natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Τέλος, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι , εκφύσεως, ο κ α θ ο ρ ισ μ ό ς τ ο υ ύ ψ ο υ ς τ ο υ π ρ ο σ τ ί μ ο υ α π ό τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς α σ κ ή σ ε ω ς τ η ς π λ ή ρ ο υ ς δ ικ α ι ο δ ο σ ία ς τ ο υ , δ ε ν σ υ ν ισ τ ά α κ ρ ι β ή α ρ ι θ μ η τ ικ ή ά σ κ η σ η · τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο δ ε ν δ ε σ μ ε ύ ε τ α ι α π ό τ ο υ ς υ π ο λ ο γ ισ μ ο ύ ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , α λ λ ά ο φ ε ί λ ε ι ν α π ρ ο β ε ί σ τ η δ ικ ή τ ο υ ε κ τ ί μ η σ η , λ α μ β ά ν ο ν τ α ς υ π ό ψ η ό λ ε ς τ ι ς π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ι ς τ η ς σ υ γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ έ ν η ς π ε ρ ι π τ ώ σ ε ω ς (α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς
The Court also confirmed two Commission decisions declaring that aid which the Italian authorities planned to grant to a number of undertakings was incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty(Moccia lrme and Others v Commission). In its judgment the Court held that,within the framework of the strict rules imposed by the Fifth Steel Aid Code, thepurposeof the requirement of regular production laid down in the second indentof Article a(\ of the code, under which an undertaking seeking aid for closuremust have beenproducing ECSC steel products on a regular basis, is to ensure
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά ε ι δ ικ ό τ ε ρ α θ έ μ α τ α δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς , ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς α π ό τ ι ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς α υ τ έ ς ε π έ τ ρ ε ψ α ν σ τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο ν α υ π ε ν θ υ μ ί σ ε ι τ η ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία τ ο υ , π ο υ κ α θ ι ε ρ ώ θ η κ ε μ ε τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ τ η ς 22α ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1997 σ τ ι ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς Τ -213/95 κ α ι Τ -18/96, 8ϋ Κ κ α ι Ρ Ν Κ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς (Συλλογή1997, σ.
A need for an interpretation of the rules applicable to State aid in the coal sectorgave rise to an interlocutoryjudgmenl restricted to two questions of law. Thosequestions had been raised by RIB Mining, a company established in the UnitedKingdom , in its action for the annulment of the Commission decision authorising German aid to the coal industry for 1997 amounting to DEM I0.4 thousandmillion (RJB Mining v Commission).
Π-1739), σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η ν ε κ μ έ ρ ο υ ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς τ ή ρ η σ η ε ύ λ ο γ η ς π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία ς γ ι α τ η λ ή ψ η α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν κ α τ ά τ ο π έ ρ α ς τ ω ν δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ώ ν δ ι α δ ικ α σ ιώ ν σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ .
The questionswere: (i) whether the Commission was authorised by Commission Decision No 3632l93lECSC le to give ex post facto approval to aid which had already been paid without its priorapproval; and (ii) whether the Commission had power under Article 3 of that decision to authorisethe grant of operating aid provided only that the aid enabledthe recipient undertakings to reduce their production costs and achieve a relativedecrease in aid, without their having any reasonable chanceof achieving economicviability within the foreseeablefuture. future.
Τ ο ε ύ λ ο γ ο ν τ η ς δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α ς τ η ς δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ή ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς ε κ τ ι μ ά τ α ι ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ ω ν ι δ ι α ι τ έ ρ ω ν π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ω ν κ ά θ ε υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς .
The Court held in reply to the first question that the plea alleging a prohibition on giving ex post facto approval to aid paid without prior approval wasunfounded.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε , σ τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η Α η χ ί τ α ί η κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , ό τ ι τ ο χ ρ ο ν ικ ό δ ι ά σ τ η μ α τ ω ν 36 π ε ρ ί π ο υ μ η ν ώ ν π ο υ π α ρ ή λ θ ε α π ό τ ο υ ς π ρ ώ τ ο υ ς ε λ έ γ χ ο υ ς σ τ α γ ρ α φ ε ία τ η ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ς έ ω ς τ η ν έ κ δ ο σ η τ η ς τ ε λ ικ ή ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς ή τ α ν ε ν λ ο γ ο .
