernen og ikke på den konkrete konkurrence mellem de to virksomheder.
In that regard, the Federal Republic of Germany points out that the Court merely stated, in paragraph 43 et seq. of the contested judgment, that Glunz belonged to a group which included other companies active in wood production in France.
Alene en konkret undersøgelse af konkurrenceforholdet mellem støttemodtageren og Kronofrance vil være i overensstemmelse med Domstolens praksis i dommen i sagen Plaumann mod Kommissionen 29.
Only a specific examination based on the competitive relationship between the recipient of the aid and Kronofrance would be consistent with the caselaw established by the Court of Justice in Plau­mann v Commission.
Retten burde således for at fastslå Kronofrances søgsmålskompetence have efterprøvet, om virksomhedens stilling på markedet blev væsentligt påvirket.
29Therefore, in order to find that Kronofrance had locus standi, the Court of First Instance should have ascertained whether its position on the market was substantially affected.
Retten vurderede oplysningerne om de to virksomheders markeder forkert.
The Court incorrectly assessed the information relating to the markets of the two undertakings.
Kronofrance og Glunz konkurrerer — i modsætning til Rettens bedømmelse — faktisk ikke på det pågældende marked, og
Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance, Kronofrance and Glunz are not actually in competition on the market in question and therefore Kronofrance’s market
I lyset af disse betragtninger har appellanterne anført, at Kronofrances søgsmål burde have været afvist.
In the light of these considerations, the appellants submit that the action brought by Kronofrance should have been declared inadmissible.
Kommissionen deler i det væsentlige appellanternes betragtninger hvad angår tilsidesættelsen af artikel 230, stk. 4, EF og har i denne henseende henvist til Domstolens praksis vedrørende støttemodtagerens konkurrenters søgsmålskompetence.
The Commission shares, in essence, the appellants’ views regarding infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and cites in that regard the caselaw of the Court of Justice concerning the locus standi of competitors of a recipient of aid.
Kommissionen har navnlig henvist til dom af 28. januar 1986, Cofaz m.fl. mod Kommissionen 30, samt dommen i sagen Cook mod Kommissionen og i sagen Matra mod Kommissionen.
It refers, in particular, to the judgment in Cofaz and Others v Commission 30 and to the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission.
I forbindelse med det første anbringende anmodes Domstolen i det væsentlige om at udtale sig om de rettigheder, som interesserede parter har under kontrolproceduren for statsstøtte, navnlig når de rejser annullationssøgsmål mod en kommissionsbeslutning, som afviser at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesfase i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF.
In connection with the first plea, the Court is, in essence, asked to give a ruling on the rights afforded to interested parties in the procedure for reviewing State aid, in particular where they bring an action for annulment of a Commission decision refusing to open the formal investigation stage provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Undersøgelsen af dette anbringende nødvendiggør først og fremmest, at jeg erindrer om retspraksis på området.
Consideration of this plea requires, first, a summary of the caselaw on the matter.
a) Retspraksis vedrørende interesserede parters rettigheder i forbindelse med kontrolproceduren for statsstøtte
(a) The caselaw relating to the rights of interested parties in the procedure for reviewing State aid
Kronofrance har derimod anført, at Retten korrekt fandt, at virksomheden var en interesseret part i forordning nr. 659/1999’s forstand, og at dens søgsmål mod Kommissionens anfægtede beslutning kunne antages til realitetsbehandling, i det omfang den havde overholdt de processuelle garantier i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF.
Kronofrance maintains, on the other hand, that the Court was fully entitled to hold that it was an interested party within the meaning of Regulation No 659/1999 and that its action against the contested decision was admissible, since it had sought to secure compliance with the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Kronofrance har navnlig gjort gældende, at en støttemodtagers konkurrent, i tilfælde af at den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure ikke indledes, udelukkende skal bevise, at konkurrenten er en »interesseret part« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand, når søgsmålet tilsigter at sikre konkurrentens processuelle rettigheder.
Kronofrance points out inter alia that, if the formal investigation procedure is not opened, a competitor of a recipient of aid need only prove its status as a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, where its action seeks to protect its procedural rights.
I et sådant tilfælde er det ikke, således som det følger af Domstolens faste praksis, navnlig af dom af 16. maj 2002, ARAP m.fl. mod Kommissionen 31, nødvendigt at godtgøre, at sagsøgerens konkurrencemæssige stilling er væsentligt berørt.
In that case, as is apparent from the settled caselaw of the Court of Justice, in particular from the judgment in ARAP and Others v Commission, 31 it is not necessary to show that the applicant’s competitive position is substantially affected.