With regard to the answer to the second question, it should be noted that, underArticle 3 of Decision No 3632193, Member States which intend to grant operatingaid for the 1994 to 2002 coal production years to coal undertakings are requiredto submit to the Commission in advance"a modernisation, rationalisation andrestructuring plan designed to improve the economic viability of the undertakingsconcerned by reducing production costs",
Ε π ί σ η ς σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Α ή χ ί γ α ϊ η , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ λ α β ε θ έ σ η ε π ί τ ο υ λ ό γ ο υ α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς π ο υ α ν τ λ ε ί τ ο α π ό τ η ν π ρ ο σ β ο λ ή τ ο υ δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ ο ς τ ο υ κ α τ η γ ο ρ ο υ μ έ ν ο υ ν α δ ικ α σ τ ε ία π ό α ν ε ξ ά ρ τ η τ ο κ α ι α μ ε ρ ό λ η π τ ο δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο .
The Court found, contrary to the interpretation put forward by the applicant, thatno provision in Decision No 3632193 states expressly that operating aid must bestrictly reserved for undertakings with reasonable chances of achieving economicviability in the long term, in the sense that they must be capable of meetingcompetition on the world market on their own merits.
αντικείμενο, σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς π λ ή ρ ο υ ς δ ικ α ι ο δ ο σ ία ς , τ η ς φ ύ σ ε ω ς τ η ς π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς π ο υ ε π ι β ά λ λ ε ι η Ε Σ Δ Α .
In it judgment in TFI v Commission (under appeal before the Court of Justice,Cases C-302199 P and C-308/99 P), the Court declared admissible an actionpursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that the Commissionhad unlawfully failed to act under Article 90 of the Treaty.
Θ ε ω ρ ε ί τ α ι ω ς α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ό ς δ ικ α σ τ ικ ό ς έ λ ε γ χ ο ς τ η ς α μ φ ισ β η τ ο ύ μ ε ν η ς π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς ο π ρ α γ μ α τ ο π ο ι ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς α σ κ ο ύ μ ε ν η ς β ά σ ε ι τ ω ν ά ρ θ ρ ω ν 33, δεύτεροεδάφιο, και36, δεύτεροεδάφιο, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ έ λ ε γ χ ο ς τ η ς ν ο μ ι μ ό τ η τ α ς τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία δ ι α π ισ τ ώ ν ε τ α ι π α ρ ά β α σ η τ ω ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ κ α ι ε π ι β ά λ λ ε τ α ι , γιατονλόγοαυτόν, π ρ ό σ τ ι μ ο σ τ ο ε μ π λ ε κ ό μ ε ν ο φ υ σ ικ ό ή ν ο μ ικ ό π ρ ό σ ω π ο .
Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalterv CommissionU9971ECR I-947, where itwas held that the possibility could not be ruled out that exceptional situations might exist where an individual had standing to bring proceedings against arefusal by the Commission to adopt a decision pursuant to its supervisoryfunctions under Article 90(1) and (3) of the Treaty, the Court found, havingregard to the facts brought to its notice, that the applicant was in such a situation.However, the action for failure to act was not examined as to the substancebecause the Commission sent a letter to the applicant in the course of the judicial proceedings.
Π-1875).
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC).
(ν υ ν άρθρο 81 ΕΚ)
With regard to the first aspect,the Court, referring to the judgment of the Courtof Justice in Joined Cases C-48190 and C-66190Netherlands and Others v
Ο ι δ ι α φ ο ρ έ ς α υ τ έ ς ε ίχ α ν ω ς α φ ε τ η ρ ία τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ τ η ς 27η ς Φ ε β ρ ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1992, Τ-79/89, Τ-84/79, Τ-85/89, Τ-86/89, Τ-89/89, Τ-91/89, Τ-92/89, Τ-94/89, Τ-96/89, Τ-98/89, Τ-102/89 κ α ι Τ -104/89, Β Α 8 Ρ κ λ π κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς (Συλλογή1992, σ.
Commission U9921 ECR I-565, found that an undertaking falling within Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty which is the direct beneficiary of the State measure at issue, is expressly named in the applicable law, is directly covered by thecontested decision and is directly affected by the economic consequences of thatdecision (like the applicant),is entitled to be heard by the Commission during thatprocedure.
Π-315), μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο ε ίχ ε κ ρ ί ν ε ι α ν υ π ό σ τ α τ η τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η 89/190/Ε Ο Κ τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , της 21η ς Δ ε κ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1988, μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία ε π ι β λ ή θ η κ α ν κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ι ς σ τ ο υ ς π α ρ α γ ω γ ο ύ ς Ρ ν Ο γ ι α π α ρ ά β α σ η τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 85, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Ο Κ (στοεξής: απόφασητου 1988).
The Court stated that observance of that right requires the Commission to communicate formally to the undertaking benefitting from thecontested State measure the specific objections which it raises against the measureas set out in the letter of formal notice addressed to the Member State and, whereappropriate, in any subsequent correspondence, and to grant it an opportunity to make known its views effectively on those objections.
1-2555, στοεξής: α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 15η ς Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ 1994), α ν α ί ρ ε σ ε τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ κ α ι α κ ύ ρ ω σ ε τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς .
However, it does not require the Commission to afford the undertaking benefitting from the measure anopportunity to make known its views on the observations submitted by the Member
μ ε σ κ ο π ό τ ο ν κ α θ ο ρ ισ μ ό τ ι μ ώ ν «στόχων» καιποσοστώσεων «στόχων», σ χ ε δ ία ζ α ν π ρ ο σ υ ν ε ν ν ο η μ έ ν ε ς π ρ ω τ ο β ο υ λ ί ε ς μ ε σ τ ό χ ο τ η ν α ύ ξ η σ η τ ο υ ε π ι π έ δ ο υ τ ω ν τ ι μ ώ ν κ α ι π α ρ α κ ο λ ο υ θ ο ύ σ α ν τ η ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή τ ω ν ε ν λ ό γ ω σ υ μ π α ι γ ν ι α κ ώ ν δ ι α κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ώ ν .
State against which the procedure has been initiated, whether in response toobjections that have been addressed to it or in response to observations submitted by interested third parties, nor formally to transmit to the undertaking a copy ofany complaint which may have given rise to the procedure.
Τοάρθρο 3 τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς ε π ικ ύ ρ ω σ ε τ α π ρ ό σ τ ι μ α π ο υ ε ίχ α ν ε π ι β λ η θ ε ί τ ο 1988 σ ε κ ά θ ε μ ία α π ό τ ι ς δ ώ δ ε κ α α κ ό μ α ε μ π λ ε κ ό μ ε ν ε ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς , συνολικούύψους19 ε κ α τ ο μ μ υ ρ ί ω ν Ε Ο υ .
In the case before it, the Court found that the applicant had been properly heard.
Μετιςπροσφυγέςτους, ο ι δ ώ δ ε κ α ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς σ τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς α π ε υ θ υ ν ό τ α ν η α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ 1994 ζ ή τ η σ α ν τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η τ η ς κ α ι , επικουρικώς, τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η ή τ η μ ε ί ω σ η τ ω ν π ρ ο σ τ ί μ ω ν . Ε π ισ η μ α ί ν ε τ α ι ο σ η μ α ν τ ικ ό ς ό γ κ ο ς τ ω ν δ ικ ο γ ρ ά φ ω ν π ο υ υ π έ β α λ α ν ο ι π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ ε ς , οιοποίεςεξέθεσαν, σ ε υ π ο μ ν ή μ α τ α π ο υ υ π ε ρ έ β α ι ν α ν τ ι ς 2 000 σελίδες, περίπου 80 δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ο ύ ς λ ό γ ο υ ς α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς , δ ι α τ υ π ω μ έ ν ο υ ς σ ε π έ ν τ ε γ λ ώ σ σ ε ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς .
As regards the second aspect, Article 90(1) of the Treaty, read in conjunctionwith Article 52 thereof, must be applied where a measure adopted by a MemberState constitutesa restriction on the freedom of establishment of nationals ofanother Member State in its territory and, at the same time, gives an undertakingadvantages by granting it an exclusiveright, unless the State measure is pursuinga legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and is permanently justified byoverriding reasons relating to the public interest, such as cultural policy and themaintenance of pluralism in the press.
Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε κ α τ ά τ η ν ύ π α ρ ξ η τ υ π ικ ώ ν κ α ι δ ε ύ τ ε ρ ο ν , τουςλόγους
In such a case it is still necessary for the State measure to be appropriate for ensuring attainmentof the objective it pursuesand not to go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.
Επιτροπή, ό τ ι τ η ν τ ι ς π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ ε ς υ π ο σ τ ή ρ ι ξ α ν α π ό φ α σ η σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ρ ν Ο μ ε τ ά έ κ δ ο σ η τ η ς τ ο υ
The Court was required to rule on the conditions governing public access todocuments 2r of the Commission (udgments of 19 July 1999 in Case T-I88lg7
Ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς ε κ δ ί δ ο ν τ α ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς
Rothmans v Commission, of 14 October 1999 in Case T-309197 Bavarian Ingerv Corwnissionand of 7 December 1999 in Case T-92198 Interporc v Commission,all not yet reported in the ECR) and of the Council (udgment of 19 Juty 1999 in
Ιουνίου1994, π α ρ α β ία σ ε τ η γ ε ν ικ ή α ρ χ ή ΐ ά ε π ι .
Case T-14198Hautala v Council, not yet reported in the ECR; under appeal,Case C-353/99 P).
Συναφώς, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε α π ό ν έ α τ η ς υ ΐ δ
In addition, by order of 27 October 1999 in CaseT-L06199 T-L06199
Μ ε λ ό γ ο υ ς α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς π ο υ σ υ ν ί σ τ α ν τ ο σ τ η ν π α ρ έ λ ε υ σ η τ ο υ χ ρ ό ν ο υ , ο ι π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ ε ς υ π ο σ τ ή ρ ι ξ α ν ό τ ι η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ε ίχ ε π α ρ α β ι ά σ ε ι τ η ν α ρ χ ή τ ο υ ε υ λ ό γ ο υ χ ρ ό ν ο υ .
The Court held that, for the purposes of the Community rules on üccess todocuments, "comitology" committees establislted pursuant to Decision 87/373 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission
1962, πρώτος(ΕΕειδ. έκδ.
The Court found that a committee of that kind therefore
Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό ς τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ τ η ς 6η ς Φ ε β ρ ο υ α ρ ί ο υ κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό ς ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ς τ ω ν ά ρ θ ρ ω ν 85 και 86 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς 08/001, σ. 25).
On 6 December 1993 the Council and the Commission approved a code of conduct concerning public accessto Council and Commission documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 41).
Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό ς α κ ρ ο ά σ ε ω ν κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ
Council documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43).
99/63/Ε Ο Κ τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , τ η ς 25η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1963, π ε ρ ί τ ω ν π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ο ν τ α ισ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 19, παράγραφοι1 και2, του17 τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ (Ε Ε ε ι δ . έκδ.
Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementingpowersconferredon ttre Commission(OJ19S7LLg7,p.33.)
ν ο μ ι μ ό τ η τ α τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ 1988 κ α θ ώ ς κ α ι τ ο κ ύ ρ ο ς τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α λ η φ θ ε ί υ π ό ψ η κ α τ ά τ ο ν π ρ ο σ δ ι ο ρ ισ μ ό τ η ς δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α ς τ η ς ε ν λ ό γ ω δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς , κ α ι έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ε ίχ ε ε ν ε ρ γ ή σ ε ισ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε τ η ν α ρ χ ή α υ τ ή .