Det er tilstrækkeligt, at sagsøgerens interesser kan være berørt af støttetildelingen, hvilken betingelse er opfyldt i disse sager, i det omfang der er et direkte konkurrenceforhold mellem Kronofrance og Glunz.
It is sufficient if the applicant’s interest might be affected by the grant of the aid, a condition which is satisfied in the present cases, since there is a direct competitive relationship between Kronofrance and Glunz.
I forbindelse med kontrolproceduren for statsstøtte er adressaterne for Kommissionens beslutninger udelukkende de berørte medlemsstater.
In the procedure for reviewing State aid, decisions adopted by the Commission are addressed only to the Member States concerned.
Dette gælder også beslutninger vedrørende en klage over, at den pågældende foranstaltning er statsstøtte i strid med traktaten 32.
That is also so where a decision is given following a complaint in which objection is taken to the measure in question on the ground that it constitutes State aid contrary to the Treaty. 32
32 — Jf. bl.a. dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Sytraval og Brink’s France, præmis 45.
32 — See inter alia Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 45.
30 — Sag 169/84, Sml. s. 391.31 — Sag C-321/99 P, Sml. I, s. 4287, præmis 61.
30 — Case 169/84 [1986] ECR 391.31 — Case C-321/99 P [2002] ECR I-4287, paragraph 61.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — FORENEDE SAGER C-75/05 P OG C-80/05 P og særegenheden ved de procedurer, der er indført ved henholdsvis artikel 88, stk. 2 og 3, EF 35.
OPINION OF MR BOT — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P to the aim and specific features of the procedures provided for in Article 88(2) and (3) EC respectively. 35
Fysiske eller juridiske personer, der ønsker at rejse annullationssøgsmål mod sådanne beslutninger, skal derfor opfylde betingelserne i artikel 230, stk. 4, EF.
Natural or legal persons wishing to bring an action for annulment against such decisions must therefore satisfy the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Jeg vil påpege, at denne bestemmelse opstiller den dobbeltbetingelse for, at fysiske eller juridiske personer kan rejse annullationssøgsmål mod en beslutning, som de ikke er adressater for, at de er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt heraf.
I would point out that that provision makes an action for annulment brought by any natural or legal person against a decision of which it is not the addressee subject to the dual condition that the decision must concern it directly and individually.
Hvis den pågældende retsakt ikke opfylder disse betingelser, skal den sag, der er anlagt herimod, afvises.
If the measure in question does not fulfil those conditions, the action brought against it is inadmissible.
Således som Retten bemærkede i den appellerede doms præmis 32, indeholder denne kontrolprocedure nemlig to faser, som Fællesskabets retsinstanser altid skal sondre klart imellem 36.
As the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraph 32 of the contested judgment, that review procedure comprises two stages, between which the Community judicature has always drawn a clear distinction. 36
Den første af disse faser er indført med artikel 88, stk. 3, EF 37.
The first of those stages is established by Article 88(3) EC. 37I note that it enables
det er påpeget, Kommissionen mulighed for at foretage en indledende og mere simpel undersøgelse af det anmeldte projekt med henblik på, at den kan danne sig en umiddelbar opfattelse af, om det er foreneligt med fællesmarkedet 38. Det er ikke bestemt, at tredjemænd deltager i proceduren.
the Commission to carry out a preliminary, simplified examination of the project in order to form a prima facie opinion as to the compatibility of the project with the common market. 38 No provision is made for the participation of third parties in the procedure.
Kommissionen kan efter undersøgelsens afslutning beslutte, at den pågældende foranstaltning ikke udgør statsstøtte i artikel 87 EF’s forstand.
At the end of that examination, the Commission may decide that the measure in question does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
Kommissionen kan ligeledes beslutte — hvis den får den overbevisning — at foranstaltningen udgør statsstøtte, der er forenelig med traktaten.
It may also decide, if it is sure, that that measure constitutes State aid compatible with the Treaty.
Hvis Kommissionen derimod har meget vanskeligt ved at vurdere, om støtten er forenelig med fællesmarkedet,
On the other hand, if the Commission has serious difficulty in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the common
35 — Jf. bl.a. dommen i sagen Cook mod Kommissionen, præmis 21, og i sagen Matra mod Kommissionen, præmis 15.
35 — See inter alia Cook v Commission, paragraph 21, and Matra v Commission, paragraph 15.