The dispute between the company Interporc and the Commission concerningimports of "Hilton" beef from Argentina continuesto give rise to litigation (see,as regards the lawfulness of the decision rejecting the request for remission of import duty, the judgments in Case T-42196Eyckeler & Malt v Commissiont19981 ECR II-401 and Case T-50196 Primex ProdukteImport-Expofr and Othersv CommissionU9981 ECR Il-3773). It will be recalled that in its judgment in Case T-124196 Interporc v Commission [19981 ECR Il-231 ("Interporc I"), the Court found fault with a refusal by the Commission, founded on the exceptionrelating to the protection of the public interest with regard to court proceedings,to grant access to certain documents:the Commission's decision contained noexplanation from which it might be ascertained whether all the documentsrequested did indeed fall within the scope of the exception relied upon becausethey bore a relation to a decision whose annulment was sought in a case pendingbefore the Court.
Τ ο ε ύ λ ο γ ο ν τ η ς δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α ς ε κ τ ι μ ή θ η κ ε ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ ω ν σ υ γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ έ ν ω ν π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ω ν κ ά θ ε υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς κ α ι , ιδίως, τουόλου πλαισίουτης, τ η ς σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά ς π ο υ ε π έ δ ε ι ξ α ν δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α τ η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς , τ η ς σ η μ α σ ία ς τ η ς δ ι ά φ ο ρ ε ς ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ε ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς π ο λ υ π λ ο κ ό τ η τ α ς τ η ς .
In implementing the judgment in Interporc I, the Commission adopted a freshdecision refusing access as regards the documents - emanatingfrom Member States, authorities of a non-member country and the Commission itself - towhich the applicant had not yet had access in connection with the pendingproceedings referred to above.
Προκειμένουγιατη ο ι ε μ π λ ε κ ό μ ε ν ο ισ τ η υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς γ ι α τ ι ς κ α ι τ ο υ β α θ μ ο ύ δ ε ύ τ ε ρ η φ ά σ η , το η
In dealing with the legality of that decision, the Court was required to clarify the scopeof, first, the exception relating to theprotection of the public interest and, second, the rule on authorship (set out above in relationto Rothmans v Commission).
Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι τ ο κ ρ ι τ ή ρ ι ο τ η ς σ η μ α σ ία ς τ η ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς γ ι α τ ι ς ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ε ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς ε ίχ ε ι δ ι α ί τ ε ρ η β α ρ ύ τ η τ α .
As to the exception for the protection of the public interest with regard to courtproceedings, the Commission had stated in the contested decision that some of thedocuments requested concerned legal proceedings pending before the Court (Case T-50i96) and therefore could not be disclosedto the applicant.
Πράγματι, αφενός, η κ ο ι ν ο π ο ί η σ η τ η ς α ν α κ ο ι ν ώ σ ε ω ς τ ω ν α ι τ ι ά σ ε ω ν σ ε δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία α π ο σ κ ο π ο ύ σ α σ τ η δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ η π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ τ ε ι τ η ν κ ί ν η σ η τ η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς δ υ ν ά μ ε ι τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 3 τουκανονισμού 17. Μ ε τ η ν κ ί ν η σ η τ η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς α υ τ ή ς , η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή δ η λ ώ ν ε ι τ η β ο ύ λ η σ η τ η ς ν α π ρ ο β ε ί σ τ η ν έ κ δ ο σ η α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς π ε ρ ί δ ι α π ισ τ ώ σ ε ω ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς (βλ., υπότοπνεύμααυτό, α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ τ η ς 6η ς Φ ε β ρ ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1973, 48/72, Β τ α ^β ή β ά ε Η α β ο Η ΐ , Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή τ ό μ ο ς 1972-1973, σ. 355).
The Court heldthat the exception based on the existence of court proceedings had to beinterpreted as meaning that the protection of the public interest precluded the disclosure of the content of documents drawn up by the Commission solely for thepurposesof specific court proceedings, that is to say not only the pleadings or other documents lodged and internal documents concerning the investigation ofthe case before the court, but also correspondence concerning the case betweenthe Directorate-General concerned and the Legal Service or a lawyers' office.The purpose of that definition of the scope of the exception was to ensure, first,the protection of work done within the Commission and, second, confidentialityand the safeguarding of professional privilege for lawyers.
π ο υ ο λ ό γ ο ς α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς π ο υ α ν τ λ ε ί τ ο α π ό τ η ν π α ρ α β ία σ η τ η ς ε ύ λ ο γ η ς π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία ς π ρ ο β λ ή θ η κ ε π ρ ο ς σ τ ή ρ ι ξ η τ ο υ α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ 1994, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο μ ι α σ η μ α ν τ ικ ή δ ι ε υ κ ρ ί ν ισ η , κ ρ ί ν ο ν τ α ς ό τ ι η π α ρ α β ία σ η τ η ς
It was held in the judgment that the Commission had been fully entitled, on thebasisof the rule on authorship,to refuse access to the documents emanatingfrom from the Member States and the Argentine authorities.
Σ τ ο μ έ τ ρ ο τ η ς α ρ χ ή ς α ι τ ή μ α τ ο ς π α ρ έ σ χ ε η α ρ χ ή ς α υ τ ή ς α κ ό μ α κ α ι α ν θ ε ω ρ η θ ε ία π ο δ ε δ ε ι γ μ έ ν η , δ ε ν θ α δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ο ύ σ ε τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η τ η ς ε π ί δ ικ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς π α ρ ά μ ό ν ο ν α ν σ υ ν ισ τ ο ύ σ ε ε π ί σ η ς π ρ ο σ β ο λ ή τ ω ν δ ικ α ι ω μ ά τ ω ν ά μ υ ν α ς τ ω ν ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ο μ έ ν ω ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν .
The judgment in Bavarian Inger v Commission confirmed the Commission'srefusal, founded on the exception relating to the protection of the public interest,to grant access to a draft reasoned opinion which it had drawn up underArticle 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC).
Ε φ ό σ ο ν τ ο δ ι α π ισ τ ω θ έ ν δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ ό ε λ ά τ τ ω μ α ε ίχ ε ε μ φ ι λ ο χ ω ρ ή σ ε ισ τ ο τ ε λ ε υ τ α ί ο σ τ ά δ ι ο τ η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς ε κ δ ό σ ε ω ς τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ 1988, η α κ ύ ρ ω σ η δ ε ν ε π η ρ έ α ζ ε τ ο κ ύ ρ ο ς τ ω ν π ρ ο π α ρ α σ κ ε υ α σ τ ικ ώ ν τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς μ έ τ ρ ω ν π ο υ π ρ ο η γ ή θ η κ α ν τ ο υ σ τ α δ ί ο υ κ α τ ά τ ο ο π ο ί ο δ ι α π ισ τ ώ θ η κ ε τ ο ε λ ά τ τ ω μ α α υ τ ό .
In Hautala v Council the Court annulled a decision by which the Council hadrefused access to a report on conventional arms exports without having examined the possibility of disclosing extracts from it.
1988, η α π ο κ α τ ά σ τ α σ η τ ο υ ε λ α τ τ ώ μ α τ ο ς α υ τ ο ύ ε κ μ έ ρ ο υ ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς ε π έ β α λ λ ε τ η ν τ ή ρ η σ η ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ω ν δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ ώ ν ε γ γ υ ή σ ε ω ν π ρ ι ν α π ό τ η ν έ κ δ ο σ η τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ 1994 (κ ί ν η σ η ν έ α ς δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ή ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς , τ ή ρ η σ η ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ω ν δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ ώ ν σ τ α δ ί ω ν π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε ι τ ο π α ρ ά γ ω γ ο δ ί κ α ι ο κ α ι , γενικώς, σ ε β α σ μ ό τ ο υ δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ ο ς τ ω ν π ρ ο σ φ ε υ γ ο υ σ ώ ν ν α α κ ο υ σ θ ο ύ ν ).
It stated, however, that since the principle was that public access to documentsshould be as wide as possible, the exceptions to that principle laid down in Article a(1) of Decision 971731had to be interpreted and applied restrictively.The aim of protecting the public interest could be achieved even if the Councildid no more than remove, after examination, the passages in the contested reportwhich might harm internationalrelations.