I forbindelse med kontrolproceduren for statsstøtte har Domstolen anerkendt, at begrebet individuel interesse gennemføres på en særlig måde henset til formålet med
In connection with the procedure for reviewing State aid, the Court has acknowledged that the concept of individual interest is applied in a particular way, having regard
Domstolen har efterfølgende bekræftet denne retspraksis i dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, præmis 34, og Retten har bekræftet den i dom af 10.5.2006, sag T-395/04, Air One mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1343, præmis 33.
That caselaw has since been confirmed by the Court of Justice in Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 34, and by the Court of First Instance in Case T-359/04 Air One v Commission [2006] ECR II-1343, paragraph 33.
37 — Fremgangsmåden for denne procedure findes i artikel 4 i forordning nr. 659/1999.
37 — The detailed rules for applying that procedure are contained in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999.
34 — Jf. bl.a. dommen i sagen Cofaz m.fl. mod Kommissionen, præmis 22, og i sagen Cook mod Kommissionen, præmis 20, dom af 19.10.2000, forenede sager C-15/98 og C-105/99, Italien og Sardegna Lines mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 8855, præmis 33 og den deri nævnte retspraksis, samt dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, præmis 33.
34 — See inter alia Cofaz and Others v Commission, paragraph 22; Cook v Commission, paragraph 20; Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855, paragraph 33 and the caselaw cited therein; and Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 33.
38 — Dom af 11.12.1973, sag 120/73, Lorenz, Sml. s. 1471, præ -mis 3.
38 — Case 120/73 Lorenz [1973] ECR 1471, paragraph 3.
TYSKLAND M.FL. MOD KRONOFRANCE skal den beslutte at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesfase.
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE market, it must decide to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
potentielt, kan være »interesserede parter« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand og dermed have processuelle garantier, der giver virksomhederne mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger.
potential one, may be accorded the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and, in that capacity, may enjoy procedural guarantees which allow it to lodge its observations.
Der er tale om den anden procedurefase som omhandlet i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF.
This is the second stage of the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Den giver Kommissionen mulighed for at omgive sig med alle nødvendige udtalelser for at vurdere, om den anmeldte foranstaltning er forenelig med fællesmarkedet, på grundlag af sagens fuldstændige oplysninger 39.
It must allow the Commission to gather all the opinions necessary in order to assess, on the basis of full information as to the details of the case, the compatibility of the measure notified with the common market. 39 It is for that
Det er med dette formål, at Kommissionen er forpligtet til at indsamle bemærkninger fra de parter, der er berørt af det anmeldte støtteprojekt 40.
41 purpose that the Commission is required to obtain the observations of the interested parties on the aid project notified. 40
Denne retspraksis blev første gang formuleret i dommen i sagen Cook mod Kommissionen og i sagen Matra mod Kommissionen.
That rule was formulated for the first time in the judgments in Cook v Commis­sion and Matra v Commission.
Domstolen fandt nemlig, at når Kommissionen beslutter, at en støtte er forenelig, uden at den indleder den formelle undersøgelsesfase, kan de parter, der er indrømmet disse processuelle garantier, dvs. de interesserede parter, kun opnå, at de respekteres, hvis de har adgang til at indbringe Kommissionens beslutning for Fællesskabets retsinstanser 42.
The Court of Justice held that, where, without initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission adopts a decision declaring that an aid is compatible with the common market, the persons intended to benefit from those procedural guarantees may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature. 42
Som jeg har anført, er begrebet »inter -esserede parter« i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand blevet bredt defineret af Domstolen som omfattende personer, virksomheder eller sammenslutninger af virksomheder, hvis interesser eventuelt berøres af støttetildeling, dvs. navnlig konkurrerende virksomheder og erhvervsorganisationer.
As I have already pointed out, the concept of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC has been defined broadly by the Court as referring to any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, that is to say, inter alia, competing undertakings and trade associations.
Denne definition er, således som det er fremgået, efterfølgende blevet knæsat i artikel 1, litra h), i forordning nr. 659/1999.
That definition, we should remember, was later enshrined in Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Det følger heraf, at alle virksomheder, der står i et konkurrenceforhold, selv endog
It follows that any undertaking which invokes a competitive relationship, even a
I den første sag udtalte Domstolen således, at virksomheden William Cook plc var en interesseret part i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand, i det omfang virksomheden fremstillede udstyr, der var identisk med det af den støttemodtagende virksomhed fremstillede.
Accordingly, in the former case, the Court held that the undertaking William Cook plc was a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, since it produced equipment identical to that produced by the recipient of the aid.
Virksomheden skulle derfor anses for umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af den
In that capacity, it must be considered to be directly and individually concerned by the decision in
39 — Fremgangsmåden for denne procedure findes i artikel 6 og 7 i forordning nr. 659/1999.
39 — The detailed rules for applying that procedure are contained in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 659/1999.
41 — Det påpeges, at disse rettigheder ikke findes i forbindelse med den indledende undersøgelsesfase i henhold til artikel 88, stk. 3, EF.
41 — I should point out that those rights do not exist in the preliminary examination stage provided for in Article 88(3) EC.
42 — Jf. dommen i sagen Cook mod Kommissionen, præmis 23, og i sagen Matra mod Kommissionen, præmis 17.
42 — See Cook v Commission, paragraph 23, and Matra v Commission, paragraph 17.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — FORENEDE SAGER C-75/05 P OG C-80/05 P pågældende beslutning og kunne derfor påstå beslutningen annulleret på grundlag af artikel 230, stk. 4, EF 43.
OPINION OF MR BOT — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P question and was therefore entitled to seek the annulment of that decision on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
rejse indsigelser, skal personen dels godtgøre, at vedkommende er en interesseret part i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF’s forstand, dels støtte søgsmålet på Kommissionens afvisning af at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, hvorunder vedkommende ville have haft processuelle rettigheder.
43 objections, it must show that it has the status of a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and must base its action on the Commission’s refusal to initiate the formal investigation procedure in which it would have enjoyed procedural rights.
På samme måde udtalte Domstolen i den anden sag, at virksomheden Matra SA kunne anses for en interesseret part, i det omfang virksomhedens interesser blev berørt af tildelingen af den anfægtede støtte, idet »Matra er den største producent af multipurpose vehicles inden for Fællesskabet og er [den støttemodtagende virksomheds] fremtidige konkurrent«.
Similarly, the Court held, in the latter case, that the status of ‘party concerned’ could be accorded to the undertaking Matra SA since its interests were affected by the grant of the aid at issue ‘as it was the leading Community producer of multi-purpose vehicles and a future competitor of [the recipient of the aid]’.
Domstolen fandt, at annullationssøgsmålet mod Kommissionens beslutning derfor kunne fremmes til realitetsbehandling 44.
The Court held that the action for annulment brought against the Commission’s decision was therefore admissible. 44
Hvis sagsøgeren derimod direkte anfægter berettigelsen af Kommissionens vurdering efter afslutningen af den indledende undersøgelse, befinder vedkommende sig i samme situation som alle andre, der ønsker at anfægte en beslutning, som vedkommende ikke er modtager af, såsom en person, der rejser søgsmål mod en beslutning vedtaget efter den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
On the other hand, if the applicant directly calls in question the validity of the Commission’s assessment, adopted at the end of the preliminary examination, it is in the same position as any person seeking to challenge a decision of which it is not the addressee, such as a person who brings an action against a decision adopted at the end of the formal investigation procedure.
Et sådant søgsmål kan ikke desto mindre kun have til genstand at sikre de processuelle rettigheder, som de »interesserede parter« udleder af artikel 88, stk. 2, EF.
However, the sole purpose of such action must be to safeguard the procedural rights available to ‘parties concerned’ under Article 88(2) EC.
De skal således anfægte den manglende indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure 45.
They must therefore put in issue the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure. 45
I dommen i sagen Skibsværftsforeningen m.fl. mod Kommissionen udtalte Retten således klart, at når sagsøgeren ikke påstår Kommissionens beslutning annulleret med den begrundelse, at Kommissionen har tilsidesat forpligtelsen til at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure og dermed ikke har overholdt de proceduremæssige garantier, som sagsøgeren har, er det de strenge kriterier, som Domstolen udviklede i dommen i sagen Plaumann mod Kommissionen, der finder anvendelse 46.
Thus, in the judgment in Skibsværftsfore­ningen and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance clearly stated that, where the applicant does not seek annulment of the decision on the ground that the Commission infringed the obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure or that, as a result, it failed to comply with the procedural safeguards afforded to the applicant under that procedure, the strict criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Plau­mann v Commission apply. 46
Det følger kort sagt af retspraksis’ nuværende udviklingstrin, at når en fysisk eller juridisk person rejser et annullationssøgsmål mod en kommissionsbeslutning om ikke at
To sum up, it is apparent from the caselaw as it now stands that, where a natural or legal person brings an action for annulment against a Commission decision not to raise
44 — Dommen i sagen Matra mod Kommissionen, præmis 19 og 20.
43 — Cook v Commission, paragraphs 25 and 26.44 — Matra v Commission, paragraphs 19 and 20.
Det blotte forhold, at sagsøgeren kan anses for en interesseret part i artikel 88,
Therefore, the mere fact that the applicant may be regarded as a party concerned