Συναφώς, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ π ε ν θ ύ μ ισ ε ο υ σ ι α σ τ ικ ά ό τ ι ο σ ε β α σ μ ό ς τ ω ν δ ικ α ι ω μ ά τ ω ν ά μ υ ν α ς ε π ι β ά λ λ ε ι ν α π α ρ έ χ ε τ α ισ ε κ ά θ ε ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν η ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η ή έ ν ω σ η ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν η δ υ ν α τ ό τ η τ α ν α α κ ο υ σ θ ε ί ε π ί τ ω ν α ι τ ι ά σ ε ω ν π ο υ η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή π ρ ο τ ί θ ε τ α ι ν α λ ά β ε ι υ π ό ψ η τ η ς κ α τ ά κ ά θ ε μ ι α ς α π ό α υ τ έ ς σ τ η ν τ ε λ ικ ή α π ό φ α σ η μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία δ ι α π ισ τ ώ ν ε τ α ι η π α ρ ά β α σ η τ ω ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ .
In sodoing, the Council had to balancethe interest in public access to the unremoved passages against the interests ofgood administration, having regard to the burden of work which could result fromthe grant of partial access.
Ν έ α α κ ρ ό α σ η τ ω ν ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ο μ έ ν ω ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν π ρ ι ν α π ό τ η ν έ κ δ ο σ η τ η ς ε π ί δ ικ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς θ α α π α ι τ ε ί τ ο μ ό ν ο σ τ ο μ έ τ ρ ο π ο υ η α π ό φ α σ η α υ τ ή π ε ρ ι ε ίχ ε ν έ ε ς α ι τ ι ά σ ε ι ς σ ε σ χ έ σ η π ρ ο ς τ ι ς α ι τ ι ά σ ε ι ς π ο υ π ε ρ ι έ χ ο ν τ α ν σ τ η ν α ρ χ ικ ή α π ό φ α σ η π ο υ α κ υ ρ ώ θ η κ ε α π ό τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , π ρ ά γ μ α τ ο ο π ο ί ο δ ε ν σ υ ν έ β α ι ν ε ε ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω .
1999 in CaseT-l7Il97 Swedish Match Philippinesv Council, of 28 October 1999in Case T-2I0195 EFMA v Council and of 15 December L999 in Joined CasesT - 33 198 and T-34198Petrotub v Council, all not yet reported in the ECR). Thefour actions, which all sought the annulment of Council regulations imposingdefinitive anti-dumping duties on imports from countries not members of the Community, were dismissed by the Court as unfounded.
Ο ι ε π ί τ η ς ο υ σ ία ς λ ό γ ο ι α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς π ο υ π ρ ο έ β α λ α ν ο ι π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ ε ς ε π ί σ η ς α π ο ρ ρ ί φ θ η κ α ν κ α ι ε π ικ υ ρ ώ θ η κ α ν ο ι δ ι α π ισ τ ώ σ ε ι ς σ τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς ε ίχ ε π ρ ο β ε ί η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή , μεεξαίρεση, ωστόσο, τ η δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ η σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η σ υ μ μ ε τ ο χ ή τ η ς δ ο ο ί έ ί έ & Γΐέδίεηηεά & ν ί η γ ί ε σ τ η ν π α ρ ά β α σ η γ ι α τ η μ ε τ ά τ ο π ρ ώ τ ο ε ξ ά μ η ν ο τ ο υ 1981 περίοδο. Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο μ ε ί ω σ ε τ ο π ρ ό σ τ ι μ ο π ο υ ε ίχ ε ε π ι β λ η θ ε ί σ τ η
1), first, by fatling backon the general provision, laid down in the final part of Article 2(3xbxii), underwhich the expenses incurred and the profit realised were to be determined "on anyother reasonablebasis" when calculating the constructed normal value and,second, by using the Korean data for that purpose and not the data relating to thecompany responsible for exporting the microwave ovens produced by theapplicant. Having regard to the documents in the case, the Court found that, forthe purpose of determining the constructed normal value, the institutions had beenentitled to conclude that the data relating to that exporter could not be used sincethey were unreliable, and that they had correctly taken as a basis the data relatingto Korean producers.
Ο ι π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ ε ς π ρ ο έ β α λ α ν μ ι α σ ε ι ρ ά λ ό γ ω ν α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς π ο υ α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν τ η ν α π ό δ ε ι ξ η .
The Court had regard to the wording of certain provisions in Council Regulation(EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries notmembers of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p.